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

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

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_{April 7, 2018
April
04
Apr
7
07
2018
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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 waterET_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

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. Andrewasauber_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Does anyone think that we have found every civilization that has ever existed on Earth? Anyone?ET_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

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. Andrewasauber_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

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_{April 6, 2018
April
04
Apr
6
06
2018
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply