OHIA: Only Human Intelligence Allowed?

_{Barry Arrington

April 5, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have a question for our materialist friends.

Often in these pages we meet an argument like the one Allan Keith makes in this post. 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. This argument would preclude inference to a non-human “intelligent agent.” The obvious purpose of the argument is to derail biological ID, because any indicia of design in living things could not have been the result of human intelligence. Therefore, all biological design inferences are invalid.

David Klinghoffer over at ENV brings this post on NPR’s website to our attention: In the article, astrophysicist Adam Frank (University of Rochester) asks fellow astrophysicist Avi Loeb (Harvard) about the future possibility of detecting “techno-signatures” from space. That is, evidence of past or currently existing alien civilizations in the cosmos: “[W]hen it comes to techno-signatures, as our technologies get better we might suddenly find lots of signals from the activity of technological civilizations.”

Now to my question. Do materialists such as Allan Keith believe Loeb is on a fool’s errand? After all, the whole point of Loeb’s project is to find signals from space that would lead to a non-human design inference, which, according to Keith’s logic, is not an inference that can be validly made.

What do you say Allan? Any other materialist is also welcome to jump in here.

Comments

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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 mimicET_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

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-655046bornagain77_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

@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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply