On Gritting Your Teeth and Sticking to a Narrative

_{Barry Arrington

June 26, 2016

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News}

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

An anti-ID commenter who goes by MatSpirit has been active in these pages for well over a year, during which time he has posted scores of comments in the comboxes of dozens of OPs. This particular statement in one of his comments caught my eye:

If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures.

*palm forehead*

It is just staggering to me that someone can spend so much time and effort debating ID and still not have the first idea about the fundamentals of the theory.

I understand what is going on here, of course. Like many of our opponents MatSpirit had a pre-conceived idea of what ID is about before he came to these pages, and nothing — not facts, not logic, not reason –will ever shake that idea. You can explain the fundamentals of ID to a brick wall 1,000 times, and you can explain the fundamentals of ID to someone like MatSpirit 1,000 times, and it will have an identical effect – that is to say, none at all.

You see, MatSpirit has a narrative. And the narrative must be maintained at all costs.

UPDATE

I invite readers to skip down to comment 30. You will see that MatSpirit continues to grit his teeth and stick to his narrative even after it has been pointed out that is what he is doing. It is really quite amazing.

Comments

MatSpirit
They’re all part of modern evolutionary theory, along with Mendelian genetics and dozens of other things Darwin never knew about. I’ve learned about them all from science books, magazines and on line sources. Just what does ID expect from this conference?
For me ID is a scientific inference that is an alternative to evolutionary theory. The ID inference exists because there is not a well established mechanism that can be modeled to explain how evolutionary transitions occur. The third way is a group of scientists that are trying to discover a mechanism. A book that explains some of these alternatives is Evolution a view from the 21st century by James Shapiro. The reason ID as an inference has credibility with me is because of the evidence of design in complex cellular micro machines like the Ribosome, ATP Synthase, the nuclear pore complex, and the spliceosome. Designing the DNA sequences so these machines can be made every time the cell divides is well beyond mans capability. How they arrived is one of the great mysteries of all of science. Try do separate in your mind the political movement of ID from the scientific inference.bill cole_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

es58: Matspirit were the ovens in auschwitz designed? We’re their designers intelligent?
MatSpirit: I’m assuming you have a reason for that post and I’m hoping you tell us what it was. My answer would be, “Yes” to both questions.

So why is malaria evidence that biological life wasn't designed? Or wasn't designed intelligently?Phinehas_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Surely everyone recognizes by now that Matt is a trained parrot, who has no intention whatsoever in engaging any evidence that challenges his belief system. He is incapable of it, as has been clearly demonstrated.Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

WJM points out to MatSpirit, that “most of your ideas about that which you argue against [are] inventions of your own imagination maintained by willful ignorance in the face of continued correction.” I would suggest that “willful ignorance” rather than dispassionate and honest reasoning is the basis of the typical internet atheist’s worldview. Some 2000 years ago the Apostle Paul wrote, 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 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. (Romans 1:18-20) Paul is agreeing here that the problem is not just ignorance but willful ignorance; not just ignorance of the mind but ignorance of the heart and soul brought on by sin and unrighteousness. One of our interlocutors here said recently that some of his fellow atheists feel insulted when we (Christians) describe them as sinners. However, they misunderstand. We are not talking about them; we are talking about us. We are being bluntly honest and saying that this is true of the whole human race, which includes them and ourselves. Are you unwilling to face the truth about yourself? Even though I try not to be, I am a selfish person (a sinner.) Do you think of yourself as a selfish or unselfish person? If you think of yourself as unselfish, are you completely or perfectly unselfish? Is the world better with more selfish people or less? How about people recognizing their own selfishness and trying to be less selfish. Would that make the world a better place? I think it would. I don’t see how anyone could think otherwise.john_a_designer_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @86:
There is? I thought science was a conspiracy of elitist toffs suckling on the government teat while living high off the hog on the taxpayer’s money, pausing occasionally to persecute some poor Christian who dares to question the party line. Wonder where I got that idea?
Probably where you seem to get most of your ideas about that which you argue against: inventions of your own imagination maintained by willful ignorance in the face of continued correction. What difference do you think it makes to ID theory if the designer of life turned out to be evil?William J Murray_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit:
Origenes @ 59: “ID does not concern itself with moral problems.”
You should start.
Which moral problems should be addressed? Note that ID is compatible with every kind of intelligence imaginable and with every intention behind the design imaginable. I would not know where to start. Do you? Moreover, whatever the outcome of these moral investigations, it won't change the fact that design has been inferred. IOWs moral questions are second-order questions. Suppose we come to the conclusion that those alien computers, who designed life on earth, are "evil". It won't change the fact that life on earth is designed. So, what is the import? Allow me to post the Eric Anderson quote one more time, because you seem to have missed it:
ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.
Origenes_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

If no death existed, how in blue blazes could Christ ever defeat death? Maybe I don't read the Bible as KF does. The way I read it, Jesus died, Christ arose. Shouldn't we follow Jesus, die and rise again as Christ, isn't that what St. Poul hints at with his references to "Christ in Me"? That is, a spiritual detah and resurrection, to cast of fetters and stuff that is preventing you from living the life of a "saint", so to speak? There is a huge problem with literalism, and if we study the literature of the time before Constantine put an end to the debate, there was much controversy within the religious population in the region. The Qumran sect, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gnostics that had to be silenced - the history of early Christianity is so many-faceted. I don't think we should overlook the episode with the "Doubting Thomas". It points to something strange with the resurrection: Was the resurrected a real person, or a spirit, a ghost: the Christ of St. Paul's?Cabal_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Bill Cole @ 84: "Were you aware of this? Look like evolutionary skepticism among real live scientists." There is? I thought science was a conspiracy of elitist toffs suckling on the government teat while living high off the hog on the taxpayer's money, pausing occasionally to persecute some poor Christian who dares to question the party line. Wonder where I got that idea? BC: "Have you heard of the third way? Have you ever looked at this theory critically yourself?" Vaguely. I've seen some chatter about it here and a few other references to it. I think Susan Mazur is into it. I've read a couple of her pieces and watched one or two of her interviews and wasn't impressed with them. I just Googled "third way" and found http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ whose front page says,
... neo darwinism invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis...
I've heard of Dennis Noble and I've read a bit of him online. I haven't heard of the others. I'm curious to know why ID would get excited with this. Evolution has absorbed symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, and epigenetic modifications. I'm not sure what "action of mobile DNA" means unless they mean jumping genes. They're all part of modern evolutionary theory, along with Mendelian genetics and dozens of other things Darwin never knew about. I've learned about them all from science books, magazines and on line sources. Just what does ID expect from this conference?MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

es58 @ 83 Matspirit were the ovens in auschwitz designed? We’re their designers intelligent?
I'm assuming you have a reason for that post and I'm hoping you tell us what it was. My answer would be, "Yes" to both questions. My question would be, "Were the intelligent agents who designed them evil?" Additional questions might include, "If the Designers just designed them, knowing what they were to be used for, but didn't operate them themselves, were they evil?" Of course, if the Designer had the powers of the Christian God, including the ability to see the future, that last question would not apply.MatSpirit_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
In plain English, a meeting November 7 – 9 that explores dumping Darwinism in favour of a more-evidence-based approach to evolution From Royal Society: Overview Scientific discussion meeting organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland. Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested. This meeting will present these developments and arguments in a form that will encourage cross-disciplinary discussion and, in particular, involve the humanities and social sciences in order to provide further analytical perspectives and explore the social and philosophical implications.
Were you aware of this? Look like evolutionary skepticism among real live scientists. Have you heard of the third way? Have you ever looked at this theory critically yourself?bill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Matspirit were the ovens in auschwitz designed? We're their designers intelligent?es58_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, a friendly suggestion, as an insult hurling atheistic troll on a ID site, perhaps instead of embarrassing yourself in the subjects of science and theology, two subjects you have clearly shown yourself to be out of your depth in, you should take up Basket Weaving or navel gazing? :) Here, I'll even get you started: Basket Weaving 101 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvO5gQ-LT7w Navel Gazing 101 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vk37E2bcOTc/U2sjkAXjoII/AAAAAAAAK0A/iM8XWUGp2NM/s1600/navel.pngbornagain77_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Boy, you get a night's sleep and do some work and the com box fills to overflowing. Harry @ 57: "True science has the objectivity to consider intelligence as a reality in itself. There may be instances of rational intelligence outside of humanity. (If not, what was the purpose of SETI?)" And who runs SETI? Certainly nobody from ID. Science is perfectly ok with intelligence as a reality in itself. SETI is a scientific program to search for intelligence. ID is a failed religious attempt to get one faction's theology taught in public schools, at taxpayer's expense, as science . It didn't work. MS: "If you want science to consider your Designer as the cause of life four billion years ago, then give us some good reasons to think He exists and was around back then." H: "The identity of the intelligent agent is a separate question. The fact remains that there are no instances of significant functional complexity emerging mindlessly and accidentally." I don't care about any alleged designer's identity. I asked for some good reasons to think He exists and was around back then. ID has failed miserably at this. The fact that ID denies evolution's ability to generate functional complexity is only evidence of ID's vacuity. Tim @ 58: "God, as designer of all life (including plasmodium falciparum), is responsible for all pain suffering and death. Anyone with even a partial understanding of basic logic can tell you that such an “argument”, (technically, I suppose it is not more than an assertion), is laughable." Tim, I don't know where you live, but around here you are legally required to put a fence around your swimming pool to keep children from falling in and drowning. Even though swimming pools are desirable things, you are legally (and morally) required to protect the public from any dangers that might pose. If you, as an intelligent agent, don't build that fence, you'll be in legal trouble. If you don't build that fence and a child drowns in your pool, you'll go to prison. On the other hand, if you are caught releasing anopheles mosquitoes loaded with malaria, they'll hang you as a terrorist. ID says that an intelligent agent designed malaria and mosquitos and released them both. Origenes @ 59: "ID does not concern itself with moral problems." You should start. bornagain77 @ 60: "The ‘argument from evil’, that atheists are so fond of using, is amazing to me because it is as if the atheist who uses it is completely ignorant of Christianity’s primary claim that we live in a fallen world." Statements like this, which are very common on UD, show why ID should just drop the pretense that it's not a religious apologetic. You look like such liars when you don't and statements like this pop out. Honestly, you can be religious and do science at the same time. For gosh sakes, the Pope owns a fine observatory! C'mon. All we're asking you to do is drop a pretense that's failed. You'll feel so much better if you do. WWJD? ba77: "It is as if atheists are, Theologically, presupposing that we should be in heaven already and that any thing that goes against that presupposition of perfection, like say the fact that there is death in the world, is to be considered an argument against God." We would just like you to take Michael Behe seriously and consider the moral status of someone who releases malaria on the world. You know how we'd feel about a human who did this, how do you think we should feel about an intelligent agent who not only released malaria into the world, but invented it? ba77:
Christianity is built on the fact that we live in a fallen world where death exists. If no death existed, how in blue blazes could Christ ever defeat death?
No comment. john-a-designer @ 62: "The point I’d like to make here, as a friendly critic, is that (like a hypothetical fair minded non-theist) I have to begin by sorting out the differences between the tentative scientific theory of ID and the arguments for design from a philosophical/ theological perspective of design. It’s not that difficult! It amazes me that the atheist trolls and drive-bys that show up here are apparently incapable of making that distinction. Is it because they are that stupid or is it because there is something else?" One thing to consider is that ID has been at it for well over a decade and has utterly failed to even start to make a scientific case for ID. We've had politics, poorly concealed theology and lunacy like ba77's comments just above galore, but nothing in the way of science. I think the world is justified in making a decision on ID's prospects of ever developing a scientific theory. bill cole @ 63: MS: "On the other hand, if the Designer is an unintelligent natural process then its like an earthquake or typhoon. There’s literally no one to blame." BC: "While this may be appealing philosophically, it is not what the evidence inside our cells and at the basic core of matter is telling us. The idea that random processes selected for fitness can create functional sequences is almost certainly the worst scientific idea anyone has ever had." Actual scientists, the people who devote years of their lives learning science and actually doing science, disagree. The people who say evolution is the worst idea ever overwhelmingly tend to be lay people who don't know much about what they're condemning. A lot of them, such as Denyse O'Leary, seem to dislike the whole field of science and spend most of their days hunting for scraps of muddled information that will destroy science once and for all and put those arrogant toffs in their place. I don't condemn her for this because she's provided us with so much entertainment.MatSpirit_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 The video is great, thanks :-)bill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

WJM
"Science can tell us the how by a mathematical model and experimentation to validate the model." No, Bill. Mathematical models do not tell us how. They describe and predict. "This is certainly true with both Einsteins and Newtons versions of gravitational theory. Both these theories can be validated using the scientific method." That you have a description (model) which can offer accurate predictions doesn’t mean you have answered how those predictable effects are actually instantiated in phenomena.
-All good points, thanks -Do you agree that there is a difference between a scientific inference and a testable hypothesis?bill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @ 76
JD: I agree with Dr. Egnor up to this point. To repeat, ”There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.” In other words, there is no empirical data to study or analyze. (Actually, I think ID is in a somewhat better position here.)
“Somewhat” is a gross understatement.
JD: Egnor continues, SETI is surely a shot in the dark, perhaps literally, but I do believe that it is a worthwhile scientific venture. Methodologically it is certainly science, even good science. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/sici_the_search_for_intracellu014741.html How so? I don’t see how you can do science with zero empirical data.
I think you are conflating ‘science’ with ‘successful science’. SETI puts up an hypothesis and looks for evidence. So far they have been unsuccessful in finding supportive evidence, but what is unscientific about it?
JD: … Egnor’s opinion strikes me as a non-sequitur.
What is unscientific about SETI’s methodology? That is what Egnor is talking about.
JD: I agree ID at present is in pretty much in the same position as is SETI.
Excusez moi monsieur! Egnor puts it eloquently:
In the past century, we have discovered intracellular structure and artifacts that, had the analogues of this computer code and intricate nanotechnology been discovered in space rather than in the cell, would have led to the obvious inference to intelligent design and would have been considered mankind's seminal scientific discovery.
Origenes_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

In regards to SETI and Agent Causality, (two birds with one stone)
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, - Mark Vernon - 18 June 2011 However, "If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. ...the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity
bornagain77_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 70, Here are a couple of quotes from Michael Egnors SETI article:
One is struck by SETI supporters' speculative extravagance. The most cogent critique of SETI, in my view, is that it is akin to an article of faith. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.
I agree with Dr. Egnor up to this point. To repeat, ”There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.” In other words, there is no empirical data to study or analyze. (Actually, I think ID is in a somewhat better position here.) Egnor continues,
SETI is surely a shot in the dark, perhaps literally, but I do believe that it is a worthwhile scientific venture. Methodologically it is certainly science, even good science.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/sici_the_search_for_intracellu014741.html How so? I don’t see how you can do science with zero empirical data. Angels and unicorns have as much possibility of existing as ET’s but no one (except maybe a few kooks) is suggesting that we can study them scientifically. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love it if we discovered extraterrestrial intelligent life. However, Egnor’s opinion strikes me as a non-sequitur. I agree ID at present is in pretty much in the same position as is SETI. However, to be considered a science it first must make a key discovery. In my opinion, neither SETI nor ID has so far crossed that threshold. I do think ID as a pre-scientific paradigm can possibly (indeed already has) raise(d) some interesting questions. And I also think ID has the potential of spawning genuinely scientific hypotheses and theories. (Notice how I worded that.) For example, if we discovered clear evidence of genetic pre-programming that would lead more or less directly from prokaryote to eukaryote and then on to multi-cellular evolution. This would be hard, if not impossible, to explain by Darwinian or any other naturalistic kind of evolution. There is some suggestion of this already but it has been dismissed as anomalous or just curious by Darwinian group think. I’m surprise that ID researchers aren’t looking more seriously into this. Maybe they are and I just haven’t heard about it.john_a_designer_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

WJM and Bill, if I may, I found this article to be very insightful in regards to causality. It turns out that the Theist actually has a much stronger claim in regards to agent causality being 'scientific' than the atheists does for blind causality being 'scientific':
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Agent Causality (of Theists) vs. The self refuting Blind Causality (of Atheists) – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1118356054843993/?type=2&theater
That agent causality has much greater explanatory power in science than the blind causality of atheists is made evident by the fact that atheists cannot do science in the first place without improperly invoking agent causality where it ought not be invoked. CS Lewis himself noted this illegitimate use of agency in description:
“to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen” - CS Lewis
In fact, a major problem with Darwinian explanations is how to describe the complexities of life without illegitimately using terminology that invokes agency,,,
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm Denying the Signature: Functional Information Is the Fact to Be Explained - Stephen C. Meyer - November 19, 2015 Excerpt: historian of biology Timothy Lenoir observes, "Teleological thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet in nearly every area of research, biologists are hard pressed to find language that does not impute purposiveness to living forms."2 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/denying_the_sig_2101021.html
To make matters all the more puzzling is that, despite the fact that Darwinists improperly invoke agency all the time in their descriptions of biological systems, Darwinists, and academia in general, refuse to admit to their very own agent causality which they witness first hand. Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
bornagain77_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Bill Cole said:
Science can tell us the how by a mathematical model and experimentation to validate the model.
No, Bill. Mathematical models do not tell us how. They describe and predict.
This is certainly true with both Einsteins and Newtons versions of gravitational theory. Both these theories can be validated using the scientific method.
That you have a description (model) which can offer accurate predictions doesn't mean you have answered how those predictable effects are actually instantiated in phenomena.William J Murray_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Origenes I agree with you of course, and I consider it a valid scientific enterprise. But I always appreciate it when people speak honestly about how they feel about something. There are days when I wonder if we are wrong and then the very next day we find lens technology better than ours in eyes and it assures me we that we are not.Andre_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

WJM
There wasn’t a mechanism for the “how” of evolution when Darwin proposed it, either. There wasn’t a mechanism for the “how” of gravitational attraction when Newton proposed it. There is no theory for “how” any so-called universal constant or force affects phenomena the way it does. Science does not ultimately tell us “how” anything occurs; it only describes those occurrences and attempts to characterize them.
Science can tell us the how by a mathematical model and experimentation to validate the model. This is certainly true with both Einsteins and Newtons versions of gravitational theory. Both these theories can be validated using the scientific method. Evolution on the other hand does not have a working mathematical model. Dawkins tried to create one in the blind watchmaker with the Weasel program but it required a target(having the target gene sequence to compare to the random trial) to finish. Michael Lynch also created a model but it was limited to adaptions of less then 5 mission critical mutations. The generation of new genetic sequences has also never been experimentally validated. So it remains an inference argument with ID as a competing hypothesis. Here is a paper on Darwin's use of inference to the best explanation to argue the merits of natural selection vs creationism. W.H. Newton-Smith (ed) A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Blackwell, 2000) 184-193. Inference to the Best Explanation PETER LIPTONbill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

I agree with this point, because ID in an inference argument and not a theory. There is currently not a mechanism that explains the “how”.
There wasn't a mechanism for the "how" of evolution when Darwin proposed it, either. There wasn't a mechanism for the "how" of gravitational attraction when Newton proposed it. There is no theory for "how" any so-called universal constant or force affects phenomena the way it does. Science does not ultimately tell us "how" anything occurs; it only describes those occurrences and attempts to characterize them. Evolution is characterized as non-intelligent via assertions of "random" mutation and "natural" selection. It is certain as valid a scientific characterization to say "intelligntly directed" mutation and selection. The mechanisms would be the same, except in one case no intelligent direction is needed and in the other it is required. Finding out how intelligence achieved it's goals is only an investigation that can ensue after it has been first determined that an artifact or phenomena requires ID as at least part of its explanation.William J Murray_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Andre: John I really liked your post. Honesty is the best policy.
I would like to be honest as well, but I do hold that ID is science. It cannot be the case that SETI qualifies as science, but ID does not. It cannot be the case that evolutionary theory qualifies as science (see #68), but ID does not.
Bill Cole: I agree with this point, because ID in an inference argument and not a theory. There is currently not a mechanism that explains the “how”.
Do you mean "how" design is implemented in the universe and life?Origenes_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

John I really liked your post. Honesty is the best policy. As for the atheist. The issue for them is not evidence. They see it the know it's there but the flat out refuse it because they simply so not want to entertain the idea that one day they might have to account for themselves.Andre_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

I believe that DI supports teaching the strengths and WEAKNESSES of Darwinian evolution. Currently, in most states in the USA, only a one sided view of Darwinian evolution is presented to impressionable young minds. This is not good science, and in fact is indoctrination, since, as every commenter here knows, the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution are prolific. For starters, it does not really even qualify as a testable science since it does not even have a clearly defined mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have. i.e. Unlike the law of gravity, there is no known 'law of evolution' in the physical universe. Moreover, even where Darwinian evolution can be rigorously tested against its general claims it fails anyway. (Behe's Edge of Evolution)
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting - 02/08/2016 Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it's a paradigm and the reason it's not a theory is that it's not falsifiable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/john-dupre-interview-deep_b_9184812.html Peter Saunders Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long. http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/peter-saunders WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr - 2004 Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.,,, And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-ernst-in/
bornagain77_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

John
This may come as a surprise to many of the ID commenters here but I am actually a skeptic of the so-called scientific theory of ID. Let’s be honest even some of ID’s main proponents don’t think ID is ready for prime-time.
I agree with this point, because ID in an inference argument and not a theory. There is currently not a mechanism that explains the "how". Evolution has always been an inference argument as most of the historical sciences. Darwin argued against creation as the competing hypothesis. I became interested in evolution and ID when I realized the genome was a sequence and that macroevolution was an untested inference. It amazes me the gap that exists between the general publics understanding and the real status of the science. All this being said, I think ID is the best inference for what we are observing at the cellular level.bill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

But students are already taught the difference between fact and opinion, and this helps tremendously in understanding intelligent design theory. As the distinction material v spiritual, created v creator, is implicit in the distinction between fact and opinion.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer: Let’s be honest even some of ID’s main proponents don’t think ID is ready for prime-time. The Discovery Institute, for example, as a matter of official policy is not pushing to get ID taught in the public schools, because ID is not yet sufficiently established as a theory.
John, can you provide a quote? I found this :
Discovery Institute: As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
Origenes_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

@jonh_a_designer There is a deeply psychological reason why people are stupid about design. There is enormous pressure in society from school, work, government, and your own ideals, to "do your best". This pressure drives people to conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best result. This is quite a useless definition of choosing for science, because what is "best" is a matter of opinion. That is the underlaying reason why people are stupid about design, the reason the wiki on free will is a mess of contradictory points of view, and why intelligent design theory is very difficult to get going.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply