OHIA: Only Human Intelligence Allowed?

_{Barry Arrington

April 5, 2018

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

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 Which sounds like a religious and not peer reviewed source.JVL_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Hmm, my comment didn't post: UD Editors: That's right. Attempts to hijack the thread will be deleted.Nonlin.org_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

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. Andrewasauber_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

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. Andrewasauber_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

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? Andrewasauber_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

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. Andrewasauber_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

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_{April 5, 2018
April
04
Apr
5
05
2018
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply