OHIA: Only Human Intelligence Allowed?

Allan:

The IDists here are quite happy to disagree with theistic evolutionists, for reasons I can’t fathom.

Your ignorance is not an argument. TE's deny that we can detect design/ intent. IDists live for it.

But without compelling supporting evidence,

We have that. All you do is deny, deny, deny, without having a viable alternative for the evidence

Well worth pursuing, but not sufficient to discard the current best explanation.

There isn't any scientific alternative to ID

An explanation that is supported by compelling and consistent evidence from multiple fields of study (eg, comparative anatomy, genomics, proteomics, molecular biology, geology, statistics, chemistry, physics, etc.).

You just described Intelligent Design. Thank you ET

JVL:

There doesn’t seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other

Evidence for such a thing would be nice. ET

JVL.

There doesn’t seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other.

This isn’t quite accurate. The IDists here are quite happy to disagree with theistic evolutionists, for reasons I can’t fathom. IDists don’t exclude young earth creationists, old earth creationists, aliens creationists or those who believe that it was done by a non-sentient designer. But, to get back to the OP, nobody is saying that design in nature can’t be inferred by comparison to human design. But without compelling supporting evidence, all we have is a “hmmm, that’s interesting” moment. Well worth pursuing, but not sufficient to discard the current best explanation. An explanation that is supported by compelling and consistent evidence from multiple fields of study (eg, comparative anatomy, genomics, proteomics, molecular biology, geology, statistics, chemistry, physics, etc.). Allan Keith

I just noticed this, kindly cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-is-design-and-why-is-it-relevant/ Especially, note:

it seems the definition of design is up again as an issue. The simplest summary I can give is: intelligently directed configuration, or if someone does not get the force of “directed,” we may amplify slightly: intelligently, intentionally directed configuration. This phenomenon is a commonplace, including the case of comments or utterances by objectors; that is, the attempted denial or dismissal instantly manifests the phenomenon. Going further, we cannot properly restrict the set of possible intelligences to ourselves or our planet or even the observed cosmos, starting with the common factor in these cases: evident or even manifest contingency of being. Bring to bear that a necessary being world-root is required to answer to why a contingent world is given that circular cause and a world from utter non-being (which hath not causal power) are both credibly absurd and we would be well advised to ponder the possibility of an intelligent, intentional, designing necessary being world-root given the fine tuning issue. The many observable and empirically well-founded signs of design manifest in the world of life (starting with alphanumeric complex coded messages in D/RNA and in associated execution machinery in the cell) joined to the fine tuning of a cosmos that supports such C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life suggests a unity of purpose in the evident design of cosmos and biological life. Taken together, these considerations ground a scientific project and movement that investigates, evaluates and publishes findings regarding such signs of design. Blend in the issues of design detection and unravelling in crypography, patterns of design in computing, strategic analysis, forensics and TRIZ the theory of inventive problem solving (thus also of technological evolution) and we have a wide-ranging zone of relevance.

kairosfocus

If intelligence has a special signature, no reason to restrict the inference to embodied intelligence. Especially since the signature logically entails intelligence cannot be material. This makes it doubly incongruent to insist we can only infer embodied intelligence. At any rate, even with this artificial restriction, we could still at least infer an embodied intelligence created the Earth's biological history. EricMH

Thank you tribune7. I have used that quote in some blog posts but it had slipped my mind until I started looking back at the evidence for ID outside of biology. And there it was. :cool: It is so appropriate in this thread ET

Thus Darwinism is now experimentally falsified in its claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis. Another, somewhat esoteric, falsification of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution comes from the nature of mathematics itself. Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some transcendent “Platonic” realm, and although every purported theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

What is the difference between naturalism and materialism? Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,, Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view. Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition - materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is falsified as being a scientific theory since it denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

Another somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution comes from population genetics itself. Donald Hoffman has shown, through numerous computer simulations of Darwinian evolution, that if Darwinian evolution were in fact true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies 'reliable observation', which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim that it is a scientific theory. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Therefore, Darwinian evolution is falsified once again since observation of reality is experimentally found to be far more reliable of reality than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. As Richard Feynman stated:

The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

Besides conscious observation becoming illusory and unreliable if Darwinian evolution were true, many other things, as previously mentioned in this thread, also become illusory too. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real, such as 'personhood' and morality.

Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

Thus, the final somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution is the fact that Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

Since falsifiability/testability is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability. As already mentioned in this thread, the main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon. And in post 145, I further showed JVL that both of Charles Darwin's 'vague' criteria for falsification have been met by Behe, Axe, and by Meyer. And yet, unsurprisingly, Darwinists STILL refused to accept those empirical falsifications of their theory. But to go further in falsifying Darwinism, since Darwinism is based on reductive materialism then Darwinism makes some very specific predictions. And those specific predictions, that are based on the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought, have now been experimentally falsified. First off, Darwinists hold that the particular form that any organism may take is reducible to the material particulars of that organism. In particular, Darwinists now hold that mutations to DNA are the primary means by which 'transformation of forms', i.e. macro-evolution, occurs. This 'prediction' inherent to the reductive materialism of Darwinism has now been shown to be false by several lines of evidence.

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

Moreover, the failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html

To state what should be glaringly obvious, since the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian evolution can never explain how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality. In fact, such speculations, as the preceding article highlights, are now proved to be false and Darwinism is therefore now falsified. Another specific prediction of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought is that the information in life is merely 'emergent' from a material basis. (Darwinists use to claim that the information in life was merely a 'metaphor', and that life was just basically 'complicated chemistry' but now, since information is found to be so integral to life, Darwinists now mainly claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis.) Yet immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.

Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) - video https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro

A distinct immaterial entity that has, of all things, a 'thermodynamic content'

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html

The coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:

Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

In fact, quantum information, of which classical information is a subset, is now found in molecular biology in every DNA, protein, etc,, molecule of life.

Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

Quantum information simply is not reducible to materialistic explanations. Period! As the following article states, “entangled objects (i.e. material particles) do not cause each other to behave the way they do.

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 The One Theory of Quantum Mechanics That Actually Kind of Makes Sense - But most physicists don't buy it. - Dec 1, 2016 Excerpt: But despite Einstein's reservations, multiple mathematical theorems have all but proven that hidden variables cannot explain away all of the bizarre behaviors seen in quantum mechanics. The most recent and famous being John Stewart Bell's theorem, which concludes that, "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24114/pilot-wave-quantum-mechanics-theory/

bornagain77

OT: why is mobile friendly mode only available for the OP and not for comments? es58

Seversky, I never said that Popper did not bend over backwards to try to accommodate Darwinism as a science. (Imre Lakatos himself also tried to bend over backwards to accommodate Darwinism as a science) In fact, in my response to JVL I specifically referenced Popper's article from 1978 where he recanted much of his strong criticisms against Darwinism. And that is also precisely why I referenced the two later interviews of Popper, by John Horgan and Tom Bethell, where Popper took back his recantation. My main point has always been that, (regardless of such 'bending over backwards' by two prominent philosophers of science, i.e. Popper and Lakatos, to accommodate Darwinism as a science), Darwinism still fails to qualify as a science using the very criteria that was set out by Popper and Lakatos, i.e. falsifiability and predictability, and is therefore, using their very own criteria, more properly classified as a pseudoscience rather than a science.

Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

If anything, the fact that both Lakatos and Popper bent over backwards trying to accommodate Darwinism as a science, and yet Darwinism, using their very own criteria, still fails to qualify as a science is even stronger testimony to the fact that it is a pseudoscience.,,, i.e. They certainly had no bias against Darwinism and were doing everything they possibly could to try to qualify it as a science. Moreover, there are other measures besides falsifiability and predictability by which to judge whether Darwinism is scientific or not,,, and Darwinian evolution fails to met those other criteria as well:

There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon – in this case, Evolution – as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution … well … no … no … no … no … and no. [Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech, 2016, p. 27.]

Here is an article and video that goes into more detail explaining exactly why Darwinian evolution fails to meet those 5 generally recognized criteria for accepting something as scientific:

Is Darwinism a Scientific Theory? - Douglas Ell http://www.countingtogod.com/is-darwinism-a-scientific-theory/ Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://youtu.be/L7f_fyoPybw Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - paper https://docs.google.com/document/d/15p_qQGjQE-2-Q60Hsh513Beb3sISPHyOtaM1olPw1OM/edit

bornagain77

JVL @ 150

Okay, that’s more specific. But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I’m not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I’m just wanting to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth to make sure there is no question.

In addition to the cherry-picked quotes provided by BA77, there is also the following from Popper:

Indeed, the recent vogue of historicism might be regarded as merely part of the vogue of evolutionism—a philosophy that owes its influence largely to the somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief. What we call the evolutionary hypothesis is an explanation of a host of biological and paleontological observations—for instance, of certain similarities between various species and genera—by the assumption of common ancestry of related forms. . . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added] There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added] I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167; emphasis added] The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. [Popper, 1978, p. 344; emphasis added]

The article from which these quotes were taken can be found here. Seversky

“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?” page 270 The Privileged Planet Excellent find. tribune7

Well clearly only human intelligence is allowed. Which brings us to this fine foretelling:

“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?” page 270 The Privileged Planet

Quite pathetic, actually. ET

Genetic algorithms use evolution by means of intelligent design. It is a useful concept. No one uses the premise of unguided evolution for anything. ET

--but I have yet to see someone implement it.-- It isn't that it must be accepted, it's that it shouldn't be dismissed as per Wikipedia which refers to it as a "pseudoscience". tribune7

JVL is right- I won't criticize bornagain77 as he has offered up everything you need to find what you are looking for. ET

JVL:

Yes, let’s discuss that!!

Start with this: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Dr Behe DBB

I have looked at Dr Dembski’s . . . formulation and it’s interesting but I have yet to see someone implement it.

Until evolutionary biologists come up with some numbers it cannot be implemented. And until they come up with a way to actually test their claims the numbers are all they have. But seeing they don't even have that then why bother? ET

as to:

"But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I’m not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I’m just wanting to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth to make sure there is no question."

Popper said:

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)

Popper also stated that the theory of natural selection is "almost tautological"

"I have in the past described the theory (of natural selection) as "almost tautological" http://mertsahinoglu.com/research/karl-popper-on-the-scientific-status-of-darwins-theory-of-evolution/ Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.

Tom Bethell on Karl Popper's rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory - 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

Thus, we have two witnesses that say Popper took back his recantation. Of course Popper's main claim to fame is falsification:

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

And in that regards, Darwin certainly fails the falsification/testability criteria:

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

And as linked to previously, the main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because the is no known 'law of evolution' within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon:

Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

You then state:

"No one has said there was a ‘law’ of evolution. And how did mathematics come into it?"

So you agree that the is no physical law within the known universe for you to appeal to so as to support your theory? And you don't see that as problem how? I don't blame you for trying to stay away from mathematics. The entire concept of a transcendent mathematical world (platonic world) needing to verify a theory that denies that anything beyond material realm exists is not exactly a good predicament to be in scientifically is it? :)

Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

as to:

That’s because they don’t think the falsification criteria have been met. That doesn’t make it a pseudo-science. That just means a lot of people working in that field disagree with you.

And yet it is the evidence itself refutes evolution. Moreover, that highlights the problem with Darwinism having no rigid falsification criteria that is based on a testable mathematical model (which is based on a physical law). i.e. Darwin's falsification criteria is extremely vague compared to rel scientific theories. as to:

And no, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. Well, if I said that to ET he’d lambast me for it. But I bet he won’t criticism you for saying it.

The peer-review is readily accessible from the provided links and I am not going to list all the peer-reviews for you. Do your own homework! Whereas your peer-reviewed empirical evidence is nonexistent! bornagain77

tribune7 The principle of ID is that designed objects have quantifiable characteristics and that if an object has these characteristics we can know that it is designed. I think I said this earlier. Yes, let's discuss that!! Dembski tries to do it using information theory in which — I’ll do my best based on my understanding — if the amount of information is present in a particular object exceeds any reasonable probabilistic occurrence by chance, you can be sure it’s designed. I have looked at Dr Dembski's . . . formulation and it's interesting but I have yet to see someone implement it. OK, but you can’t use an “unknown process” to rebut a scientific claim. I'm not rebutting anything. I'm saying it's really hard to rule some things out. A minor critique JVL. If you include responses to me with those to someone else, there is a good chance I’ll miss them. I'm sorry, I do the best I can with the time that I have. JVL

JVL Well, aside from just looking at something what methods do you think are being used by ID proponents. That's an interesting thing to ask. Aside from just looking at something -- like fossils --what methods do you think are are being used to buttress the theory of evolution? OK, seriously. It is a fair question. Or sort of a fair question. "Just looking at something" is obviously an important part of the scientific method. The principle of ID is that designed objects have quantifiable characteristics and that if an object has these characteristics we can know that it is designed. I think I said this earlier. Dembski tries to do it using information theory in which -- I'll do my best based on my understanding -- if the amount of information is present in a particular object exceeds any reasonable probabilistic occurrence by chance, you can be sure it's designed. Now there are those who attack it -- not very well, but it is fair that they do -- however what he had done goes far beyond "just looking at something". I’m not saying there is or is not some unknown process; I’m saying you can’t rule out that there is one. OK, but you can't use an "unknown process" to rebut a scientific claim. A minor critique JVL. If you include responses to me with those to someone else, there is a good chance I'll miss them. tribune7

bornagain77 and yet here it is (it is the second link not the first) https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/lecture/cAdvB/lecture-4-9-is-evolutionary-biology-scientific Okay, that's more specific. But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I'm not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I'm just wanting to hear things straight from the horse's mouth to make sure there is no question. I note that you did not say rigid falsification criteria based on a universal natural law. Which is good since Darwin, (a liberal theologian by training), found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’, and since there is no universal ‘law of evolution’ to base the math upon anyway. No one has said there was a 'law' of evolution. And how did mathematics come into it? Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Darwin have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin’s own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.) That's because they don't think the falsification criteria have been met. That doesn't make it a pseudo-science. That just means a lot of people working in that field disagree with you. And no, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. Well, if I said that to ET he'd lambast me for it. But I bet he won't criticise you for saying it. jdk JVL. I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive. ET is completely honest and straight in his beliefs, he says it like he sees it and he's clear about that. That is good. We disagree on some basic . . . . how to say it . . . interpretations? That doesn't seem quite right. But at least, I hope, we're both clear about that. I strongly suspect that if I were ET's neighbour we would get along well. I would certainly trust him to look after my stuff and my property, He could borrow my mower anytime!! He'd probably return it in better working order to be honest. We do disagree on some things but that fact that we both care strongly is an indication that we both see the same things as being important. And that I do respect. Perhaps I should say that more often. That is part of the reason I'm motivated to try and converse on this blog. I feel that it's good to try and understand folks who you disagree with but who clearly see the same things as being important. JVL

jdk:

Also, my guess is that Futuyma and Shubin don’t positively Lamarck’s ideas as currently relevant, but that’s a different topic.

That isn't the point. The point is they talk in terms of morphology and not genetics. That was OK in Darwin's day but since the advent of the modern synthesis the changes have to be unpacked at the genetic level. But they cannot link the genetics to the transformations. ET

Can I say that I hate conversations with people who don't even understand the concepts they try to defend and cannot produce any methodology, evidence or science that supports them. They can't even acknowledge that they don't have a mechanism for producing eukaryotes and they have to be given starting populations of prokaryotes. Then there is the issue of that missing scientific theory of evolution... ET

JVL:

You’ve clearly misinterpreted things.

You are clearly full of it

It is clearly stated in Futuyma’s textbook.

Nope. Clearly you are happy to bluff your way through life.

I know it won’t happen but I would like to hear from other UD stalwarts on whether or not they agree with your view.

They cannot find any scientific theory of evolution and they all agree that evolutionism is BS. Shubin talks of evolution at the morphological level. He looks at fossils to make his connections never once trying to link the genetics to the transformations. Futuyma does the same thing with bird beaks and limbs, Darwin did it with eyes. And to top it off you didn't even understand Darwin's case for natural selection being a designer mimic. ET

jdk:

I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive.

Evidence free drivel is never constructive, Jack. ET

JVL states: The video is no in the OP on that UD thread. and yet here it is (it is the second link not the first) https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/lecture/cAdvB/lecture-4-9-is-evolutionary-biology-scientific As to:

Me: How many more years of failure will it take to falsify a theory that has no rigid falsification criteria??? JVL: Even Darwin spelled out some falsification criteria.

I note that you did not say rigid falsification criteria based on a universal natural law. Which is good since Darwin, (a liberal theologian by training), found mathematics to be 'repugnant', and since there is no universal 'law of evolution' to base the math upon anyway. Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Darwin have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin's own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.)

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840 Michael Behe - Observed Limits of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." 27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance – video (2017) https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA Interview With Dr. Douglas Axe (podcast on the strict limits found for changing one protein to another very similar protein) - July 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-24T21_33_53-07_00 “Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe - “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”6 - Charles Darwin https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/coyne_and_the_meaning_of_evolu/ video - Darwin's Doubt - recorded March 7, 2017 - In this webinar, Dr. Stephen Meyer will tell the story of the mystery surrounding this (Cambrian) explosion of animal life - a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information - stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells - to building animal forms. Meyer will show that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes. http://foclonline.org/webinar-recording/darwin%E2%80%99s-doubt Common Descent: An Obituary - Lee M. Spetner - June 21, 2016 Excerpt: By the beginning of the twentieth century, Charles Darwin’s suggestion for the variation on which he meant for natural selection to act was rejected because it turned out to be nonheritable. In the first third of the 20th century several replacement suggestions for the variation were offered only to be later rejected. In 1941 a project was launched to establish the theory of evolution on a sound basis by bringing together facts and methods from all branches of science, and a decade later was considered fully established. The modern synthesis (MS) embraced natural selection and took the variation to be mutations and recombinations in the chromosomes, although exactly what these were was not clearly understood at the time. The discovery of the structure of the DNA in the mid 20th century was thought to solidify the MS. The random mutations were identified with random changes in the DNA sequence attributed to DNA-copying errors and genetic recombination. The variation was no longer a vague genetic effect that it had been: it was now an understood random process. With a known random mechanism now available for the variation on which natural selection could operate, the randomness became subject to mathematical investigation. Mutation rates could be measured and in principle the probability of an evolutionary event could be calculated. For the first time it became possible to check if Darwin’s celebrated mechanism of random variation and natural selection could really account for CD. But the advocates of CD never picked up the challenge to publish any probability calculations. Some who questioned CD, however, did calculate and found the probabilities of speciation under random mutation and natural selection in the available time to be negligibly small and essentially zero. These results were never competently rebutted. The conclusion is inescapable that CD has no theoretical backing, has been refuted, and is not a valid scientific theory. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/06/common_descent/ Author: Lee M. Spetner https://evolutionnews.org/author/lspetner/

And no JVL, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. bornagain77

JVL. I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive. Also, my guess is that Futuyma and Shubin don't positively Lamarck's ideas as currently relevant, but that's a different topic. jdk

Can I just say that I have enjoyed some of the conversations I've had here but the continual badgering by ET and bornagain77 have made my it much less pleasant. It's not my call, it's not my forum, but I would love to know if the rest of y'all agree with their approach and opinions. JVL

ET Futuyma, Shubin, Darwin et al. They all talk about morphological changes as if they were talking about Lamarck’s ideas You've clearly misinterpreted things. And since no one like Origenes is going to call you on it here it's down to me. And I doubt you'd accept my arguments anyway. There isn’t anything to acknowledge. Why can’t it be found with an internet search? Why don’t you know who the author was, when it was written, when it was published or what journal published it? Why can’t Futuyma tell us any of that? It is clearly stated in Futuyma's textbook. And shut up. I am not rejecting anything. I cannot reject what doesn’t exist. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. I'm happy to quit now. You are right- YOU will never be able to change anything. You don’t know what evidence is and you definitely don’t understand science. Okay. I took the courses. I did the studies. I have read peer-reviewed articles that are full of speculation and very short on anything else. Well, I guess we're done then. I know it won't happen but I would like to hear from other UD stalwarts on whether or not they agree with your view. There doesn't seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other. But that's your call. JVL

JVL:

So I guess you’re not interested in a real conversation about your experience at Stonehenge.

Not with you

I can’t demonstrate because you actually have to do the work and read the research.

Been there, done that

NS is not a designer.

I know that. But Darwin's great idea was that it was a designer mimic. Clearly you don't know much of anything about the position you are trying to defend. Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer The sound you hear is me laughing at you ET

Why can't anyone find the alleged scientific theory of evolution? What predictions does it make based on its posited mechanisms? What is the criteria used to tell if natural selection did it? ET

ET Maybe you are just a jerk Maybe. Can’t tell you as you would tell people who care. So I guess you're not interested in a real conversation about your experience at Stonehenge. So you say but cannot demonstrate. There are unkind words for people like you I can't demonstrate because you actually have to do the work and read the research. Yes and that criteria has been met. Had Darwin knew what was in the black box he would nave never made his grand argument of Universal Common Descent and he would have never said NS is a designer mimic NS is not a designer. I'm not sure it's worth going on. You just keep mis-categorising the work. It's hard to have a conversation when you are so adamant and unwilling to even concede another point of view. Probably best to just call it a day. JVL

JVL:

What talk of Lamarck? What? If you don’t know the research then you clearly aren’t trying to keep up.

Futuyma, Shubin, Darwin et al. They all talk about morphological changes as if they were talking about Lamarck's ideas

Maybe because you’re not acknowledging it.

There isn't anything to acknowledge. Why can't it be found with an internet search? Why don't you know who the author was, when it was written, when it was published or what journal published it? Why can't Futuyma tell us any of that? And shut up. I am not rejecting anything. I cannot reject what doesn't exist. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. You are right- YOU will never be able to change anything. You don't know what evidence is and you definitely don't understand science. I took the courses. I did the studies. I have read peer-reviewed articles that are full of speculation and very short on anything else. ET

ET Why do evolutionary biologists talk in terms of Lamarck and not genetics as the modern synthesis demands? Why do they compare anatomy and not the genetics that allegedly produces it? Which brings us to what research are they doing and why isn’t it supporting Darwin or any of the modern revisions? What talk of Lamarck? What? If you don't know the research then you clearly aren't trying to keep up. And why, after over 150 years of research is there still no scientific theory of evolution? Maybe because you're not acknowledging it. Look, your objections are clearly a very minority point of view. I could spend hours and hours and hours arguing against them but since you've clearly already rejected 150 years of research and data and explanations then I'm not sure what's the point of having a conversation? You've made up your mind and you're sure you're right. And I will not be able to change your mind. Perhaps it's better to just acknowledge that and move on? JVL

JVL:

Even Darwin spelled out some falsification criteria.

Yes and that criteria has been met. Had Darwin knew what was in the black box he would nave never made his grand argument of Universal Common Descent and he would have never said NS is a designer mimic ET

JVL:

Maybe you just don’t understand the arguments?

Maybe you are just a jerk

And, what did you do at Stonehenge?

Can't tell you as you would tell people who care.

As anyone who bothers to do the work will know, you misrepresent the current state of research.

So you say but cannot demonstrate. There are unkind words for people like you

You keep dodging the issue.

LoL! You can't make your case. Don't blame me for your failures. ET

ET That is called a “literature bluff”. I am reading the Evolution book you said to read and it doesn’t support anything you have said. So why should I go on another wild goose chase? Maybe you just don't understand the arguments? Yes, 1998. Flew in to Gatwick from Shannon, Ireland. Worked with the British military on encryption devices. And, what did you do at Stonehenge? Stand outside the fence and take a couple of pictures? And stop it already. I have researched Stonehenge. That is why I ask the questions that I do. You don’t fool me. You don’t know jack. As anyone who bothers to do the work will know, you misrepresent the current state of research. What natural in-born talent, science boy? You keep dodging the issue. I'll just let it go. bornagain77 Let’s see, 150 years of failure to change even one bacterium into another. Of the fossil record becoming even more problematic than it was in Darwin’s day, and of the complexity of life being revealed as far, far, more complex than anything Darwin could have possibly imagined. One hundred and fifty years is nothing in the evolutionary timescale. I don't think the fossil record has become more problematic. Life is complicated but that doesn't mean it's time to rule out unguided processes. In fact, I think, we are finding out more and more what unguided processes are capable of. How many more years of failure will it take to falsify a theory that has no rigid falsification criteria??? Even Darwin spelled out some falsification criteria. The video I referenced is in the OP, and it is not, nor did I claim, the video was of Popper. The video is no in the OP on that UD thread. Nor is it on the Scientific American article. JVL

Intelligent Design has the scientific and testable methodology. Evolutionism does not. ID has the positive criteria and again evolutionism does not. And why, after over 150 years of research is there still no scientific theory of evolution? ET

JVL:

After over 150 years of research and publications?

Why do evolutionary biologists talk in terms of Lamarck and not genetics as the modern synthesis demands? Why do they compare anatomy and not the genetics that allegedly produces it? Which brings us to what research are they doing and why isn't it supporting Darwin or any of the modern revisions? We are just understanding how vision systems develop which means no one has a clue if they could have evolved. The cart is before the horse. ET

Ha ha ha,,,

After over 150 years of research and publications?

Let's see, 150 years of failure to change even one bacterium into another. Of the fossil record becoming even more problematic than it was in Darwin's day, and of the complexity of life being revealed as far, far, more complex than anything Darwin could have possibly imagined. etc.. etc.. 150 years of failure! How many more years of failure will it take to falsify a theory that has no rigid falsification criteria??? 300??? 1000???,, 1,000,000??? Never??? The video I referenced is in the OP, and it is not, nor did I claim, the video was of Popper. bornagain77

JVL:

Read the article and all the references. Put the knowledge in it’s proper context rather that just trying to pick holes from the sidelines.

That is called a "literature bluff". I am reading the Evolution book you said to read and it doesn't support anything you have said. So why should I go on another wild goose chase?

You’ve been to Stonehenge then? When was that?

Yes, 1998. Flew in to Gatwick from Shannon, Ireland. Worked with the British military on encryption devices. And stop it already. I have researched Stonehenge. That is why I ask the questions that I do. You don't fool me. You don't know jack.

That’s not doing science,

You don't know anything about science

So, they natural in-born talent for finding patterns in pieces of toast is fallible and suspicious?

What natural in-born talent, science boy? ET

bornagain77 Hey, tell you what, since you have no evidence, why don’t we back way up, and why don’t you prove that Darwinian evolution is a real science instead of a pseudo-science? After over 150 years of research and publications? Really. If all that work doesn't convince you then there's no way I will change your mind. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) – March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046 Why not link to the actual research work instead of an Uncommon Descent thread? I followed through to the article on Scientific American . . . I don't think it says what you think it says. And there is no video with Karl Popper at that link. Look, just provide the real research please. JVL

Well golly gee whiz, more bluff and bluster from a Darwinist, and no peer review showing how a human brain can be brought into existence by unguided material processes. who would have figured that Darwinists could be so shallow in their tactics.??? :) Hey, tell you what, since you have no evidence, why don't we back way up, and why don't you prove that Darwinian evolution is a real science in the first place instead of a pseudo-science? That should be a logical first step for you to prove would it not! You are worried about scientific standards being met are you not?? Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) – March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046 bornagain77

bornagain77 JVL, you falsely claim that the articles and videos I have cited cannot be traced back to peer-review. You have been shown to be wrong twice thus far on both occasions when you brought up that objection previoously in this thread. Your laziness to look up the cited literature that is readily accessible does not refute the fact that everything I list is based on peer-review, Thus, you are lying, once again, in your claim. Well, why not just site the peer-reviewed literature in the first place? We're all intelligent people, we can read a research paper. Moreover, you claim that it is more than your personal opinion that the human brain is ‘undesigned’ but left out the all important detail of citing the exact peer-reviewed literature showing, with real time evidence, how it is remotely possible to get the jaw-dropping ‘appearance of design’ of the human brain from unguided material processes. It is not just my personal opinion and any book on evolutionary theory spells out the basic argument as well you know. And that will include peer-reviewed references. Look, this argument has been going on for years here. You know the evolutionary theory arguments and sources. They are legion. And easy to find. I'm happy to give the same answers over and over again. But, in my opinion, the ID sources are not up to the same standard. Just give me the base research work where the ID paradigm is clearly stated and supported. Okay? JVL

JVL, you falsely claim that the articles and videos I have cited cannot be traced back to peer-review. You have been shown to be wrong twice thus far on both occasions when you brought up that objection previously in this thread. Your laziness to look up the cited literature that is readily accessible does not refute the fact that everything I list is based on peer-review, Thus, you are lying, once again, in your claim. Moreover, you claim that it is more than your (worthless) personal opinion that the human brain is 'undesigned' but left out the all important detail of citing the exact peer-reviewed literature showing, with real time evidence, how it is remotely possible to get the jaw-dropping 'appearance of design' of the human brain from unguided material processes.,,, Go ahead and look for the empirical evidence to your hearts content, the experiments and literature do not exist! You are a poser, and not even a very good one at that. bornagain77

ET Look, if you can’t answer the questions just say so. Read the article and all the references. Put the knowledge in it's proper context rather that just trying to pick holes from the sidelines. And another lie. You've been to Stonehenge then? When was that? Again if you don’t have anything just say so. No need to post lie after lie in order to make yourself feel better about your incompetence. You want it all laid out for you on a plate. You won't do the work to really learn what the knowledge base it. And if no one spells it out all exactly the way you want it done then you'll claim victory and still not be able to speak from the current perspective. That's not doing science, that's just thumbing your nose at it. Not to even pay it enough respect to find out what the research says. And clearly you didn’t read or could not comprehend my response to that. ID has a pre-specified criteria that is not met by the toast or the window patterns. So, they natural in-born talent for finding patterns in pieces of toast is fallible and suspicious? Yes, you seem to be to chicken to actually make a claim or state your position. I choose not to address or discuss determinism. You don't know why I made that call. You assume to know. JVL

JVL:

Who says determinism is correct? Not me.

Yes, you seem to be to chicken to actually make a claim or state your position. ET

JVL:

The answers are more complicated but very comprehensive. And they are very easily found. Start with the Wikipedia article about Stonehenge. And pay attention to the references and bibliography afterwards.

Look, if you can't answer the questions just say so.

You want to paint historical sciences as just a load of guess-work with no thought behind them.

That is a lie

And you want a pat answer in a sentence?

A link would have worked.

You’ve never even been there.

And another lie. Again if you don't have anything just say so. No need to post lie after lie in order to make yourself feel better about your incompetence.

Conveniently you missed addressing the point about what is says about our tendency for pattern recognition.

And clearly you didn't read or could not comprehend my response to that. ID has a pre-specified criteria that is not met by the toast or the window patterns. ET

ET My questions were specific. Answer them as they pertain to YOUR criteria. The answers are more complicated but very comprehensive. And they are very easily found. Start with the Wikipedia article about Stonehenge. And pay attention to the references and bibliography afterwards. You want to paint historical sciences as just a load of guess-work with no thought behind them. And that just isn't true. It would take months and months to absorb and comprehend all the pertinent research. And you want a pat answer in a sentence? People spend their whole careers learning how to interpret and put sites like Stonehenge in their proper context. You've never even been there. I would ask them how they know what those people looked like. Conveniently you missed addressing the point about what is says about our tendency for pattern recognition. bornagain77 Moreover, I have, several times on this thread, offered evidence to support my position. Whereas you have only offered your personal opinion that the human brain is ‘undesigned’. (and personal opinion is all you will ever have to offer since the scientific evidence betrays you). As usual, much of your evidence is youtube videos, opinion articles, previous threads from this blog and non-peer reviewed articles. I'm sure you present them because you find them compelling but many of them do not stand up to criticism from working scientists in the pertinent fields. It is not just a matter of personal opinion although I believe that you think it is. This is part of the reason that I think we have reached the end of the road as far as having a meaningful discussion is concerned. You are completely convinced you are right and you find it absurd to even give the benefit of the doubt to other points of view no matter how well supported they are. But, as mentioned previously, your opinion is worthless under atheistic materialism. Under determinism you are a automaton with no free will. Who says determinism is correct? Not me. JVL

jdk:

Lie down quietly and pay attention to your thoughts. Are you willing your thoughts? Are they conscious choices?

Yes, what I choose to think about is my conscious choice.

Now try to quit thinking: go five minutes lying quietly without thinking any thoughts. Not very many people can do that. Why not?

Not everyone can be an astronaut. Not everyone can be a surgeon. People who practice meditation can do it

If we are willing our thoughts, why can’t we will ourselves to not think.

We can

If we are trying to will ourself to not think, but can’t, where are our thoughts coming from? Who is doing the thinking that we can’t stop?

What? If you cannot stop the car because the brakes are not working you are still driving the car. ET

JVL, believe me, unlike you, I have 'considered' the other sides position in great detail. Moreover, the possibility that unguided material processes can produce the human brain, or any other number of biological features has only become more and more absurd as more and more empirical evidence has been brought to light. Moreover, I have, several times on this thread, offered evidence to support my position. Whereas you have only offered your personal opinion that the human brain is 'undesigned'. (and personal opinion is all you will ever have to offer since the scientific evidence betrays you). But, as mentioned previously, your opinion is worthless under atheistic materialism. Under determinism you are a automaton with no free will.,,, (And I also, in this thread, have put forth evidence that questions the honesty of your personal opinion since studies have now shown that atheists are suppressing their design intuition.) And regardless of the fact that atheistic materialism undermines your claim that your personal opinion matters, science does not work on personal opinion anyway. Science works on real time empirical evidence. And again you have none, whereas I can list much real time evidence supporting my position. The truth is that you are the one who dogmatically refuses to accept any position other than your own as correct no matter what the evidence says to the contrary. That is not science, it is an unquestioned faith in 'non-design' that puts to shame the faith of the most radical of Muslim terrorists. bornagain77

JVL:

The British Isles have tons of stone circles (including the amazing one at Avebury). At many of those sites there is lots of evidence of the creators including tools and datable items.

Non-sequitur

Again, there are a huge number of stone circles in Great Britain. There was clearly a culture of making such things. They can be dated based on the fill around the base of the stones. You really are not cognisant of the data.

Again, non-sequitur. You just can't help yourself, can you? My questions were specific. Answer them as they pertain to YOUR criteria. Which poop belonged to the designer of Stonehenge? Which tools were used to carve and move the large stones? Where is all of that? How can we tell that the artifacts found around Stonehenge belonged to the designers and builders? Where are the models of Stonehenge? Where are the factories? I know why you would want to avoid those questions. We all do. You ain't foolin' anyone besides yourself.

So, what do you think of people who ‘see’ Jesus on a piece of toast or the Virgin Mary in a water stain on a wall?

I would ask them how they know what those people looked like. ET

Since some topics from earlier in the thread have been revived, I'd like to return to the following: in 54 ba77 wrote, "jdk, so you hold consciousness and free will to be real?", and he linked to a video by Chalmers on the "hard problem of consciousness". I replied

I did say [in 50] that I certainly believe that consciousness is real. I also said that “I think the issue of will and choice is much more complex than the simplistic arguments about free will that go on here at UD”, which is different than saying simply that “free will” is real.

Here are some thoughts and questions about both those topics. First, the hard problem of consciousness exists for any metaphysical position, I think, no matter where it falls on the materialism/theism spectrum: how does the interface between consciousness and the body work? For materialism, the question is how does the material world give rise to internal conscious experience. For the dualist, the question is how does the non-material consciousness causally affect the material body, both in principle and with the great specificity needed. The hard problem is a hard problem for everyone, not one that provides support for one position or another. As to will, I have some questions for everyone, no matter what your position. Lie down quietly and pay attention to your thoughts. Are you willing your thoughts? Are they conscious choices? Now try to quit thinking: go five minutes lying quietly without thinking any thoughts. Not very many people can do that. Why not? If we are willing our thoughts, why can't we will ourselves to not think. If we are trying to will ourself to not think, but can't, where are our thoughts coming from? Who is doing the thinking that we can't stop? Is anyone willing to offer some thoughts on these questions? jdk

@jdk, you are quite right of course, we would look at something similar to one of our own designs and say: “Whatho, that looks suspiciously like something we’ve done ... except better. These guys must be smart.” But that I think demonstrates that nobody really believes the argument that if it’s designed it must’ve been by humans because that’s all we’ve seen so far, which is an argument I think many have heard. That is why I feel the argument is not truly an intended argument, rather a facade of objection. After all, if some argue that there are advanced aliens out there, many will freely believe that they could be far more advanced than us. Yet we could, as you say, recognise their technology as being intelligent if it is ‘similar’ in purpose to our own, even if the technology was vastly different. With that in mind I find the argument for design is quite strong if one considers the kidney. In function it is not analogous to a dialysis machine, it is homologous! They do the same things, but are vastly different in technological development and expertise. Here is something we have knowledge of, dialysis, and it is being executed far better than we can do by the kidney. this I find is quite a strong point in favour of the design inference. Ho-De-Ho

bornagain77 Well, I can see where pointing out the obvious conclusion, especially when you deny the over the top design of the human brain, that you have ‘lost your mind’ would be ‘intensely antagonistic’ for you. ???? You're not really discussing the matter; you are convinced you are correct and not considering another point of view. There's no real point in pursuing the matter; the only response you'll consider worthy is the one you've already decided is correct. ET Cuz you say so? Which poop belonged to the designer of Stonehenge? Which tools were used to carve and move the large stones? Where is all of that? The British Isles have tons of stone circles (including the amazing one at Avebury). At many of those sites there is lots of evidence of the creators including tools and datable items. How can we tell that the artifacts found around Stonehenge belonged to the designers and builders? Where are the models of Stonehenge? Where are the factories? Again, there are a huge number of stone circles in Great Britain. There was clearly a culture of making such things. They can be dated based on the fill around the base of the stones. You really are not cognisant of the data. Pure drivel. There isn’t any kneejerk tendency to infer design. We infer design because it matches a pre-specified criteria and nature could not have produced it. We do so based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. On the other hand your position is the classic argument from ignorance. So, what do you think of people who 'see' Jesus on a piece of toast or the Virgin Mary in a water stain on a wall? JVL

Barry Arrington @ 67

Seversky I notice that you studiously avoided the question in the OP. Here, let me put it in front of you again:

Do materialists such as [Seversky] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand?

Personally, I wouldn't call it exactly a fool's errand. There is always the possibility that we might pick up a signal from distant civilization but I suspect it is a remote possibility. As the bubble of radio signals expands outwards from a transmitting source it becomes steadily more attenuated to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the background noise of the cosmos. The distance at which that happens will depend to some extent on the capabilities of the technology of the receivers. So it may be that there are signals reaching our solar system but they are too weak for us to hear with our current technology. And, a many others have pointed out, radio signals are a very slow means of communication on an interstellar scale. How could you administer a galactic empire when it takes hundreds or thousands of years to get a message from one place to another? We have to hope that there is some means of communication that we have yet to discover which can get messages from one part of the galaxy to another in a reasonable time. Maybe, if and when we discover such a phenomenon, we will find the universe as full of chatter as our airwaves are here on Earth. Seversky

Seversky:

So, in human society, function and purpose are often the same. But, as in the case of a canal and a river, they are not always the same. There can be function without purpose, arising out of an interplay of natural phenomena.

Is it really a "natural" phenomena if the Earth was Intelligently Designed and rivers are part of that? Seems to me that you are assuming your conclusion. ET

to He-Di-Ho. I agree with your point. Back at 72, I wrote,

It seems to me that the universe could easily have creatures that are like us in important ways, that have designed and built things in ways similar to ours, and have somehow been able to send signals about that in ways that we can receive. Just because they are not human beings doesn’t mean we couldn’t recognize that.

I think the situation is more that we would recognize objects that appear to be designed and built in ways that we are familiar with, and infer creatures somewhat like us in those capabilities without actually being human. jdk

at 108, Seversky wrote Nobody is denying that our language and thought processes embody a “design intuition”. We are social creatures. It is not surprising that we instinctively look for signs of intelligent agency because we live in society with other intelligent agents and most, if not all, of the things we live in or use are artefacts, the products of intelligent agency

This is why there is also an unfortunate tendency to conflate function with purpose. We say that the function of a chair is to provide something for us to sit on. It is also its purpose because it was designed and built to provide that function by human artisans. So, in human society, function and purpose are often the same. But, as in the case of a canal and a river, they are not always the same. There can be function without purpose, arising out of an interplay of natural phenomena.

Good points. I endorse these thoughts. jdk

The problem I have with the argument that design inferences are valid when referring only to human intelligence is its lack of connection to real time thinking. Theoretically, musing philosophically, I can see a certain sense to the claim, but it appears to be wearing the colours of sophistry. In real time though, does anybody practically hold to the notion? Here’s a thought, if you will indulge me for a moment, based upon the film Independence Day. When those large spaceships appear over the worlds major cities, everybody reacts quite predictably. Some are scared, others are excited to meet aliens and so forth. What one doesn't see, are scientists advising the government that they must exhaust all possible natural explanations for this mysterious phenomena. Nor do we see any White House advisor telling the president that these spacecraft are likely to be filled with human beings from earth because all of our experience with flying machines are made solely by humans. What the government actually does is try to establish communications with the newcomers, who are assumed to be alien life forms. And by trying to communicate with the visitors they are making an implicit deduction based upon the technology... that the visitors have Intelligence akin to and superior to human Intelligence. Similarity of body design is not assumed, nor origins, but Intelligence is. Why I find this curious is because of what is necessary to make a good story. In art and indeed film, we take for granted that we as an audience will engage in the’willing suspension of disbelief.’ We know of no technology that can float a spaceship the size of a city in the air, but that doesn’t matter, we suspend our disbelief for the narrative. However, there has to be a tether to credibility or an audience will object with boos and bahs. I can believe for the sake of a film, that some alien species has the amazing technology that they have in the film. However, if anybody in the film suggested that these spaceships might have formed naturally or that they must’ve been built by humans because that’s all we’ve known to date, I would not enjoy the film. Why? Because it’s just not real. I’m not convinced that anybody would even waste a breath of time considering those options. So for a playful hair-splitting muse, sure it sounds fine to say design inference is only legitimate when tethered to humans only. But practically, we all know that it is not truly the case. I have not explained myself particularly well, and neither do I wish to disparage another’s views. But I hope it makes sense. Ho-De-Ho

bornagain77 @ 49

So are you saying that Darwinian materialists now believe in the reality of consciousness and free will?

I can say that I believe in the reality of my experience of consciousness and free will. How that experience arises from the activity of the physical brain is yet to be explained. What I can say is that, so far as we know, without a physical brain there is no such experience so it is not unreasonable to infer that the brain is the source. You can certainly speculate, as an alternative, about some form of disembodied consciousness that pervades the entire universe but you would still be faced with explaining the nature of such a phenomenon and how it arose. And that assumes you could offer compelling reasons for assuming it exists at all. Seversky

Seversky:

Your problem lies in not making the effort to overcome your “Kneejerk” tendency to infer design: “I cannot imagine how this could have come about naturally, therefore it must have been designed”, in other words, the classic argument from incredulity.

Pure drivel. There isn't any kneejerk tendency to infer design. We infer design because it matches a pre-specified criteria and nature could not have produced it. We do so based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. On the other hand your position is the classic argument from ignorance. ET

bornagain77@ 46

Moreover, as I already listed in post 17, the scientific evidence itself clearly indicates that atheists are the ones suppressing their ‘design intuition’. It is not me you have a beef with. It is your own ‘knee jerk’ reaction to see things as designed

Nobody is denying that our language and thought processes embody a "design intuition". We are social creatures. It is not surprising that we instinctively look for signs of intelligent agency because we live in society with other intelligent agents and most, if not all, of the things we live in or use are artefacts, the products of intelligent agency This is why there is also an unfortunate tendency to conflate function with purpose. We say that the function of a chair is to provide something for us to sit on. It is also its purpose because it was designed and built to provide that function by human artisans. So, in human society, function and purpose are often the same. But, as in the case of a canal and a river, they are not always the same. There can be function without purpose, arising out of an interplay of natural phenomena. Your problem lies in not making the effort to overcome your "Kneejerk" tendency to infer design: "I cannot imagine how this could have come about naturally, therefore it must have been designed", in other words, the classic argument from incredulity. That is what we need to be wary of. Seversky

Instinct or the animal's intelligent design? EugeneS I agree- animals- all animals, all organisms- are intelligent designers. They do what nature, operating freely could not or would not do. Termite mounds and ant colonies are engineering marvels. Bee hives are also engineering marvels. Beavers can make trees fall exactly where they want them to. Computer programs trace their "intelligence" back to their programmers. It is just an extension of them (yes Shallit, even if the programmer is dead because they were not dead when they wrote the program) ET

EugeneS: Just my opinion: a) The proper sense of intelligence is conscious understanding of meaning. In this sense, it is a subjective experience of conscious beings only. b) Machines and computers are examples of "frozen intelligence": intelligent configuration originated by conscious design, and where the non conscious machine can do the things ot has been programmed to do. In that sense, the things it does are "intelligent", because they derive indirectly form intellignet conscious experiences (by design). However, machines and computers are not intelligent in the strict sense, because they have no conscious experiences and no understanding of meaning. c) Regarding animal intelligence, I have no doubts that it is a form of intelligence too, and it is based on conscious representaions and some understanding. Animals however, even those more similar to us, seem to lack many functions of human intelligence, especially the capacity for abstract thought, or they have it only at low levels. That's probably the reason why they cannot usually generate great amounts of functional information, even if they certainly can express some. Then there is the issue of complex instinctive animal behavior: that is often rather complex functionally, but it seems to be instinctive, transmitted genetically or in some similar way. And it is mainly repetitive. So, the functional complexity here could be due mainly to genomic (or similar) information, and not to the personal intervention of the animal. gpuccio

What I am struggling with on both sides of the argument here is on what grounds animal intelligence is discounted. Intelligence boils down to decision making, which in essence is choice from alternatives (NB not necessarily conscious choice). That's it. Under this definition, a pack of wolves hunting in a group, exhibit intelligent behaviour. Under this definition a computer program is intelligence as well. The question is though, how much functional information animal intelligence can produce. EugeneS

Thank you JVL for supporting my claim about the Antikythera mechanism. Did you have a point?

If there are some as yet undiscovered human civilisations then we will prove their existence with archaeological remains. You don’t get civilisations which leave no traces.

Cuz you say so? Which poop belonged to the designer of Stonehenge? Which tools were used to carve and move the large stones? Where is all of that? How can we tell that the artifacts found around Stonehenge belonged to the designers and builders? Where are the models of Stonehenge? Where are the factories? ET

Allan Keith:

Or, more obviously, the scientists think so little of the strength of the inference that they can’t be bothered to put in the effort.

All evidence to the contrary, of course. You do realize- well most likely not- that supporting their own position's claims would be enough to falsify ID- right? Are you saying that scientists think so little about their own position's claims that they don't have to support them? Really? ET

Allan Keith claims:

Or, more obviously, the scientists think so little of the strength of the inference that they can’t be bothered to put in the effort.

That (false) claim is too funny. Practically every major book ever written on evolution seeks to refute the "knee jerk" design inference with flawed evidence and/or bad liberal theology. As to evidence, how many times have Darwinists used the fallacious 'bad design' argument, (inverted retina, appendix, junk DNA, etc.. etc..), to try to refute the 'knee jerk' design inference??? Moreover, science itself is not possible unless Theism is true. ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Theistic presuppositions,,,

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/

Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their science, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science.

Charles Darwin - The Rest of the Story Excerpt: Charles Darwin received a general degree in Theology from Cambridge, graduating in 1831.,,, he almost became an Anglican Minister and his degree was in Theology. http://creationanswers.net/biographies/CDarwin.htm

In fact, the liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against Darwin's theory:

Reactions to Origin of Species “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” per wikipedia

Pastor Joe Boot and Dr. Cornelius Hunter have both done work exposing the faulty liberal theology that underlays Darwinian thought..

The Descent of Darwin (The Faulty Theological Foundation of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil - 2001 Excerpt: (Cornelius Hunter) shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution. Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. - per Amazon

Moreover, Charles Darwin's book itself, Origin of Species, instead of being filled with experimentation and mathematics, is replete with bad liberal theology.

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X

To this day, Darwinists are still very much dependent of bad liberal theology, instead of any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

That Darwinists would still today be so dependent on such a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try to give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place. bornagain77

as to:

Well, part of the reason I said that is because I find your approach intensely antagonistic.

Well, I can see where pointing out the obvious conclusion, especially when you deny the over the top design of the human brain, that you have 'lost your mind' would be 'intensely antagonistic' for you. :) That intense antagonism you feel is your own insane worldview being directly challenged with logic, common sense, and evidence. You may want to be all comfy and complacent in your atheistic beliefs, and not have those atheistic beliefs directly challenged, but this is definitely not the place to look for such comfy and complacency, i.e. for a let it be 'agree to disagree' mentality. If you want as such, I suggest you go to Jerry Coyne's or PZ Myer's website where you can be in an echo chamber with fellow atheists who do not want their atheistic delusions to be directly challenged i.e. who do not want to feel 'intensely antagonized' by reality. As to:

And I can pick and choose which topics I wish to discuss, that’s allowed.

Not under atheistic materialism is it 'allowed'. Under atheistic materialism, as was already pointed out to you in post 94 (which you apparently ignored), there is no "you" and there is also no free will for "you" pick and choose with. Therefore atheistic materialism itself does not allow "you" to "pick and choose" which topics you wish to discuss. Only under Theism, where a 'person' has a immaterial mind with free will, is a person truly 'allowed' to pick and choose. And even then, especially on a site dedicated to Intelligent Design, the list of rational options is curtailed to greater and lesser extents. bornagain77

ET,

And yet no one has been able to refute it. So obviously it isn’t weak at all.

Or, more obviously, the scientists think so little of the strength of the inference that they can’t be bothered to put in the effort. Allan Keith

ET Metal parts rust and disintegrate. Or they are protected by being buried like the antikythera mechanism From Wikipedia:

The Antikythera mechanism was retrieved from 45 metres (148 ft) of water in the Antikythera shipwreck off Point Glyphadia on the Greek island of Antikythera in 1901, most probably in July. The wreck had been found in April 1900 by a group of Greek sponge divers who retrieved numerous large artefacts, including bronze and marble statues, pottery, unique glassware, jewellery, coins, and the mechanism. All were transferred to the National Museum of Archaeology in Athens for storage and analysis. The mechanism was merely a lump of corroded bronze and wood at the time and went unnoticed for two years, while museum staff worked on piecing together more obvious statues.

Does anyone think that we have found every civilization that has ever existed on Earth? Anyone? Not the same question. If there are some as yet undiscovered human civilisations then we will prove their existence with archaeological remains. You don't get civilisations which leave no traces. bornagain77 For you to come on a site dedicated to debating Intelligent Design, and say, “I think we’d best just agree to disagree”, just doesn’t cut it. In fact, your statement is completely incoherent given the place on which you said it. Well, part of the reason I said that is because I find your approach intensely antagonistic. And I can pick and choose which topics I wish to discuss, that's allowed. Tribune7 And you are correct, but that’s not what ID endeavors to do. It endeavors to say that these are the characteristics of a designed thing and if such a thing has these characteristics we can presume design. Well, aside from just looking at something what methods do you think are being used by ID proponents. Now you can say but there is an unknown process that could possibly account for it. True. At that point, however, you are making a faith statement, which is fine but must be recognized as such and does not rebut the observations or methods or science of the thing to which you are objecting. I'm not saying there is or is not some unknown process; I'm saying you can't rule out that there is one. It seems a natural point to discuss the methods and technologies of design detection. That's really where we're headed is it not? JVL

Off Topic: Inspiring Philosophy has a new video up on quantum mechanics:

A Critique of Bohmian Mechanics (Pilot-wave theory) – inspiringphilosophy – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2hoU4jaQQ

bornagain77

Allan Keith:

Actually, what I said was that making an inference from a single comparison is a weak inference.

And yet no one has been able to refute it. So obviously it isn't weak at all. THAT is not a controversial statement as it is based on reality. ET

Barry writes, “Materialists argue that non-human design cannot, in principle, be inferred.’ Perhaps someone (Allan Keith is mentioned in the OP) believes that, but I doubt that all materialists (or other doubters of ID) believe that.

Actually, what I said was that making an inference from a single comparison is a weak inference. This is not a controversial statement it is basic statistics and basic logic. Allan Keith

JVL. But the techniques must be tested and verified. Just because the general class of thing exists doesn’t mean every example is sound. Exactly. after all unguided processes have been ruled out. How can you possibly do that/ Who’s to say when all unguided processes have been ruled out? And you are correct, but that's not what ID endeavors to do. It endeavors to say that these are the characteristics of a designed thing and if such a thing has these characteristics we can presume design. Now you can say but there is an unknown process that could possibly account for it. True. At that point, however, you are making a faith statement, which is fine but must be recognized as such and does not rebut the observations or methods or science of the thing to which you are objecting. tribune7

JVL,

"I have never heard of quantum biology. I think we’d best just agree to disagree."

I provided a link to get you started. And again, it is not my job to do your homework for you. For you to come on a site dedicated to debating Intelligent Design, and say, "I think we’d best just agree to disagree", just doesn't cut it. In fact, your statement is completely incoherent given the place on which you said it. Moreover, since you think the brain is 'undesigned', and are therefore, by default, necessarily defending the Atheistic Materialistic position, then you must coherently defend all the baggage that comes with that insane worldview. For instance, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify a testable science, (in the normal sense of a testable science being mathematically based on a universal natural law), but is more properly classified as a pseudoscience,,, As a pseudoscience according to criteria laid out by both Popper and Lakatos:

Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

That is a cold hard fact, and no amount of 'agreeing to disagree' will change the fact that you are, basically, defending a pseudoscience. Here is some more baggage from atheistic materialism for you to defend,,, in atheistic materialism there is no "I" to agree to disagree with anything. The entire concept of "I" becomes an illusion. In others words, if atheistic materialism were true then JVL does not really exist as a real person but becomes merely an illusion generated by neurons... But that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems in the worldview that you now find yourself defending,,,, as mentioned previously in this thread:

Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

Basically, in rejecting God, the atheist has chosen imagination over reality.,,,, everything that normal people regard as being real and concrete, becomes illusory for the atheist. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than atheistic materialism has turned out to be! And yet, that is the worldview, since you have rejected the human brain as being designed, that you find yourself defending. Verse:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

JVL:

But I think it’s possible that a metal object, buried in layers of sediment, might leave traces, like a fossil, after the metal parts have leached away and were replaced with minerals.

Metal parts rust and disintegrate. Or they are protected by being buried like the antikythera mechanism

It’s funny isn’t it, that the biggest skeptics are in the ID camp.

Anyone capable of thinking should be skeptical of the claim unguided processes produced what we observe.

Really? Which ones? How do we know they existed if they left no traces?

Oh, so all transitional forms have been found, have they? Does anyone think that we have found every civilization that has ever existed on Earth? Anyone?

Go on, name one we haven’t found. And explain how they’ve evaded our detection.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Have we explored every inch of tis planet? No. Are there places we haven't been? Yes. The rain forests hold many secrets. So does Antarctica and under water ET

ET Fossilized space ships? Really? It's a bit of speculation, I admit. But I think it's possible that a metal object, buried in layers of sediment, might leave traces, like a fossil, after the metal parts have leached away and were replaced with minerals. I don't think the original object would be very obvious after 500 million years. And yet that is what happened with artifacts like Stonehenge. Also if someone is saying that unguided processes could do it then they have to show it. The mere fact that no one has any idea how such a process could do it is enough for science. It's funny isn't it, that the biggest skeptics are in the ID camp. Why not? We know entire populations of other organisms have disappeared and never left any traces. Really? Which ones? How do we know they existed if they left no traces? So scientists are really psychics who do their work without observing the real world? Science is about making observations and then trying to figure what we are observing and how it came to be. Yes, but you can't say "What a coincidence that humans developed on a planet in a solar system which was conducive to their development" because we wouldn't have developed in a system where that wasn't the case. Does anyone think that we have found every civilization that has ever existed on Earth? Anyone? Go on, name one we haven't found. And explain how they've evaded our detection. bornagain77 You are disagreeing with the science not me. You have no empirical evidence. Period. Moreover, I know for a fact, especially with advances in quantum biology, that Darwinian evolution is empirically falsified. I have never heard of quantum biology. I think we'd best just agree to disagree. For you to claim that you have substantiating evidence when I clearly know that you don’t have it, and never will have it, is simply you ‘suppressing’ the truth once again. (FYI: It is a mental illness called Denialism) Well, it seems to me that a lot of people suffer from that then. Anyway, I'm sorry you aren't willing to consider me as an individual but would prefer to make assumptions and toss me in a predefined bin. Should I do the same with you then? Get help JVL. You are much sicker than you realize. Look, we disagree on some things. That's okay. There's no need to call each other's mental health into issue. tribune7 Again, fair enough, but the point that must be kept in mind is that design detection is design detection. If CSI or IC work conclusively and consistently with things of known design it isn’t unreasonable to reconsider the nature of things previously thought to be undesigned if these methods show otherwise. But the techniques must be tested and verified. Just because the general class of thing exists doesn't mean every example is sound. Now, this doesn’t mean you have to humbly bow and say I submit but it does mean that you have to say “well, you kind of have a point even though somewhere along the line I think you’ll be shown to be wrong” I accept. The problem is that supporters of ID are caricatured and the entire field is dismissed out of hand for ideological reasons and those who object face penalties. That’s a bad thing. Okay. But I still haven't seen from the ID community a tried and tested and demonstrable design detection algorithm or procedure. I've seen some and, to be honest, they have a problem with the first premise which generally is: after all unguided processes have been ruled out. How can you possibly do that/ Who's to say when all unguided processes have been ruled out? Just my opinion, as always. asauber Indeed. Me as an IDer and you as an Evolutionist are on a more even playing field than you’ve been led to believe. It's not what I've been led to believe. You all want to assume that I'm some kind of A-Mat sheeple. My statement is based on what I have observed. For myself. JVL

I could say the same thing to you!!

JVL, Indeed. Me as an IDer and you as an Evolutionist are on a more even playing field than you've been led to believe. Andrew asauber

JVL I assume you were specifically referring to ID type design detection. Again, fair enough, but the point that must be kept in mind is that design detection is design detection. If CSI or IC work conclusively and consistently with things of known design it isn't unreasonable to reconsider the nature of things previously thought to be undesigned if these methods show otherwise. Now, this doesn't mean you have to humbly bow and say I submit but it does mean that you have to say "well, you kind of have a point even though somewhere along the line I think you'll be shown to be wrong" Or, you can also say "you have a point in principle but your methodology fails here and here etc" which is a good thing and leads to be better understanding. The problem is that supporters of ID are caricatured and the entire field is dismissed out of hand for ideological reasons and those who object face penalties. That's a bad thing. tribune7

as to:

Well, I think I do (have a plausible explanation). We can disagree on that though. I am not trying to suppress the design intuition, I just disagree with your about how it arose.

You are disagreeing with the science not me. You have no empirical evidence. Period. Moreover, I know for a fact, especially with advances in quantum biology, that Darwinian evolution is empirically falsified.

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

For you to claim that you have substantiating evidence when I clearly know that you don't have it, and never will have it, is simply you 'suppressing' the truth once again. (FYI: It is a mental illness called Denialism)

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

Get help JVL. You are much sicker than you realize. Verse

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

bornagain77

Does anyone think that we have found every civilization that has ever existed on Earth? Anyone? ET

JVL:

I find that extremely unlikely and implausible. Whole civilisations don’t just disappear.

Why not? We know entire populations of other organisms have disappeared and never left any traces.

Hey, we wouldn’t be here if this particular system didn’t just happen to have those events occur.

Right, luck vs design. Only one is testable and it isn't the luck position.

You can’t draw the target after the shots are fired.

So scientists are really psychics who do their work without observing the real world? Science is about making observations and then trying to figure what we are observing and how it came to be.

We’re here because the solar system is conducive.

Luck or design- we already know it isn't due to regularity. ET

Fossilized space ships? Really?

If the spaceship was really that old then it probably would have been fossilised.

Yeah cuz metals fossilize

I do not believe that the ID community has proved it’s point via irreducible complexity;

Science isn't about proving. And it still remains that no one has an alternative mechanism for what we observe.

(Granted, I don;t see how you can possibly ‘prove’ that unguided processes couldn’t have done it but I will admit it’s a possibility.)

And yet that is what happened with artifacts like Stonehenge. Also if someone is saying that unguided processes could do it then they have to show it. The mere fact that no one has any idea how such a process could do it is enough for science. ET

asuber You mean you’d prefer your conclusion to align with your philosophical position, pending further evidence. I could say the same thing to you!! I think that could be applied to most people in fact! I hope I would recognise new evidence as being a game changer if it was. I am trying to do my best to be as open as possible to new data and evidence. That's why I'm trying to have a respectful conversation. If I get something wrong then I'd like to see the evidence of my mistake. JVL

ET Objects- designed objects that include the entire PLANET. But I digress. There could be entire Earthly civilizations that didn’t leave traces behind- that is because other people come and take what was there. And if the designers of life on earth were not from earth then that explains the missing things JVL is looking for. I find that extremely unlikely and implausible. Whole civilisations don't just disappear. What is the alternative explanation for the earth? How many just-so cosmic collisions had to happen just to get our current rotational speed? The Moon- life wouldn’t exist without our large axis stabilizing Moon. Hey, we wouldn't be here if this particular system didn't just happen to have those events occur. We now know that our solar system is not indicative of what solar systems will look like. Ours seems to be the best model for harboring technology capable life. Coincidence? Again you would have to desperate to think so. There could be other solar systems that are similarly blessed. AND we wouldn't exist on a system that didn't have those traits. You can't draw the target after the shots are fired. We're here because the solar system is conducive. There are billions of systems that aren't so lucky. That's not coincidence. JVL

that would be an inanimate object

JVL, Not necessarily. You are making unwarranted conclusions again.

The Borg is fictional

This is a hypothetical.

I think I’d error on the side of caution in this case.

You mean you'd prefer your conclusion to align with your philosophical position, pending further evidence. Andrew asauber

tribune 7 And that, JVL, is dissembling. Of course, you’ve seen such tests demonstrated and in use (criminal investigation, archaeology). Now, do the most discussed proposals of the ID movement meet the criteria of describing certainty? It’s fair to be skeptical and dispute — this means ID is science — but to deny or dismiss the principle that design can be objectified denies and dismisses reason. It wasn't meant to be dissembling; I assume you were specifically referring to ID type design detection. Clearly there are all sorts of techniques and tests available to forensics scientists and archaeologists (who are kind of historical forensics scientists). And most of those are well grounded in science. Anyway, I shall try harder not to make assumptions when answering questions. But I am a dopey human being and I will get things wrong!! Barry Arrington You avoided the key issue JVL. Perhaps you are too stupid to understand the key issue and I am wasting my time. But I will give it one more go. Here it is: Materialists argue that non-human design cannot, in principle, be inferred, because humans are the only designers we know about. Seversky uses a version of the argument at 45. I'll let the insult pass since that seems to be the way things go here these days. I would respectfully disagree with that use of the argument. I think it is clearly true that we only have human designers to reflect upon but that does not mean that we cannot infer non-human design. As Carl Sagan hypothesised, they could use a mathematical, clearly non-natural signal to indicate their presence. 1. Agree with other materialists who say non-human design cannot, in principle, be detected. If you go with this choice, you must conclude Loeb is on a fool’s errand. 2. Disagree with other materialists and agree with Loeb: we can infer intelligence from the attributes of the techno-signatures while knowing nothing about the designers of the techno-signatures other than that they are intelligent. In that case Loeb is not on a fool’s errand. Which do you choose JVL? I think it's possible that we could detect a signal that was clearly not natural and then the natural conclusion would be that it was designed. Which is what SETI is all about. Which is why I don't think Dr Loeb is on a fool's errand. I think he might spend a lifetime being disappointed however. JVL

Bornagain77 No you don’t have any plausible explanation. In fact, your ‘explanations are found to be grossly inadequate (Behe, Axe, Sanford, etc.. etc..) Moreover, your confession that you personally have such an inclination, is further proof that you have to ‘mentally work’ suppressing the default design intuition that you yourself have. Well, I think I do. We can disagree on that though. I am not trying to suppress the design intuition, I just disagree with your about how it arose. Origenes 1. As GPuccio points out there are severe limits to what natural selection and random variation can do. Maybe we just disagree on those limits. 2. In order to have evolution you must first have semiosis — see Upright Biped’s biosemiosis.org — which for various reasons leads us to inferring design. Not if the DNA 'code' has some basis in chemistry. And there is some evidence to suggest that might be the case. 3. You have not addressed Paley’s centuries old argument — see quote in post #53. In short, William Paley argues that the fact that a watch is self-replicating would be “an additional reason” to infer design. I have never seen a self-replicating watch or any other self-replicating non-living thing. Perhaps your position amounts to this: For self-replicating objects independent evidence of a designer is required, but not so for non-self-replicating objects. Agree? I'd like to agree but I think I could get caught out on some very strange and odd cases. I do not believe that the ID community has proved it's point via irreducible complexity; if they could do that then, as Darwin said, that would kill the whole theory. Then additional evidence would be superfluous. (Granted, I don;t see how you can possibly 'prove' that unguided processes couldn't have done it but I will admit it's a possibility.) Even for some non-living objects the case is not clearcut until we find other examples or precursors. I've been on enough archaeological digs to know that what is man-made and what isn't can be tricky. To be honest, I think it makes the most sense to consider every case independently. I am also saying that because the design inference is questioned (by me for example) and, in addition, there is no other evidence for a designer then I think you haven't proved your case. I'm not saying anything in particular is required. I'm giving you my personal thoughts: I don't agree with your arguments AND you've got nothing else to sway me. I would argue that, in the case of a 500 million old alien spaceship, it is easily conceivable that all traces of alien designers are lost — “hair and skin cells” included. If the spaceship was really that old then it probably would have been fossilised. And we have fossils from that time that show more than bones. asauber So if you are out in the back yard looking at the stars through your telescope and you see a giant cube that looks like a Borg spaceship approaching the Earth, your reaction is going to be: “Well, since humans don’t make things like this, and humans are the only designers my philosophical position allows me to consider, this Giant Cube that looks like a Borg spaceship isn’t designed. A series of accidents did this.” No, of course not!! But that would be an inanimate object, or I would assume it was an inanimate object. And while we do occasionally discover inanimate objects that do some things that look designed (like quasars) I think I'd error on the side of caution in this case. The Borg is fictional so I'm not worried about having that scenario arise anytime soon. JVL

We infer ID because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. If that knowledge changes and nature is observed to produce what we say is intelligently designed then that changes things and we adjust accordingly. However such a scenario does not yet exist. ET

jdk, I take it all back. Nevermind. Move along now. Barry Arrington

That's different than saying we can't infer that some non-human extra terrestrial designed something. I agree that our ability to infer designed is somewhat constrained by what we know ourselves to be capable of. jdk

jdk:

Barry, I am not a materialist.

Maybe that explains why you don't buy the gobsmackingly stupid "We can only infer human design" argument.

I read Seversky comment at 45, and I don’t see how it supports your claim that “he believes that only human intelligence can be inferred.”

Let me help you with that. Here is the sentence where he makes a version of the argument.

Since the human brain is not something we are capable of designing – not yet, at least – then we cannot infer it was designed because it is similar to things we design.

Barry Arrington

Barry, I am not a materialist. Also, I read Seversky comment at 45, and I don't see how it supports your claim that "he believes that only human intelligence can be inferred." jdk

jdk at 72. Good for you. I am glad you concede the glaringly obvious. I have had pushback from materialists (Elizabeth Liddle, for one) on the very 100-digits example you raise; it is good to know not all materialists are so obtuse. BTW, perhaps you can help Seversky with this. As his comment in 45 demonstrates, he believes that only human intelligence can be inferred. Barry Arrington

JVL:

Do you know how hard it is to leave NO traces except for a designed object? No poop? No rubbish heap? No broken tools? No rotted food? No burial grounds? No structures?

Objects- designed objects that include the entire PLANET. But I digress. There could be entire Earthly civilizations that didn't leave traces behind- that is because other people come and take what was there. And if the designers of life on earth were not from earth then that explains the missing things JVL is looking for. What is the alternative explanation for the earth? How many just-so cosmic collisions had to happen just to get our current rotational speed? The Moon- life wouldn't exist without our large axis stabilizing Moon.

There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.

Coincidence? Only the desperate would say so. And there is even another twist. We now know that our solar system is not indicative of what solar systems will look like. Ours seems to be the best model for harboring technology capable life. Coincidence? Again you would have to desperate to think so. ET

Barry, your 67 was whining, and I whined back. jdk

Barry writes, "Materialists argue that non-human design cannot, in principle, be inferred.' Perhaps someone (Allan Keith is mentioned in the OP) believes that, but I doubt that all materialists (or other doubters of ID) believe that. It seems to me that the universe could easily have creatures that are like us in important ways, that have designed and built things in ways similar to ours, and have somehow been able to send signals about that in ways that we can receive. Just because they are not human beings doesn't mean we couldn't recognize that. Obviously, to me, a concentrated signal repeating the first 100 digits of pi in binary would be proof that we were getting a signal from a non-human intelligence. I don't think this conclusion has anything to do with materialism: I would think theists or others would reach the same conclusion. jdk

jdk at 69. Stop whining. BTW, do you have an answer for the question posed in the OP? Or do you want to avoid it like Sev did? Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington:

Do materialists such as [JVL] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand?

JVL:

Well, I personally don’t think Dr Loeb is on a fool’s errand. I think it’s very possible that we will not find evidence of another intelligent life form for centuries, it ever. But I’m happy to pay for the effort to look. And to speculate. That’s part of science.

You avoided the key issue JVL. Perhaps you are too stupid to understand the key issue and I am wasting my time. But I will give it one more go. Here it is: Materialists argue that non-human design cannot, in principle, be inferred, because humans are the only designers we know about. Seversky uses a version of the argument at 45. Loeb is trying to infer non-human design by means of detecting techno-signatures from space. Now you have two choices JVL: 1. Agree with other materialists who say non-human design cannot, in principle, be detected. If you go with this choice, you must conclude Loeb is on a fool's errand. 2. Disagree with other materialists and agree with Loeb: we can infer intelligence from the attributes of the techno-signatures while knowing nothing about the designers of the techno-signatures other than that they are intelligent. In that case Loeb is not on a fool's errand. Which do you choose JVL? Barry Arrington

Barry, the OP mentioned someone else, not Seversky, and invited other materialists to jump in. Seversky has chosen to not jump in, and has only posted once on this thread, on another matter. Why are you now accusing him of "studiously avoiding" the question in the OP. jdk

I've yet to see any convincing evidence for any origin schemes for the universe that account for a lower entropy state in the past. Thus, I've started floating cash to the guy that expounds on his "over unity" generator at the coffee shop. LocalMinimum

Seversky I notice that you studiously avoided the question in the OP. Here, let me put it in front of you again:

Do materialists such as [Seversky] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand?

Barry Arrington

ba77 writes, "But my criticism of your apologetic for them still stands." But I didn't make an "apologetic for them". In 48 I wrote,

“Bias” can mean a whole spectrum of things, from a dogmatic, ideological attachment to a belief that one can in no way consider opening to any investigation to a principled position based on reason and evidence that one had consciously adopted as a personal choice, and everything in between.

This was a general comment about the spectrum of ways that people can hold their metaphysical speculations (or any other position which include choices about values and opinions). It said nothing specific about materialism. jdk

JVL IOW, is it possible to develop a test to ascertain that something has occurred via designed? . . .I have no idea. I have yet to see such a test demonstrated or shown to be useable. And that, JVL, is dissembling. Of course, you've seen such tests demonstrated and in use (criminal investigation, archaeology). Now, do the most discussed proposals of the ID movement meet the criteria of describing certainty? It's fair to be skeptical and dispute -- this means ID is science -- but to deny or dismiss the principle that design can be objectified denies and dismisses reason. tribune7

jdk, yes I now see that you are not a materialist. But my criticism of your apologetic for them still stands. You held that individual persons must come to rational choices about their beliefs. My simple, but not simplistic, point is that atheistic materialism denies the reality of both persons and rational choices bornagain77

ba77, I know you are arguing against the insufficiency of materialism. Do you, however, see that I am not a materialist? That would be useful, so that you wouldn't inappropriately respond to my comments, as you did in 49. jdk

JVL, So if you are out in the back yard looking at the stars through your telescope and you see a giant cube that looks like a Borg spaceship approaching the Earth, your reaction is going to be: "Well, since humans don't make things like this, and humans are the only designers my philosophical position allows me to consider, this Giant Cube that looks like a Borg spaceship isn't designed. A series of accidents did this." Andrew asauber

jdk, having been through a number of arguments about free will, I am certainly not so inclined to dismiss the arguments about free will as 'simplistic', moreover, I am certainly not so charitably inclined towards materialists to give them a free pass with free will. In fact, I hold these issues of the reality of consciousness and free will (and rationality) to go to the very heart of these discussions on UD between what intelligent agents can accomplish and what unguided material processes cannot accomplish. bornagain77

ba77 writes,

jdk, so you hold consciousness and free will to be real? You do realize that atheistic materialism directly contradicts that belief?

Hmmm. I'm not sure you read my reply at 50 very well. I pointed out that I was not a materialist. Your beliefs about materialism and its deficiencies as a philosophical position aren't pertinent to a discussion with me. I did say that I certainly believe that consciousness is real. I also said that "I think the issue of will and choice is much more complex than the simplistic arguments about free will that go on here at UD", which is different than saying simply that "free will" is real. jdk

Jvl @ For the record.

O: So, not a single trace of the designer(s), but you, jvl, still infer intelligent design.

jvl: In that particular case, yes.

This admission implies that you need to revise the following statements you have made:

jvl: I, for one, would be more inclined to consider design if there was some evidence, aside from the disputed design, that there were designers around at the specified time. I just don’t see that evidence. … In my opinion, without any independent evidence (that is, aside from what is claimed to be designed) that there was a designer about at the time then I have to come down on the side of undesigned. But that’s based on the evidence I’ve seen.

Perhaps your position amounts to this: For self-replicating objects independent evidence of a designer is required, but not so for non-self-replicating objects. Agree?

jvl: I think there would be physical traces though You can’t bring a craft across light years of space and leave no biological traces inside..

I would argue that, in the case of a 500 million old alien spaceship, it is easily conceivable that all traces of alien designers are lost — “hair and skin cells” included. Origenes

jvl @56

O: Spaceships and watches do not self-replicate and that makes all the difference. Or does it not?

jvl: It’s a pretty important point!! There’s no chance for unguided descent with modification. Life forms can reproduce, do have variation in their offspring, some variants are better able to exploit the natural environment and will leave proportionally more offspring than some of their ‘siblings’.

A couple of points: 1. As GPuccio points out there are severe limits to what natural selection and random variation can do. 2. In order to have evolution you must first have semiosis — see Upright Biped's biosemiosis.org — which for various reasons leads us to inferring design. 3. You have not addressed Paley’s centuries old argument — see quote in post #53. In short, William Paley argues that the fact that a watch is self-replicating would be “an additional reason” to infer design. Origenes

as to:

"That we have such an inclination does not say where it comes from. I think there’s other plausible explanations."

No you don't have any plausible explanation. In fact, your 'explanations are found to be grossly inadequate (Behe, Axe, Sanford, etc.. etc..) Moreover, your confession that you personally have such an inclination, is further proof that you have to 'mentally work' suppressing the default design intuition that you yourself have.

Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

Moreover, the scientific evidence from NDEs is far more compelling than any purported evidence from Darwinian evolution is:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

i.e. we have far more observational evidence for the reality of souls than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information. Moreover, the transcendent nature of information, the one thing unguided material processes cannot possibly explain, directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul):

Information is Physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35I83y5Uro Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

bornagain77

Origenes Unfortunately not. In my example, there is not one single direct trace of the designer(s) — other than the designed object. Maybe there is no designer? :-) Have you ever been on an archaeological dig? Do you know how hard it is to leave NO traces except for a designed object? No poop? No rubbish heap? No broken tools? No rotted food? No burial grounds? No structures? But, from what you say, I can deduce that you would infer design anyway. Right? So, not a single trace of the designer(s), but you, jvl, still infer intelligent design. In that particular case, yes. (I think there would be physical traces though You can't bring a craft across light years of space and leave no biological traces inside..) But, again, we're talking about a complicated collection of inanimate parts. Wiring, fuel cells, mechanical valves, etc none of which can reproduce themselves. Spaceships and watches do not self-replicate and that makes all the difference. Or does it not? It's a pretty important point!! There's no chance for unguided descent with modification. Life forms can reproduce, do have variation in their offspring, some variants are better able to exploit the natural environment and will leave proportionally more offspring than some of their 'siblings'. I know, the human body looks like an amazingly design machine but that doesn't mean it was designed. And with no other evidence of a designer around at the time . . . Bornagain77 Yet as pointed out in post 17, your own ‘knee jerk’ reaction to see things as designed is in fact evidence that you have an inbuilt ‘design intuition’. i.e. Apparently God built an automatic objection into you to see things as designed! That we have such an inclination does not say where it comes from. I think there's other plausible explanations. It is not that you do not hear God objecting to your refusal to acknowledge design, it is that you refuse to listen to Him in the first place. You know, I'm not that interested in or capable of debating theology. I have heard a lot about NDE's but I don't think the science is clear yet. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, I don't see us finding much common ground on these topics. JVL

JVL thinks he is being cute and states that:

So far I have yet to hear any objections from God but I will let you know if I do.

Yet as pointed out in post 17, your own 'knee jerk' reaction to see things as designed is in fact evidence that you have an inbuilt 'design intuition'. i.e. Apparently God built an automatic objection into you to see things as designed! It is not that you do not hear God objecting to your refusal to acknowledge design, it is that you refuse to listen to Him in the first place. And might I suggest that when you die, your denial will become much more explicit when you have to face your Creator face to face? Around the 20 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, thought, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:

Near Death Experience Documentary – commonalities of the experience – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uDA4RgHolw Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

i.e, JVL, you can lie to yourself, and to us, but you cannot lie to God! bornagain77

jdk, so you hold consciousness and free will to be real? You do realize that atheistic materialism directly contradicts that belief?

Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers - 2016 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw Determinism vs Free Will https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI

It is not a matter that someday materialistic answers will be forthcoming for 'the hard problem' of consciousness and for free will, it is that the premises of atheistic materialism itself directly contradict your belief that your mind and free will are real. Moreover, on top of that direct contradiction of your beliefs in the reality of your mind and free will to the presuppositions inherent within atheistic materialism, I can provide scientific evidence that consciousness and free will will NEVER be reducible to materialistic explanations:

Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

In regards to free will in particular, Steven Weinberg states in the following article, "(in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,"

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

And as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

Thus jdk, if you believe our best scientific description of reality to be true, i.e. quantum mechanics, then you must reject atheistic materialism.

"If you go back and look at the premises which underlie materialism, They are all presumptions that were made back in the 17th and 18th century. Those (presumptions) are: reality, locality, causality, continuity, and determinism. All of those concepts were assumed to be self evident. And all of them have been disproved by quantum theory. The last one to fall was locality. (John Bell's theory of non-locality disproved locality, which has now been proven I think 11 times in 11 different experiments throughout the world.),,, Anyone who says, "Well, I want to believe materialism and I don't want to believe quantum physics." Okay then, get rid of your cell phone, along with anything you have with a transistor in it. Get rid of your MRIs, get rid of all those things. Because quantum electro-dynamics is the theory which allows those things. It is the most proven theory in all of science." Dr. Alan Hugenot - Hugenot holds a doctorate of science in mechanical engineering, and has had a successful career in marine engineering, serving on committees that write the ship-building standards for the United States. He studied physics and mechanical engineering at the Oregon Institute of Technology. quote taken from 16:35 minute mark of interview http://www.skeptiko.com/276-alan-hugenot-nde-research/

bornagain77

jvl @52

O: Suppose, arguendo, we find a 500 million years old spaceship in the Cambrian layers. … remnants of a motor, computers and so forth. However, not a single trace of the designers … Okay, given this scenario, this is where you, jvl, conclude “no design”?

jvl: I would also expect to find hair or skin cells or some such; …There would be traces.

Unfortunately not. In my example, there is not one single direct trace of the designer(s) — other than the designed object. But, from what you say, I can deduce that you would infer design anyway. Right? So, not a single trace of the designer(s), but you, jvl, still infer intelligent design. Your objection is this:

jvl: But, basically, you’re talking about an non-organic object with no antecedents on earth. That’s a completely different thing from lifeforms found on earth.

Spaceships and watches do not self-replicate and that makes all the difference. Or does it not?

Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself — the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use. [William Paley, ‘Natural Theology’, 1802]

Origenes

bornagain77 And as I said earlier JVL, you can lie to yourself, and to us, but you cannot lie to God! So far I have yet to hear any objections from God but I will let you know if I do. Origenes Suppose, arguendo, we find a 500 million years old spaceship in the Cambrian layers. Carbon dating unequivocally validates it age. In the spaceship, we find clear remnants of a motor, computers and so forth. However, not a single trace of the designers, which is, as we all know, a huge issue for you. Okay, given this scenario, this is where you, jvl, conclude “no design”? Well, now you're talking about inanimate objects. You realise, of course, that you can't carbon date objects that old? And I doubt an alien spacecraft would be made out of organic material from earth! Aside from that caveat, I'll take it as a given that it can be shown that there are layers of deposits above the object which allows us to pinpoint its arrival. But inanimate objects cannot arrange themselves into circuit boards and computer chips. There would also be screws and rivets and bolts and such which would show signs of manufacturing. The controls would show sighs of use which would be signs of the users and designers. I would also expect to find hair or skin cells or some such; it would have been a long journey and there would be something. There would be traces. But, basically, you're talking about an non-organic object with no antecedents on earth. That's a completely different thing from lifeforms found on earth. tribune7 That’s very fair, but do you believe design has quantifiable characteristics? IOW, is it possible to develop a test to ascertain that something has occurred via designed? I have no idea. I have yet to see such a test demonstrated or shown to be useable. JVL

JVL i was just saying I didn’t find the arguments (for ID) compelling. That's very fair, but do you believe design has quantifiable characteristics? IOW, is it possible to develop a test to ascertain that something has occurred via designed? tribune7

ba77 writes, "So are you saying that Darwinian materialists now believe in the reality of consciousness and free will?" I am not a "Darwinian materialist", and can't be considered to speak for that position, either as such people understand themselves or as you purport to understand them. However, I am absolutely sure that consciousness is real, because I experience my own, although I am agnostic as to its ultimate nature. I am very interested in, and pay a lot of attention to, the way I make choices, which I can see from the inside, so to speak, in a way that I can't see in anyone else. I think the issue of will and choice is much more complex than the simplistic arguments about free will that go on here at UD. jdk

Hmmm, interesting

a principled position based on reason and evidence that one had consciously adopted as a personal choice,

So are you saying that Darwinian materialists now believe in the reality of consciousness and free will? But wouldn't that undermine your whole claim? But then again, does not denying them, as materialists usually do, also undermine your claim that you are being rational in the first place?,,, Choose your poison please,, Besides consciousness and free will, I have a few other illusions of materialism for you to iron out:

Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist's worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

Verse:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

Re 46, Truth writes "rejected by theists". That's true: theists reject views which are not theistic. That doesn't mean that objections against those views are wrong. Regarding "bias": true, we are all biased, theists just as much as non-theists. "Bias" can mean a whole spectrum of things, from a dogmatic, ideological attachment to a belief that one can in no way consider opening to any investigation to a principled position based on reason and evidence that one had consciously adopted as a personal choice, and everything in between. So calling people biased really doesn't further the conversation: various people are committed to defending their point of view, but the key thing is to what extent they can identify their assumptions, offer their evidence, and explain their rational arguments to defend their position. jdk

Seversky @ 45: I appreciate your points, but surely you know that they have all been considered and rejected by theists from all walks of life, including philosophers, astronomers, biologists, and mathematicians. Why do you continue to make the same objections over and over again? Also, I think BA77 @ 46 is accurate in saying that you are "not one to be arguing that others are biased." You are as biased as the rest of us. Truth Will Set You Free

Seversky, let me assure you that you are certainly not one to be arguing that others are biased. Moreover, as I already listed in post 17, the scientific evidence itself clearly indicates that atheists are the ones suppressing their 'design intuition'. It is not me you have a beef with. It is your own 'knee jerk' reaction to see things as designed bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 17

And I hold that anyone who ‘disputes’ that the brain was designed is lying to themselves and everyone else. Moreover, there is evidence to prove this point: Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference!

You can hold whatever belief you like but what does it show, other than that you hold that belief? Since the human brain is not something we are capable of designing - not yet, at least - then we cannot infer it was designed because it is similar to things we design. All that leaves is that you cannot imagine how such a mind-bogglingly complex organ like the brain could have come about through natural processes. Neither can I. But that is simply the informal fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity. The problem with arguing that the complexity of the brain implies design because natural processes could not account for it is that it leads to a slippery slope. If the brain was designed then whoever or whatever designed it must be more complex than it. But if complexity automatically implies design then there is an even stronger argument for the designer being itself designed. And so on in an infinite regress of increasingly complex designers. The only ways out are to assume a primordial designer that is either eternal or came about through natural processes. But if you assume a designer that came about through natural processes why not allow that the brain could have come about through natural processes? Seversky

,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.

Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (a qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344

Now, saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence. And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe it sounds very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience to me. Moreover, Richard Feynman, in his role in developing Quantum-Electrodynamics, which is a mathematical theory in which special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified,

Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html

,, Richard Feynman was only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics in quantum electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” by a technique called Renormalization

THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.” http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity

In the following video, Richard Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.” in Quantum-Electrodynamics:

“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

“Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ‘The Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic. So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions. All in all this is VERY comforting to Christian concerns. Think about it,,, we have the quantum wave state of a photon collapsing to our conscious observation in which its polarity was, hypothetically, dictated 9 billion years ago. ,,, We find the quantum wave state is mathematically defined as being in a infinite dimensional state. ,,, And we find that it takes an infinite amount of information to describe the infinite dimensional quantum wave state accurately.,,, Moreover, we find that when special relativity and quantum mechanics were combined that it still took an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one 'stinky piece' of space-time is going to do. God's fingerprints are literally all over the place. Here are several more lines of evidence establishing the fact that the Mind of God upholds reality in its continual existence:

Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE

bornagain77

As to the primary issue that Barry raised. Which, basically, is the question of whether it is possible to infer that conscious intelligence preexisted the existence of human conscious intelligence. I hold that it is. In this following video in which I highlighted the primacy of Mind in quantum mechanics, particularly the primacy of the mental attributes of the 'experience of the now' and of 'free will' within quantum mechanics,,,

Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

In that video, among all the studies I cited, I also listed these papers:

You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time - Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/ Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement – July 30, 2012 Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,, http://phys.org/news/2012-07-qubits-interact-past-future-entanglement.html Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

As to this quote in particular "Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old." Now I certainly don't think my conscious observation collapsed the quantum wave state of the photon and dictated the resulting polarity of photons 9 billion years ago, but I certainly think God, in his omniscience, can dictate the polarity of every photon that has ever existed. To further back up that claim, a photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state,,,

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics

bornagain77

JVL,

That is a bit of an assumption on your part and I’m pretty sure I did not assert anything of the kind.

It’s no assumption at all, you just have your own little version of the game. In your own little version, when we present cold hard evidence of design in the biological object itself, suddenly we can’t consider the actual object we are trying to explain. Instead, we have to have a completely independent sighting of a designer, available at the time of design. Of course, this is all demonstrated as defensive BS, because the very first moment you want to present a counter-argument to ID observations and say something about a Non-Design explanation of biology -- suddenly – any evidence whatsoever gathered from the actual object itself is back in play – its’s ever so powerful and extremely compelling. It’s all a game for you JVL. It’s called confirmation bias, and you are a player. There’s nothing new under the sun. You haven’t fooled anyone.

I think that when we consider issues as important and the origins of species and such we absolutely cannot be satisfied by pat and simple answers. The best explanations should be extensive and rest upon many independent threads.

In the 1860’s the gifted son of one of Harvard’s founding fathers (mathematics), began writing about and documenting our capacity to perceive the world around us. He wanted to know how is it that we can “signify” something among alternatives. His name was Charles Sanders Peirce and he became recognized as one of America’s greatest logicians. His model demonstrated that the capacity to signify something comes specifically through a representation (both internal and external), and critically, that every representation has to have an “interpretant” – i.e. representations and interpretations were materially and logically coextensive (one could not physically exist without the other). Many years later, in the mid 1930’s, Alan Matheson Turing began envisioning a new type of machine that would eventually revolutionize virtually the entire existence of intelligent life on this planet. His new machine would be capable of completing any computable problem, as long as it could be encoded in a series of symbolic representations. In developing his machine’s potential, Turing gave his device Charles Sanders Peirce’s interpretant in the form of a set of “state transformations” which told the machine how it was to interpret each of the symbolic representations it would be reading. A few years later still, in 1948, a contemporary of Turing’s, the Hungarian-American Polymath Jon Von Neumann, took this new “Turing Machine” (with its necessary system of representation and interpretation) and re-envisioned it not as a universal computer, but as a universal constructor, and he eventually outlined what would be physically necessary at the core of any self-replicating automata – like for instance, a living cell. Oddly enough, all of these lines of thinking would come together yet again very nicely in 1953 as Francis Crick and James Watson documented how DNA was indeed the mysterious carrier of genetic information. Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner would comment that “you would certainly say that Watson and Crick depended on von Neumann, because von Neumann essentially tells you how it’s done.” And in moving from prediction to experimental documentation, Crick then produced the famous “adapter hypothesis” (which upon confirmation and discovery by Hoagland and Zamecnik) effectively solidified von Neumann’s early predictions (by way of Turing’s state transformations and Peirce’s interpretant) inside the living cell – just as it logically had to be. And to cap it all off, as the Nobel prizes were being handed out, physicists such as Howard Pattee began fully documenting the system through the language of physics, as opposed to the language of theory. Over the good course of time, the unique physical conditions that enable the gene system to actually function as the source of biological variation (i.e. that which enables Darwinian evolution itself to exist) were fully documented, both convincingly and extensively within in the scientific literature. In total, the logician’s complementary roles of representation and interpretation were in fact reflected in the biologists predictions of necessary molecules, and then documented yet again in the physicist’s requirement of complementary physical descriptions as well. And eventually, it became clear that the only other place such a unique system could be found anywhere else in the cosmos was in – astonishingly -- written human language and mathematics; two completely unambiguous correlates of intelligence. But hey, if you can’t see for yourself the designer’s hair color and hat size, you can surely ignore all this. Right? Right. It’s a game JVL, and you’re just another player. There’s nothing new under the sun. Upright BiPed

Simple question for jvl:

jvl: I, for one, would be more inclined to consider design if there was some evidence, aside from the disputed design, that there were designers around at the specified time. I just don’t see that evidence. ... In my opinion, without any independent evidence (that is, aside from what is claimed to be designed) that there was a designer about at the time then I have to come down on the side of undesigned. But that’s based on the evidence I’ve seen.

How does that work? Suppose, arguendo, we find a 500 million years old spaceship in the Cambrian layers. Carbon dating unequivocally validates it age. In the spaceship, we find clear remnants of a motor, computers and so forth. However, not a single trace of the designers, which is, as we all know, a huge issue for you. Okay, given this scenario, this is where you, jvl, conclude "no design"? Origenes

For crying out loud,,, JVL states: "But your references are NOT to academic sources! I’m sorry but interpretive reports are not the same thing." The references are listed, and no I will not list the studies for you again. I've already done your work for you once. Moreover, I don't need a study to tell me that you are lying to yourself. I know for a fact, after seeing the evidence for myself, that you are either lying to yourself about the brain being 'undesigned' or else that you have completely 'lost your mind'. Since I hold insanity to be the worse option out of the two, I opt for the fact that you are lying to yourself. My apologies to any mentally ill people reading this. To re-list the paper under consideration:

The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186

And as I said earlier JVL, you can lie to yourself, and to us, but you cannot lie to God! bornagain77

bornagain77 JVL, you answered, after much unnecessary wording, that you don’t personally believe the brain is designed. To which I refer you to the studies I provided in post 17 that proves you are lying to yourself. i.e. It is now shown that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference! You seem to feel that disagreeing with you is akin to being . . . . more than wrong. I don't understand. Surely I can disagree with you without being deluded. Yes? Since you claimed you were trying to scientific JVL, I will just have to accept the result of those studies that say you are lying to yourself. You know, we are only trying to be as rigorous as we can! ???? To disprove me, you will have to cite empirical evidence, i.e. ‘scientific’ evidence, to the contrary. Good luck with that. But your references are NOT to academic sources! I'm sorry but interpretive reports are not the same thing. I could spend a lot of time trying to track down things that argued against yur point of view but . . . Barry has pointed out that we should address the original post, which is fair. I am not trying to uphold any thing. I am saying that I, personally, do not find the evidence for design convincing. And, because I also do not find any other evidence of a designer present at the pertinent time then I do not accept the the design paradigm. No design that I can see. No designer that I can see. That's just my opinion. And, it's really late here so I'm going to go to bed. Sorry. Chat more later. JVL

JVL, you answered, after much unnecessary wording, that you don't personally believe the brain is designed. To which I refer you to the studies I provided in post 17 that proves you are lying to yourself. i.e. It is now shown that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference!

Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012 Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.” The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.” Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard. “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers. The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.” http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712

Since you claimed you were trying to be scientific JVL, I will just have to accept the result of those studies that say you are lying to yourself when you tell yourself the brain is 'undesigned'. You know, we are only trying to be as scientifically rigorous as we can! :) To disprove me, you will have to cite empirical evidence, i.e. 'scientific' evidence, to the contrary that proves that Christians are lying about believing God designed the brain., or that atheists are not suppressing their very own innate 'design intuition'. Good luck with that. Moreover, I can provide much more scientific evidence that further proves unguided Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to explain such an overwhelming 'appearance of design' (Dawkins; Crick). For example:

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

bornagain77

Barry Arrington Do materialists such as [JVL] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand? Well, I personally don't think Dr Loeb is on a fool's errand. I think it's very possible that we will not find evidence of another intelligent life form for centuries, it ever. But I'm happy to pay for the effort to look. And to speculate. That's part of science. JVL

Upright Biped He already knows this. And so does his sidekick JVL. These are low-brow objections that have been blown out years ago. They resurface from time to time. They resurface because people like AK and JVL want to cling to the idea that there is a simple one-punch knock out of ID. It’s a silly game; a distraction for fools and wishful thinkers, not serious thinkers. That is a bit of an assumption on your part and I'm pretty sure I did not assert anything of the kind. I think that when we consider issues as important and the origins of species and such we absolutely cannot be satisfied by pat and simple answers. The best explanations should be extensive and rest upon many independent threads. JVL

Barry Do materialists such as [JVL] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand? Gosh, I'm not sure . . . I joined the thread based on some other issue. I can't quite discerned what Dr Loeb asserts from the original post. I'll try and source it all aout and reply. JVL

bornagain77 he references, as I told you, are provided on the paper. That's a lot of references elucidating how complicated and amazing the brain is. That doesn't make it designed. I know you think it is designed but just pointing out it's complicated doesn't make it so. Please answer one question. Tell me whether God or unguided Darwinian processes are the best explanation for the human brain. It is a binary choice. God or unguided Darwinian processes. Well, this is just my personal choice you understand? I just want to make that clear. . . . In my opinion, without any independent evidence (that is, aside from what is claimed to be designed) that there was a designer about at the time then I have to come down on the side of undesigned. But that's based on the evidence I've seen. I don't think the design inference has been shown. And I don't seen any other evidence for any designers around at the time. JVL

Has AK returned yet to tell us that despite the fact that a methodology for inferring an act of unknown intelligence has already been formulated and supported by SETI, NASA, AAAS, the British Royal Society, and virtually every university science department around the world, he is here to inform them that they are all completely wrong because a narrow-band radio transmitter is decidedly a human invention, and thus, the measured presence of such a device is completely disallowed as a means to infer an act of intelligence from across the vastness of space. Of course he hasn't, because its a ridiculous idea. He already knows this. And so does his sidekick JVL. These are low-brow objections that have been blown out years ago. They resurface from time to time. They resurface because people like AK and JVL want to cling to the idea that there is a simple one-punch knock out of ID. It's a silly game; a distraction for fools and wishful thinkers, not serious thinkers. Upright BiPed

JVL, I notice that you studiously avoided the question in the OP. Here, let me put it in front of you again:

Do materialists such as [JVL] believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand?

Barry Arrington

The references, as I told you, are provided on the paper.

Moore, E. A. Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth. CNET. Posted on cnet.com November 17, 2010, accessed July 7, 2017. Osborne, H. Brain Architecture: Scientists Discover 11 Dimensional Structures That Could Help Us Understand How the Brain Works. Newsweek. Posted on newseek.com June 12, 2017. Cherniak, C. 1994. Component Placement Optimization in the Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience. 14 (4): 2418-2427. The “save wire” principle involves the minimization of connections between a system’s interconnected parts in order to reduce costs. Micheva, K. D. et al. 2010. Single-Synapse Analysis of a Diverse Synapse Population: Proteomic Imaging Methods and Markers. Neuron. 68 (4): 639-653. Moore, J. J. et al. 2017. Dynamics of cortical dendritic membrane potential and spikes in freely behaving rats. Science. 355 (6331): eaaj1497. Gordon, D. Brain is 10 times more active than previously measured, UCLA researchers find. UCLA news release. Posted on newsroom.ucla.edu March 9, 2017. Bartol, T. M. et al. 2015. Nanoconnectomic upper bound on the variability of synaptic plasticity. eLife. 4: e10778. Memory Capacity of Brain Is 10 Times More Than Previously Thought. Salk News. Posted on salk.edu January 20, 2016. Herculano-Houzel, S. 2011. Scaling of Brain Metabolism with a Fixed Energy Budget per Neuron: Implications for Neuronal Activity, Plasticity and Evolution. PLOS One. 6 (3): e17514. Hsu, J. How Much Power Does The Human Brain Require To Operate? Popular Science. Posted on popsci.com November 6, 2009. Reimann, M. W. et al. 2017. Cliques of Neurons Bound into Cavities Provide a Missing Link between Structure and Function. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 11 (48). Osborne, Brain Architecture: Scientists Discover 11 Dimensional Structures. Rahnama, M. et al. 2010. Emission of Mitochondrial Biophotons and their Effect on Electrical Activity of Membrane via Microtubules. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience. 10 (1): 65-88. The Puzzling Role of Biophotons in the Brain. MIT Technology Review. Posted on technologyreview.com December 17, 2010.

Please answer one question. Tell me whether you believe God or unguided Darwinian processes are the best explanation for the human brain. It is a binary choice. God or unguided Darwinian processes. A one or a three word answer. bornagain77

ET Good for you. Where is it? It isn’t in peer-review. It isn’t in “Evolution” 3rd edition. I'm happy to discuss it as long as it doesn't stray too far from the topic presented in the original post. I know threads can get derailed and I don't want to do that. JVL

JVL:

And I think there is evidence for the unguided-evolutionary view.

Good for you. Where is it? It isn't in peer-review. It isn't in "Evolution" 3rd edition. ET

bornagain77 “I don’t have an agenda.” Yeah right. I'm sorry you haven't felt that I am actually just trying to have an honest conversation. Perhaps it's my fault. Whatever, it all seems to have gone 'pear-shaped' as we say in the UK so it's probably best if I just bow out. JVL

bornagain77 Whatever JVL, the points he raised are all from peer review literature which you can look up from the references he provides. Perhaps. If you can find those references then you will help your argument. Moreover, you just proved my point. The point is that you have a bias against God, and you would rather disparage a ‘creation site’, and thus suppress your own ‘design intuition’, than to ever honestly admit that the brain is ” a five alarm fire, all sirens going, screaming in your face, ‘beyond dispute’ DESIGNED!” Hang on. I've merely said I don't find the design inference arguments compelling and now you're accusing me of having an anti-God bias. How does that follow? Such ‘beyond dispute’ design exceeds your bias against God by many orders of magnitude. What? In fact, the more you dispute such ‘beyond dispute’ deign, the more your bias against God is exposed. I really don't follow. In your resolute denying of what is so clearly designed, I hold that you have in effect ‘lost your mind’: Well, I guess we're well beyond science now. Perhaps I should just bow out of the conversation since I seem to be causing a lot of consternation instead of encouraging conversation. JVL

"I don’t have an agenda." Yeah right. Your bias literally oozes out of every word you write. bornagain77

ET Until you gather some evidence for that claim it is meaningless. And we have plenty of evidence for ID from different scientific venues. You can poo-poo that all you want you are just exposing your agenda I wasn't poo-pooing anything, i was just saying I didn't find the arguments compelling. And, I want to be clear, I really have spent a lot of time considering the ID proponents arguments. I'm not just an 'a/mat' reactionary here to argue. I don't have an agenda. That is just an assumption on your part. JVL

ET Intelligent Design has a scientific methodology for inferring design. No other position has anything that comes close. So we can dismiss JVL because what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I didn't say 'without evidence'. I said I disagree with the evidence and arguments I have seen for design. And I think there is evidence for the unguided-evolutionary view. And yes, it is all just whining as it is all evidence free. You don’t even have a methodology to make any assessment with. If you want to discuss those issues then that's fine. JVL

Whatever JVL, the points he raised are all from peer review literature which you can look up from the references he provides. Moreover, you just proved my point. The point is that you have a bias against God, and you would rather disparage a 'creation site', and thus suppress your own 'design intuition', than to ever honestly admit that the brain is " a five alarm fire, all sirens going, screaming in your face, ‘beyond dispute’ DESIGNED!" Such 'beyond dispute' design exceeds your bias against God by many orders of magnitude. In fact, the more you dispute such 'beyond dispute' deign, the more your bias against God is exposed. In your resolute denying of what is so clearly designed, I hold that you have effectively 'lost your mind':

In a 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote: It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/

bornagain77

JVL:

Again, I disagree and think there are other non-design explanations for all those things.

Until you gather some evidence for that claim it is meaningless. And we have plenty of evidence for ID from different scientific venues. You can poo-poo that all you want you are just exposing your agenda ET

Intelligent Design has a scientific methodology for inferring design. No other position has anything that comes close. So we can dismiss JVL because what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And yes, it is all just whining as it is all evidence free. You don't even have a methodology to make any assessment with. ET

bournagain77 Hmmm, it seems the argument all hinges on ‘when design is disputed’. Well, I hold that the human brain by itself is ‘beyond dispute’ designed. It is not a, “if I squint my eyes just right it perhaps, maybe, looks designed’. It is a five alarm fire, all sirens going, screaming in your face, ‘beyond dispute’ DESIGNED! Well, again, I think it's possible to disagree with you on that. I do note that the first quote you give is from the Institute for Creation Research. Which sounds like a religious and not peer reviewed source. JVL

Hmm, my comment didn't post: UD Editors: That's right. Attempts to hijack the thread will be deleted. Nonlin.org

ET That all depends on what the dispute is. Whining doesn’t count. You have to actually step up and demonstrate nature is up to the task. But you don’t even know where to start. So whining is not a dispute and that is all you have I think there is more than whining. And yet you don’t have anything to account for what we say is designed. hence all you are doing is whining. I don't think the arguments presented regarding the failure of design detection are just whining. If you really want to delve into particular issues then I might be able to address your concerns. Perhaps it would be gentlemanly just to agree to disagree then? JVL

Hmmm, it seems the argument all hinges on the claim of 'when design is disputed'. Well, I hold that the human brain by itself is 'beyond dispute' designed. It is not a, "if I squint my eyes just right it perhaps, maybe, looks designed'. It is a five alarm fire, all sirens going, screaming in your face, 'beyond dispute' DESIGNED!

The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief' by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186

And I hold that anyone who 'disputes' that the brain was designed is lying to themselves and everyone else. Moreover, there is evidence to prove this point: Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference!

Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712

Here are a few quotes from atheists that further drive this point home:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1 "living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978)

Thus, the default assumption, according to leading atheists themselves, is that life 'appears to be designed'. i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. And have to constantly 'work' to suppress their natural design intuition. I hold the preceding studies and quotes to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20

Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

In others words, atheists can lie to themselves and to us, but they cannot lie to God! bornagain77

ET VL, buy a vowel. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And it does NOT matter how big or small of a sample we have. I'm just saying the design inference is disputed and that I, personally, don't feel the case has been made. And that fact remains tat your position has all of the power to refute the design inference but have failed miserably. I'm just saying I don't think the design inference has been established. In my opinion. There is evidence from biology. There is evidence from physics. there is evidence from chemistry. there is evidence from cosmology. And all you and yours have to “explain” that evidence is numerous just-so accidents. Again, I disagree and think there are other non-design explanations for all those things. And, getting back to the point, IF design is not established and there is no other evidence of a designer then . . . . JVL

When design is disputed then there there no other evidence for the ID paradigm.

That all depends on what the dispute is. Whining doesn't count. You have to actually step up and demonstrate nature is up to the task. But you don't even know where to start. So whining is not a dispute and that is all you have

I, personally, do not find the arguments for design detection compelling.

And yet you don't have anything to account for what we say is designed. hence all you are doing is whining. ET

JVL, buy a vowel. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And it does NOT matter how big or small of a sample we have. And that fact remains tat your position has all of the power to refute the design inference but have failed miserably. There is evidence from biology. There is evidence from physics. there is evidence from chemistry. there is evidence from cosmology. And all you and yours have to "explain" that evidence is numerous just-so accidents. ET

asauber That’s a personal problem, then. I think it's a disagreement about evidence. There are designs all over the place in nature. I guess you don’t find nature compelling. I think there are other explanations for that which appears to you to be designed. You just have a particular philosophical commitment driving your school bus. That is just an assumption on your part. Your kids are being let off at the incorrect stop. Again, that is just an assumption on your part. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong or immoral. JVL

I, personally, do not find the arguments for design detection compelling.

That's a personal problem, then. There are designs all over the place in nature. I guess you don't find nature compelling. You just have a particular philosophical commitment driving your school bus. Your kids are being let off at the incorrect stop. Andrew asauber

asauber I take your somewhat evasive answer to mean that you agree that there is no scientific reason to exclude designs from what is considered evidence. I didn't actually try to weigh in on that. I'm talking about the evidence for design and for designers. I’m not saying you don’t have a point. You do. I agree that the more evidence the better when considering a particular inquiry. :-) But you can’t just exclude design a priori. The question of whether something is designed or not is legit. I shall reiterate: When design is disputed then there there no other evidence for the ID paradigm. I, personally, would accept the design hypothesis if I thought you'd established it. I, personally, do not find the arguments for design detection compelling. If I don't agree that design has occurred AND there is no further evidence that a designer was present at the pertinent time then I'm left with no choice but to reject the design hypothesis. If you only had more evidence . . . . JVL

JVL, I take your somewhat evasive answer to mean that you agree that there is no scientific reason to exclude designs from what is considered evidence. I'm not saying you don't have a point. You do. I agree that the more evidence the better when considering a particular inquiry. But you can't just exclude design a priori. The question of whether something is designed or not is legit. Andrew asauber

asauber You conclusion isn’t logical. Your “lack of evidence” is simply an exclusion of designs as evidence. Is there a scientific reason designs must be excluded as evidence of designers? Or is it a preemptive philosophical choice so you can avoid a conclusion you don’t like? What I am saying is when design is disputed then ID proponents have no other evidence to draw upon. I, for one, would be more inclined to consider design if there was some evidence, aside from the disputed design, that there were designers around at the specified time. I just don't see that evidence. So, if I don't think design has been detected then I've got nothing else to work with. JVL

If we disagree that design was implemented at some time in the distant past and there is no other evidence of designers around at the time then the logical conclusion is: there was no design.

JVL, Your conclusion isn't logical. Your "lack of evidence" is simply an exclusion of designs as evidence. Is there a scientific reason designs must be excluded as evidence of designers? Or is it a preemptive philosophical choice so you can avoid a conclusion you don't like? Andrew asauber

ET So if there wasn’t any humans around ten mother nature magically gets the power to do things it otherwise could not do, ever? Really? Our opponents are desperate fools. The point is that when ID proponents claim that the one known source of design is intelligence what they are really saying is: the one known source of design is human intelligence. If we have no evidence of design producing beings aside from humans and there were no humans around at the time design was implemented then . . . . If we disagree that design was implemented at some time in the distant past and there is no other evidence of designers around at the time then the logical conclusion is: there was no design. I know I'm going to get a ton of comments supporting design but, again, if the design inference is wrong or there were no designers around at the time . . . JVL

Intelligence is the result of universal fundamental laws; at least that is what I expect Allan’s position to be. “Universal” as in ‘the same everywhere in the universe.’ If that’s the case, why should one hold the position that intelligence is restricted to us earthlings? Given the universality of physical laws, to which science subscribes, there is no reason to assume that intelligence, which according to the materialist results from physical law, is restricted to a tiny place in the universe by some insignificant species. Origenes

The thrust of the argument is that since humans are the only known intelligent species, design inferences are valid only if they infer specifically to human intelligence. That's like a playground rule a child makes when he has been beaten at the rules he first made. tribune7

Reference further Dawkin's "designoids", and the field of bionics. The evolution/ID argument could be reframed as Intelligent Design (ID) vs Non-intelligent Design (ND); with NDists effectively putting their designer in hiding inside a feedback loop they claim is necessarily emergent from the operation cycle of self replicating fully autonomous machinery; and stretching the action of this designer over a billion years. A very beneficial cousin of the gremlin; though equally as hard to find. We know it's there, though; the alternative in inconceivable. LocalMinimum

So if I understand OHIA correctly, there is no intelligence anywhere in the big Multi/Uni-verse(seses), but some isolated entities on earth got it somehow? I'd love to hear the scientific explanation for this. Andrew asauber

So if there wasn't any humans around ten mother nature magically gets the power to do things it otherwise could not do, ever? Really? Our opponents are desperate fools. ET

as to:

"humans are the only known intelligent species, design inferences are valid only if they infer specifically to human intelligence."

If anything, "We need to reject conscious human performance as a model for organic activity in general, not because it reads too much wisdom and effective striving into the organism, but rather because it reads far too little.,,,"

Evolution and the Purposes of Life – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2017 Excerpt: The idea of teleological (end-directed) behavior within a world of meaning is rather uncomfortable for scientists committed — as contemporary biologists overwhelmingly are — to what they call “materialism” or “naturalism.” The discomfort has to do with the apparent inward aspect of the goal-directed behavior described above — behavior that depends upon the apprehension of a meaningful world and that is easily associated with our own conscious and apparently immaterial perceptions, reasonings, and motivations to act. But,,, the issues extend beyond our own sort of conscious, intentional behavior. All biological activity, even at the molecular level, can be characterized as purposive and goal-directed. As a cell grows and divides, it marshals its molecular and structural resources with a remarkably skillful “wisdom.” It also demonstrates a well-directed, “willful” persistence in adjusting to disturbances. Everything leads toward fulfillment of the organism’s evident “purposes.”,,, The second source of confusion about teleology and inwardness lies in the failure to realize how weak and lamed our conscious human purposiveness and intelligence are in relation to biological activity. We struggle even to follow with our abstract understanding the unsurveyably complex goings-on in our own organs and cells,,, We need to reject conscious human performance as a model for organic activity in general, not because it reads too much wisdom and effective striving into the organism, but rather because it reads far too little.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-purposes-of-life

Funny that I have no problem whatsoever inferring to an "Intelligence" far greater than human intelligence, i.e. God, so as to explain the overwhelming "appearance of design' in life (Dawkins; Crick), but that materialists are, in a very over the top fashion, thwarted once again in their effort to come up with anything resembling a reasonable explanation for the "unsuveyable complexity" that is being found in life. As Berlinski notes:

“…applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work.” https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/01/david-berlinski-michael-denton-pt-2-darwinian-stalemate/

bornagain77