Please Take the Time to Understand Our Arguments Before You Attack Them

_{Barry Arrington

October 1, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

The comments our Darwinist friends put up on this site never cease to amaze. Consider, as a for instance, Kantian Naturalist’s comment that appears as comment 9 to kairosfocus’ Infographic: The science of ID post. The post sets forth a simple summary of the case for ID, and KN responds:

What I like about this infographic is that it makes really clear where the problem with intelligent design lies.

Here’s the argument:

(1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs. (2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects. (3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs.

But this is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

KN has been posting on this site for years. He is obviously an intelligent man. He is obviously a man of good will. I will assume, therefore, that he is attacking ID as he believes it to be and not a straw man caricature of his own making. And that is what is so amazing. How can an intelligent person of good will follow this site for several years and still not understand the basics of ID? It beggars belief.

Maybe it will help if I explain ID using the same formal structure KN has used.

KN:

(1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs.

ID as it really is:

(1) For all As whose provenance is actually known, the cause of A was B.

Here “A” could be complex specified information or irreducible complexity.

B, of course, stands for “the act of an intelligent agent.”

In step 1 KN is actually not far off the mark. I have reworded it slightly, because ID does not posit there is no possible explanation for A other than B. ID posits that in our universal experience of A where its provenance has been actually observed, it has always arisen from B. Now, there may be some other cause of A (Neo-Darwinian evolution – NDE – for instance), but the conclusion that NDE causes A arises from an inference not an observation. “NDE caused A” is not just any old inference. We would argue that it is an inference skewed by an a priori commitment to metaphysical materialism and not necessarily an unbiased evaluation of the data.

KN:

(2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects.

ID as it really is:

(2) We observe A to exist within living systems.

In (2) KN starts to go off the rails in a serious way. Here we have the tired old “ID is nothing by an argument from analogy” argument. KN is saying that the complex specified information in a cell is “similar in relevant respects” to the complex specified information found, for example, in a language or a code. He is saying that the irreducible complexity of any number of biological systems is “similar in relevant respects” to the irreducible complexity of machines.

No sir. That is not what ID posits at all, not even close. ID posits that the complex specified information in a cell is identical to the complex specified information of a computer code. The DNA code is not “like” a computer code. The DNA code and a computer code are two manifestations of the same thing. The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is identical to (not similar to) the irreducible complexity of an outboard motor.

ID proponents obviously have the burden of demonstrating their claims. For example, they have the burden of demonstrating that the DNA code and a computer code are identical in relevant respects. And if you disagree with their conclusions that is fair enough. Tell us why. But it is not fair to attempt to refute ID by attacking a claim ID proponents do not make.

KN:

(3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs.

ID as it really is:

(3) Therefore, abductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that B is the best explanation of A.

The Wikipedia article on abductive reasoning is quite good. [I have changed the symbols to correspond with our discussion]:

to abduce a hypothetical explanation “B” from an observed surprising circumstance “A” is to surmise that “B” may be true because then “A” would be a matter of course. Thus, to abduce B from A involves determining that B is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for A.

For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. . . . abducing rain last night from the observation of the wet lawn can lead to a false conclusion. In this example, dew, lawn sprinklers, or some other process may have resulted in the wet lawn, even in the absence of rain.

[Philosopher Charles Sanders] Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from A to B involves not simply a determination that, e.g., B is sufficient for A, but also that B is among the most economical explanations for A. Simplification and economy call for the ‘leap’ of abduction.

For what seems like the ten thousandth time: ID does not posit that the existence of complex specified information and irreducibly complex structures within living systems compels “act of an intelligent agent” as a matter of logical necessity. ID posits that given our universal experience concerning complex specified information and irreducibly complex structures where the provenance of such has been actually observed, the best explanation of the existence of these same things in living structures is “act of intelligent agent.”

KN, I hope this helps. If you disagree with any of the premises or the abuction that we say follows from the premises, by all means attack them with abandon. But please don’t attack an argument we do not make. That just wastes everyone’s time.

Comments

SirHamster, But such a cell would have to be disembodied and not made of matter at all and we have no uniform and repeated experience of disembodied cells. Therefore ID IS the better explanation.Mung_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

A better explanation than ID is that cells always existed, That there was no first cell! Is it any coincidence that there is only one person here who believes this?
If cells always existed, then they predate the existence of the universe (Big Bang), which would mean that cells existed before matter. Hrm. Sounds slightly relevant to one of the points in this discussion.SirHamster_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

RDFish claims to have an explanation that is better than the design inference. So while ID claims to be a better explanation than random events + necessity for the presence of information (CSI), RDFish claims to have an even better explanation than ID. RDFish has a giant copy machine in the sky whereby information is copied and passed on to descendants ad infinitum. By analogy, I have here on my desk a book. The best explanation for the information in the book is that it was copied from another book, which was copied from another book, which was copied from another book, well, you get the idea. One wonders what happens when the magical copy machine in the sky runs out of toner and paper. Anyone think magical copy machines with infinite supplies of paper and toner is a better explanation than design? And one wonders if the copy machine itself isn't irreducibly complex. In our uniform and repeated experience cells always come from other cells. Therefore, the best explanation for the first cell on earth is that it came from another cell from somewhere else. And the best explanation for the first cell on whatever celestial body that cell came from is that it came from another cell from somewhere else. And on and on we go. What this has to do with ID? A better explanation than ID is that cells always existed, That there was no first cell! Is it any coincidence that there is only one person here who believes this?Mung_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

F/N: RDF plays the game of snipping the issue out of context, avoiding addressing the actual argument and brushing aside a strawman. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
1) We have evidence that may indicate that intelligent design is not wholly dependent upon CSI-rich systems as a source. - a) Self reflection reveals that there is no internal experience of our brain being required for thought (cf. Aristotle). - b) While some correlation between thinking and brain activity has been demonstrated, causation is still an open question. - c) There is evidence of NDE and ADE that appear to run counter to the claim of dependency on CSI-rich systems.
And here we have just gone in a big round circle. All this was wasted effort, since in the end you are simply arguing that we have empirical data that demonstrates human brains are not required for human thought! As I have said over and over again, if that is your rebuttal to the argument I've presented here, that is fine! I am very happy to agree to disagree about this! (Perhaps ID should publish a book explaining why Aristotle was right, and the brain's function actually is for cooling the blood).
2) The intelligent design we infer as a result of the fine-tuning of our cosmos would also appear to be evidence running counter to the claim of dependency on CSI-rich systems. Given the above, it is fair to say that there is no good basis for ruling any of this evidence or analysis out when making a claim about our uniform and repeated experience.
Thanks for the debate, Phinehas. Your final rebuttal to my argument is that you believe we have good evidence that human brains are not required for human thought, and that the physical constants are narrowly constrained without explanation, and that means we can't actually say that intelligent action in our experience invariably depends on complex mechanisms. I respect your right to make that argument, and I will leave it at that. :-) Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
If a cosmic intelligence with a CSI-rich mechanism designs life with CSI, then intelligence would precede CSI.
Uh, intelligence with CSI precedes CSI? Hmmm, that doesn't seem right :-)
I retract my comment @816 because it doesn’t really address RD’s comment about the first CSI mechanism. However, the problem with RD’s formulation persists. I will explain more tomorrow.
No problem, try something else. Take your time!
What RDF is not taking into account is that even if intelligence depends on CSI for its operation, it doesn’t depend on CSI for its existence. Thus, intelligence can still precede the first CSI even where CSI depends on intelligence for its operation. Intelligence always precedes CSI.
Ok, StephenB... is this your final answer??? Seriously, give it some thought. We've been at this for a long time now, take your time. I've been making the exact same argument since we've started, and you (and others here) have been trying and discarding one after another failed argument. And now what you've finally come up with is this: STEPHENB'S COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Even if intelligence depends on CSI for its operation, it does not depend on CSI for its existence. You're serious, right? That is how you believe my argument is invalidated, right? I have to say, this is delicious. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

RDF:
Phin: Actually, if the Darwinist could provide a case in point for the above, then they would be able to deny that the ID inference is based on our uniform and repeated experience, wouldn’t they? You are missing a case in point.
RDF: No, you are missing the entire point.
Actually, I am afraid it is you who is missing the entire point. I do not find the following a "dodge" at all!
In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of CSI-rich systems where we may have reason to hold that the source is not an intelligent entity.
If we had any evidence pointing toward a CSI-rich system where the source was not an intelligent entity, there would be no good basis for ruling such evidence out in making a claim about our uniform and repeated experience. But we don't have any such evidence. This is not the same case when we take a look at my objection to your argument.
In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of intelligent design where we may have reason to hold that the source is not a CSI-rich physical entity.
We do have some reasons here, and they have been brought up over and over again. Here are a sampling. 1) We have evidence that may indicate that intelligent design is not wholly dependent upon CSI-rich systems as a source. - a) Self reflection reveals that there is no internal experience of our brain being required for thought (cf. Aristotle). - b) While some correlation between thinking and brain activity has been demonstrated, causation is still an open question. - c) There is evidence of NDE and ADE that appear to run counter to the claim of dependency on CSI-rich systems. 2) The intelligent design we infer as a result of the fine-tuning of our cosmos would also appear to be evidence running counter to the claim of dependency on CSI-rich systems. Given the above, it is fair to say that there is no good basis for ruling any of this evidence or analysis out when making a claim about our uniform and repeated experience.Phinehas_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Getting back to RDF'S error: He writes,
Tuesday: intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it. where “it” refers to the first CSI-rich mechanism. That is perfectly and obviously true.
What RDF is not taking into account is that even if intelligence depends on CSI for its operation, it doesn't depend on CSI for its existence. Thus, intelligence can still precede the first CSI even where CSI depends on intelligence for its operation. Intelligence always precedes CSI. Checkmate, RDFStephenB_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

F/N: re RDF to SA, 804:
until we obtain specific evidence of some intelligent entity that designed life here, ID will not be an empirically supported result.
Classic selective hyperskepticism. As in, I know we do not directly access the remote past, so for what I don't like I effectively demand to ignore the evidence and logic we do have in favour of demanding what I know we do not have. Where, all along, I am (probably) perfectly willing to go along with any number of claims from the dominant school of thought that do not pass the vera causa test of actually showing that proposed mechanisms can actually cause observed effects. Ironically, it appears just after my repeating at 803 of a skeletonised laying out of the way in which empirically warranted signs of design ground the reasonable evidence-based inference that entities with such features were designed. Design, for good reason, being habitually associated with designers and serving as evidence that they exist. Morris Cargill used to talk about logic with a swivel . . . Okay, let us look at that skeletonised case again -- knowing that on track record RDF is likely to studiously ignore it. (As in, if you really want to get out of a hole you have fallen into, you should stop digging in deeper and deeper.) Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more:
803 kairosfocus October 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm F/N: It is worth drawing attention again to an outline argument last presented at 762 a few hours ago and (predictably) ignored by RDF: __________ >>762 kairosfocus October 23, 2013 at 11:14 am F/N 5: let us apply the logic now, by making substitution instances: a: The actual past (or some other unobserved event, entity or phenomenon . . . ) A leaves traces t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], which we observe. b: We observe a cause C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] that produces consequence s [= directly observed cases of creation of FSCO/I, say digital code in software, etc] which is materially similar to t [= the DNA of the cell] c: We identify that on empirical investigation and repeated observation, s [= FSCO/I] reliably results from C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency]. d: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is ALSO the only empirically warranted source of s [= FSCO/I] . _____________________________ e: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is the best explanation for t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], viewed here as an instance of s [= FSCO/I]. The chain of reasoning should be clear enough. Notice, at no point does the question as to whether designers, the generally observed source of FSCO/I are embodied or depend on brains to carry out design functions. So long as an entity can create directed contingent outcomes, it is capable of design. We do commonly observe embodied designers, literally from the inside out. Namely our selves. We observe similar creatures and for good reason accept they are minded too, not zombies. However there is no credible basis of observations for showing that the phenomena of conscious, self-aware, insightful thought, deciding, and the like, can and do emerge from the mechanical action of organised components and associated processing of software sequences, loops cases etc, whether using fluidic or electronic logic gates or neurons and ion flows, or relays or shafts and cogs such as in a mill (or an analogue computer) etc. That is there is no good observational basis for equating brain to mind or asserting that mind is an empiphenomenon or emergent effect of brain. This is commonly believed by those wedded to implicit or explicit a priori materialism, but that is a very different thing. Similarly, we do have the evidence of a fine tuned, contingent cosmos that points on the logic of best explanation to root source in a necessary being — by direct implication immaterial as matter as we observe it is contingent — with the power, skill, knowledge and intent to form such a cosmos. Thus, there is observationally grounded reason to accept at lest the possibility of an immaterial mind. Once such a possibility is at the table as of right not sufferance, no one can properly assert that our uniform experience supports that an intelligent, minded entity must be embodied or have or use a physical brain or the substantially equivalent. The soul, manifested through mind, is still very much in business. >> __________
Let us see if RDF will actually prove my expectation -- studious ignoring of well-merited correction -- wrong. For his sake, I hope so. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

I retract my comment @816 because it doesn't really address RD's comment about the first CSI mechanism. However, the problem with RD's formulation persists. I will explain more tomorrow.StephenB_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Hi RD RDF: ,,,"intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it. where “it” refers to the first CSI-rich mechanism. That is perfectly and obviously true." Ridiculous. If a cosmic intelligence with a CSI-rich mechanism designs life with CSI, then intelligence would precede CSI. Intelligence always precedes CSI. Checkmate, RDFish. CheersStephenB_{October 24, 2013
October
10
Oct
24
24
2013
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, Are you playing for laughs? Taking my words out of context and ignoring my argument? Is that all you've got left? So sad. As I've already explained to you: Tuesday: intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it. where "it" refers to the first CSI-rich mechanism. That is perfectly and obviously true. Wednesday: an intelligent agent that depends on a CSI-rich mechanism can absolutely precede the CSI-rich mechanism that it designs and produces. where the produced CSI is obviously not the first CSI-rich mechanism. Obviously and perfectly true. Checkmate, StephenB. The most probable explanation for the origin of the information in the first living cell on Earth is that it came from some other organism elsewhere. Not through design, but rather just from their own genetic material. We are more likely to simply be their descendants rather than the product of their advanced bio-engineering capabilities. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

RDF on Wednesday:
The answer is yes, an intelligent agent that depends on a CSI-rich mechanism can absolutely precede the CSI-rich mechanism that it designs and produces.
RDF on Tuesday:
intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it.
RDF on Thursday: ????????????StephenB_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
The answer is: Of course there could be some CSI-rich entity that was intelligent and designed some other CSI-rich organism, such as we observe on Earth. That isn’t the question. Can an intelligent agent that depends on a CSI-rich mechanism precede the CSI-rich mechanism that it produces?
Uh, yes, that is the question, and that is the question that I just answered. The answer is yes, an intelligent agent that depends on a CSI-rich mechanism can absolutely precede the CSI-rich mechanism that it designs and produces. We have long discussed this possibility of course, as you'll see.
Earlier, you said no: …intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it.
Well, yes, if you mean "could not have preceded CSI-rich mechanisms on Earth". Please refer to statement (4) in the simplified version of my argument points out that intelligent action could not have preceded CSI-rich systems altogether:
1) ID says that for every CSI-rich system in our experience, when we know the source, the source is intelligent action. 2) We observe CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says that intelligent action is therefore the best explanation for these systems. 3) I say that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity 4) I say that (3) implies that intelligent action could not have preceded CSI-rich mechanism in order to cause it

Obviously, you were wrong. Intelligence, whether it depends on CSI-rich mechanisms or not, precedes the CSI-rich mechanisms that it produces. You thought otherwise because you confused the CSI in the intelligent agent with the CSI that the intelligent agent produces. Your argument is vanquished.
Hahahahahaha. I've been making exactly the same argument for 800+ posts, Stephen. It is not vanquished - it is confirmed. Of course my (4) is contradicted by the hypothesis that the Intelligent Designer of ID is (or depend on, if you prefer) a complex physical entity, full of the CSI-rich systems that ID purports to explain! So you have now been forced to admit that in order to counter my argument, you had to posit that ID's Designer must have been a complex physical entity. Whew! That was really hard, given all of your distractions and evasions. Now that you have admitted that the idea of disembodied intelligence does indeed violate our uniform and repeated experience, and you have switched to the idea that ID's Designer must have itself been (or depended on) a CSI-rich system, it is clear that ID is not the best explanation for the information in the first living cell on Earth. Why? Once you posit a pre-existing entity that possesses the sort of complex form and function that is required to produce CSI-rich systems, ID cannot claim to explain the origin of such systems in the universe (as some, but not others, of my adversaries here have understood here already). Once you abandon that, the best explanation for the CSI on Earth is that this very same CSI existed elsewhere, and simply got to Earth one way or another. There is no need, and no theoretical benefit, to adding an additional hypothesis that this CSI was not the same as the CSI of the pre-existing entity! You said: Your error is in believing that all manifestations of CSI are the same CSI. This is not my error of course! It is simply that there is no justification for making this additional hypothesis! It is far simpler and more consistent with what we know to assume that the CSI from this pre-existing physical entity was the very same CSI in the first living cell on Earth! Why bother to assume that it was different and require all this hypothetical bio-engineering? That is why "ET-Engineer" theory fails to beat "ET-Ancestor" theory as the least-bad empirical theory of the origin of life on Earth. The most probable explanation for the origin of the information in the first living cell on Earth is that it came from some other organism elsewhere. Not through design, but rather just from their own genetic material. We are more likely to simply be their descendants rather than the product of their advanced bio-engineering capabilities. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

RDF:
The answer is: Of course there could be some CSI-rich entity that was intelligent and designed some other CSI-rich organism, such as we observe on Earth.
That isn't the question. Can an intelligent agent that depends on a CSI-rich mechanism precede the CSI-rich mechanism that it produces? Earlier, you said no:
...intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it.
Obviously, you were wrong. Intelligence, whether it depends on CSI-rich mechanisms or not, precedes the CSI-rich mechanisms that it produces. You thought otherwise because you confused the CSI in the intelligent agent with the CSI that the intelligent agent produces. Your argument is vanquished. RDF:
Do you or do you not agree with this statement, then: For every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity.
No. I would never characterize a human being that way. It is one thing to HAVE a CSI-rich physical mechanism and quite another thing to BE a CSI-rich physical entity. You may have a spleen, but that doesn't mean that you are a spleen.StephenB_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
I have simplified my argument here, using language from ID, in the hope that we can eliminate some of our terminological confusion.
If that's your goal you could make the language even simpler and even more ID like. You could dispense with things like "ID says" and "CSI-rich systems" and "intelligent action."Mung_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

RDFish, Ok, we agree a lot more than I would have thought initially. That's good and it certainly has been an interesting challenge. So thanks for that.
1) ID says that for every CSI-rich system in our experience, when we know the source, the source is intelligent action. 2) We observe CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says that intelligent action is therefore the best explanation for these systems. 3) I say that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity 4) I say that (3) implies that intelligent action could not have preceded CSI-rich mechanism in order to cause it It would help me to clarify opposing views if you would tell me: Which of these statements you take issue with?
For myself, I take issue with the first statement. I would say something like "ID says that every CSI-rich system shows evidence of having been designed with intelligence (or the effect of purposeful intelligence)." But I have to accept your point since you're referencing Stephen Meyer (who I greatly respect) and I can't speak for ID or re-write what the theorists have said. In this case, I disagree with Meyer's statement that you quoted earlier:
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell.
I disagree with the term "activity", in the same way I disagree with your use of the term "intelligent action". But you do seem to reflect Meyer's definition. For me, the better definition is that we "observe the effects of purposeful intelligence" - not "intelligent actions" or "intelligent activity". We cannot directly observe the intellect. We can only observe effects. The source of CSI in nature is not "intelligent actions" but "intelligence". Intelligence is what drives the actions. We only know that by observing the CSI in the effects. But if the ID argument is that every CSI that we know of comes from "intelligent actions" then I would have to disagree.
No, I disagree. Obviously an accidental transfer of life would not be consistent with ID. But neither would deliberate transfer, since taking some DNA (or cells, or other form of genetic information) and putting them in a space capsule is NOT designing the genetic information. It is still ET-ancestor, rather than ET-engineer, theory that would account for where the information for the living cell came from.
This is where there is some wiggle room. The key term is "designed". Often, this is used to mean something like an architech's blueprint. A drawing or an engineering model or writing software. But it also means "purpose". Intelligent design = Intelligent purpose. This is opposed to random chance or purposeless-natural laws. A deliberate bringing of life to earth is a "design" -- certainly, a falsification of all naturalistic theories. blockquote>The empirical proof I would point to would iclude neural monitoring and imaging, effects of anesthesia, effects of injury and disease, and so on. We can incapacitate the kidneys without impacting design abilities, but not the brain. And so on and so on. None of this provides direct empirical proof of a thing called intelligence itself though. It measures the effects of intelligence. The very same act, flexing a muscle, can be an intelligent act or an unintelligent act. The same act can be done "by design" or can be a natural reflex. The difference? The addition of "intelligence" to the act. But we cannot directly observe the intelligence, only the act. An accidental firing of a gun. Or a purposeful firing of a gun. It makes a big difference. It's the same act, but intelligence is what changes it radically. We see only the effect. Neural monitoring shows a correlation of certain physical movements. We have to infer that intelligence is linked to them -- because we cannot directly see what intelligence is. We only see the movements.
Let us simply say that without a functioning brain, no human being can design anything. How’s that?
I disagree. The neurophysician Dr. Eben Alexander designed the story-line for a NY Times best-selling book while he was clinically brain-dead. Now I realize that you think this kind of thing is not credible. I've posted additional scientific evidence of people experiencing inexplicable mental states after brain death, with scientific confirmation of the same. The data points are limited, but you've given me no reason to ignore this data. You might say "ID is founded on disembodied intelligence of NDE's", but that's a dismissive re-statement. ID is more consistent with reality because it can reconcile this data and does not need to ignore it. I'll give you another example to consider: What was the "intelligent action" at the source of the composition of (the CSI in) Mozart's 1st Symphony? The fact is, there was no "intelligent action" in any sense of the word. The entire symphony was composed in his mind first. No physical analysis of his mind, even a complete dissection of it, would have revealed one note of the symphony. When the symphony was finally performed, what listeners heard was the "effects" of Mozart's intelligence. They did not observe the act of composition. That happened entirely in his mind. So, the source of the CSI was not an "intelligent action" at all. The symphony was composed mentally, with no empirically observable evidence that it even existed.
I know your views on evolution and OOL, but what other historical science like ID would you consider to be a successfully empirically supported theory? And how did you judge it as such? Historical science? Cosmology, I’d say – as far as it goes (which does not extend beyond the Big Bang of course). That just helps to set the standard — and see why you think that ID does not reach it. Right. Cosmologists argued steady-state vs. Big Bang for a long time (and they still do, along with cyclic universes, multi-universes, and other currently untestable ideas), and considered lots of arguments on each side, but it wasn’t until a specific prediction was empirically confirmed (background radiation) that most physicists agreed that the Big Bang was an empirically determined result.
Ok, if the point is that ID does not have as much empirical support as, or makes as many precise and successful predictions as Big Bang theorists did ... then I'd be surprised if anyone here would disagree with you. But I'll just keep it personal. I can't find a problem with that statement myself. With that I will say thanks again for the discussion and I'm glad to learn both about the points of agreement and disagreement.Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
Actually, if the Darwinist could provide a case in point for the above, then they would be able to deny that the ID inference is based on our uniform and repeated experience, wouldn’t they? You are missing a case in point.
No, you are missing the entire point. The Darwinist could not truthfully disagree with the statement just as it was presented! You and I and even evolutionists know that nobody has ever observed some complex machine that we know the cause of coming into existence by any cause other than intelligent action. For the evolutionist to deny this would be simply bad faith. After answering this obvious point in the affirmative, it would be up to the evolutionist to go to explain why even though we do not see this in our uniform and repeated experience, there is still a good theory (Darwinism) that shows why in the case of biological systems over millions of years, CSI-rich structures actually do arise without intelligent intervention - in contradiction to our uniform and repeated experience. Can't you understand this? It's the same situation for you of course. If you would stop being evasive and answer the question I've posed, we could move on and discuss whatever implications there were for ID as a theory. But since you refuse to simply agree with what is very obviously true in our shared experience, we go back and forth without progress. Once again: Is it the case, or is it NOT the case, that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: “It is my belief that you disagree with (4), because you hold that the cause of CSI-rich mechanisms in terrestrial biology might itself be a CSI-rich mechanism (and that the CSI in the designer could be different from the CSI in terrestrial life forms). Am I now characterizing your objection correctly?” SB: Please stop stonewalling. . Even if it were true that intelligence cannot precede the CSI that it is alleged to depend on, it can precede the CSI that it produces. Your error is in believing that all manifestations of CSI are the same CSI.
You refuse to answer my simple questions, then accuse me of stonewalling :-) Clearly I must meet you much more than half-way in order for you to participate, so sure, I will again answer each question you pose, even though you refuse to answer any of mine. The answer is: Of course there could be some CSI-rich entity that was intelligent and designed some other CSI-rich organism, such as we observe on Earth. Contrary to your confused view that this refutes my argument, I have actually explained this many many times, calling it "ET-engineer" theory (way back @238)!!! 1) ET-ancestor theory: Terrestrial life is descendent from life on another planet. On the plus side, we know that all life does indeed reproduce and adapt, and we know that there are lots of other planets in the galaxy/universe similar to Earth. On the negative side, we have no evidence that ET life has ever existed, and this theory also leaves the existence of ET life unexplained, which makes this a BAD THEORY. 2) ET-engineer theory: Terrestrial life was engineered by life forms on another planet. On the plus side, we know that life forms can be intelligent and design things. On the negative side, we have no evidence that ET life has ever existed, and this theory leaves the existence of ET life unexplained, and we must make yet another unsupported assumption compared to ET-ancestor theory, which is that ET’s not only have to exist, but they also have to be more advanced at bio-engineering than human beings, which makes this theory even less probable than (1). WORSE THEORY 3) Non-living-thing-engineer theory: Terrestrial life was engineered by something that was not in fact a life form at all. This is just a terrible theory, having all the problems of (2), but adding to that we have to believe that, contrary to our experience, something that was non-living could perform tasks like living things do (for which there is no evidence), and manage to produce novel life forms from scratch. WORST THEORY So I'm afraid what you thought was a "refutation" of my argument was something I anticipated days ago. You may now proceed to come up with some other "refutations". :-) Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

RDF:
In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of CSI-rich systems where we may have reason to hold that the source is not an intelligent entity. That is nothing but a dodge of course! The evolutionist should be honest and admit that this is the case in our uniform and repeated experience. And you should be just as honest.
Actually, if the Darwinist could provide a case in point for the above, then they would be able to deny that the ID inference is based on our uniform and repeated experience, wouldn't they? You are missing a case in point.Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

RDF: "It is my belief that you disagree with (4), because you hold that the cause of CSI-rich mechanisms in terrestrial biology might itself be a CSI-rich mechanism (and that the CSI in the designer could be different from the CSI in terrestrial life forms). Am I now characterizing your objection correctly?" Please stop stonewalling. . RDF:
I point out intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it.
SB: Even if it were true that intelligence cannot precede the CSI that it is alleged to depend on, it can precede the CSI that it produces. Your error is in believing that all manifestations of CSI are the same CSI. Do you have an answer to my refutation.StephenB_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of intelligent action where we may have reason to hold that the source is not a CSI-rich physical entity.
You haven't answered the question. Here is the question: Is it the case, or is it NOT the case, that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity. These evasive answers simply stop the debate from ever getting started. Until we agree on the experience of our observations, we cannot begin to evaluate the best abductive explanations for what we wish to understand. An evolutionist could give the same sort of evasive answers that you are, if you asked him this question: It is the case, or is it NOT the case, that for every CSI-rich system in our experience, when we know the source, the source is an intelligent agent. The evasive evolutionist would answer: In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of CSI-rich systems where we may have reason to hold that the source is not an intelligent entity. That is nothing but a dodge of course! The evolutionist should be honest and admit that this is the case in our uniform and repeated experience. And you should be just as honest. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Hi Silver Asiatic,
We see empirical evidence that intelligence was involved.
I have simplified my argument here, using language from ID, in the hope that we can eliminate some of our terminological confusion and get to the heart of our disagreements - which premises and inferences we agree on, and which we disagree on. Here is a very simple statement of my argument:
1) ID says that for every CSI-rich system in our experience, when we know the source, the source is intelligent action. 2) We observe CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says that intelligent action is therefore the best explanation for these systems. 3) I say that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity 4) I say that (3) implies that intelligent action could not have preceded CSI-rich mechanism in order to cause it
It would help me to clarify opposing views if you would tell me: Which of these statements you take issue with?
RDF: If these hypotheses are intended to explain life on Earth only (instead of first life or CSI in the universe, as some people here insist), then the best hypothesis to explain life on Earth is that it came from another Earth-like planet in our galaxy. SA: How did you determine that was the best hypothesis? Why would you think that has more empirical support than the hypothesis that life started on earth via an intelligent designer here?
Here is my reasoning about these alternatives: 1) ET-ancestor theory: Terrestrial life is descendent from life on another planet. On the plus side, we know that all life does indeed reproduce and adapt, and we know that there are lots of other planets in the galaxy/universe similar to Earth. On the negative side, we have no evidence that ET life has ever existed, and this theory also leaves the existence of ET life unexplained, which makes this a BAD THEORY. 2) ET-engineer theory: Terrestrial life was engineered by life forms on another planet. On the plus side, we know that life forms can be intelligent and design things. On the negative side, we have no evidence that ET life has ever existed, and this theory leaves the existence of ET life unexplained, and we must make yet another unsupported assumption compared to ET-ancestor theory, which is that ET’s not only have to exist, but they also have to be more advanced at bio-engineering than human beings, which makes this theory even less probable than (1). WORSE THEORY 3) Non-living-thing-engineer theory: Terrestrial life was engineered by something that was not in fact a life form at all. This is just a terrible theory, having all the problems of (2), but adding to that we have to believe that, contrary to our experience, something that was non-living could perform tasks like living things do (for which there is no evidence), and manage to produce novel life forms from scratch. WORST THEORY
I think one could argue that your hypothesis would have to propose only an accidental and non-deliberate (non-designed) transfer of life from one planet to earth. Because if it came through intelligence (a space-craft) then the ID proposal would stand (life shows evidence of intelligent design).
No, I disagree. Obviously an accidental transfer of life would not be consistent with ID. But neither would deliberate transfer, since taking some DNA (or cells, or other form of genetic information) and putting them in a space capsule is NOT designing the genetic information. It is still ET-ancestor, rather than ET-engineer, theory that would account for where the information for the living cell came from.
I think we have far more evidence in favor of ID than of chemical-evolution OOL theories and given your 99% of scientists who believe the latter, that’s saying a lot.
Actually I wouldn't say 99% of scientists believe in "chemical" theories of OOL; that number reflects those who believe that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity given semi-conservative replicating cells. In any event, none of these theories are empirically successful!
But I would hope you’d acknowledge the strengths.
What I'm arguing here is that ID is not empirically supportable as a theory of origins. I actually have another criticism of ID theory that I consider fatal to considering it a scientific theory, but I will not get into it here until my current argument is resolved.
Personally, I can’t see the latter (earth-like planet) as being very strong. I mean, why wouldn’t you try to rip that apart with the intensity that you’re directing towards ID? There are clearly a lot of weak spots in the idea that an earth-like planet intentionally or accidentally seeding first life on (our) earth. There are some strengths also, true.
As you'll see, I have listed what I see as the strong and weak points of all three theories. Now, ID combines ET-engineer and Non-living-engineer theories together, because they both involved intelligent design of the genetic information. I combine ET-ancestor-accidental and ET-ancestor-deliberate theories together, because they both involve simply using existing genetic information for life on Earth.
Ok, but let’s be consistent. There are levels of knowing. ID provides a reasonable hypothesis. If ID was eventually proven more absolutely correct, it would be by adding to the data we already know.
I won't say ID is "unreasonable", but what I believe is clear is that it is not consistent with our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency (please refer to my three theories for details).
In this kind of discussion there has to be some significant precision. We can’t just appeal to a popular understanding.
I could not agree more. (Again, I find it very nice to debate this with you!)
We do not have direct empirical observation of a thing which can be precisely identified as “intelligence”. Like “athleticism” – it’s not something that can be directly observed. It’s not a substance or a chemical compound.
YES!!! Very insightful of you to realize this. Thank you!!!
In order to recognize that an intelligent action took place, you cannot have any access to empirical data about a thing called intelligence. You can only measure effects and infer that there is a thing called intelligence at work.
I would not call intelligence a "thing", however. Much of the problem in ID discussions is the implicit reification of "intelligence". Intelligence is the word we use to refer to mental abilities, just as athleticism is the word we use to refer to physical abilities. Neither of these words refer to "things" per se.
That’s exactly what ID does.
Perhaps your version of ID does that.
You say that “we use our brains” for intelligent acts. But again, you cannot prove that empirically.
The empirical proof I would point to would include neural monitoring and imaging, effects of anesthesia, effects of injury and disease, and so on. We can incapacitate the kidneys without impacting design abilities, but not the brain. And so on and so on.
Some strict materialists would not say that we use our brains at all, but that everything we do is merely a physical function.
Actually I don't think so - materialists would insist that our minds either supervene upon or are identical to our brains.
Our brains are directed by their evolutionary development. It’s all a determined, physical process.
I'd rather not get into taking about evolution or determinism!
So, they’d have to disagree that there’s that kind of dualism.
There is no dualism in that statement. "We use our brains to think" is interpreted by a materialist the same way as "We use our legs to stand". The "We" is purely the material body without remainder; the "legs" are merely a part of that body. It does not imply a "self" which is outside of the body.
Do we know what the “self” is? Can we identify what and where the “designing function” is in the human brain? No. You’d have to conclude (I’d think) to be consistent that you really do not know that.
I agree - no, and no.
But when you appeal to a popular understanding, “we use our brains for every intelligent act” it’s an oversimplification. Then you try to make it sound ridiculous if a person denies that we use our brains.
Let us simply say that without a functioning brain, no human being can design anything. How's that?
But we don’t know what “the self” is, that “uses brains”. Why should there be this kind of mystery in biology? How do you explain that? Why are other things relatively easy to explain, but the human person remains a profound mystery? Evolution caused it to be that way?
I agree that conscious awareness (the conscious "self") represents a deep, unsolved mystery. It is the reason I am not a materialist.
Why not explore the possibilities and evaluate the evidence we do have? It’s clearly a mystery and you haven’t provided any good reason for ID to continue researching evidence to support the theory.
I would love if ID actually did some research on these matters! But they don't. Instead, they continue to attack evolutionary theory, which is already a dead issue for me.
I’d also think you’d need a better explanation. What is the origin of human rationality? That’s an important question. ID has an answer for it — the complex functionality in human beings that enables rational thought most likely from intelligence.
I do not agree with this, but again I'd like to stick to the topic at hand.
What is a better, more likely hypothesis?
Nobody knows.
I know your views on evolution and OOL, but what other historical science like ID would you consider to be a successfully empirically supported theory? And how did you judge it as such?
Historical science? Cosmology, I'd say - as far as it goes (which does not extend beyond the Big Bang of course).
That just helps to set the standard — and see why you think that ID does not reach it.
Right. Cosmologists argued steady-state vs. Big Bang for a long time (and they still do, along with cyclic universes, multi-universes, and other currently untestable ideas), and considered lots of arguments on each side, but it wasn't until a specific prediction was empirically confirmed (background radiation) that most physicists agreed that the Big Bang was an empirically determined result. Likewise, until we obtain specific evidence of some intelligent entity that designed life here, ID will not be an empirically supported result. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

F/N: It is worth drawing attention again to an outline argument last presented at 762 a few hours ago and (predictably) ignored by RDF: __________ >>762 kairosfocus October 23, 2013 at 11:14 am F/N 5: let us apply the logic now, by making substitution instances: a: The actual past (or some other unobserved event, entity or phenomenon . . . ) A leaves traces t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], which we observe. b: We observe a cause C[= design, or purposefully directed contingency] that produces consequence s [= directly observed cases of creation of FSCO/I, say digital code in software, etc] which is materially similar to t [= the DNA of the cell] c: We identify that on empirical investigation and repeated observation, s [= FSCO/I] reliably results from C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency]. d: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is ALSO the only empirically warranted source of s [= FSCO/I] . _____________________________ e: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is the best explanation for t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], viewed here as an instance of s [= FSCO/I]. The chain of reasoning should be clear enough. Notice, at no point does the question as to whether designers, the generally observed source of FSCO/I are embodied or depend on brains to carry out design functions. So long as an entity can create directed contingent outcomes, it is capable of design. We do commonly observe embodied designers, literally from the inside out. Namely our selves. We observe similar creatures and for good reason accept they are minded too, not zombies. However there is no credible basis of observations for showing that the phenomena of conscious, self-aware, insightful thought, deciding, and the like, can and do emerge from the mechanical action of organised components and associated processing of software sequences, loops cases etc, whether using fluidic or electronic logic gates or neurons and ion flows, or relays or shafts and cogs such as in a mill (or an analogue computer) etc. That is there is no good observational basis for equating brain to mind or asserting that mind is an empiphenomenon or emergent effect of brain. This is commonly believed by those wedded to implicit or explicit a priori materialism, but that is a very different thing. Similarly, we do have the evidence of a fine tuned, contingent cosmos that points on the logic of best explanation to root source in a necessary being — by direct implication immaterial as matter as we observe it is contingent — with the power, skill, knowledge and intent to form such a cosmos. Thus, there is observationally grounded reason to accept at lest the possibility of an immaterial mind. Once such a possibility is at the table as of right not sufferance, no one can properly assert that our uniform experience supports that an intelligent, minded entity must be embodied or have or use a physical brain or the substantially equivalent. The soul, manifested through mind, is still very much in business. >> __________kairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

RDF: I'd like to express my agreement with you here:
The intellectually honest response in these cases is “I DO NOT KNOW”. I understand that most people are uncomfortable admitting ignorance, but I believe it is a very important thing to be able to do.
I think your insight in this regard would be especially helpful in resolving the following: Does intelligence depend on CSI-rich mechanism? Or can intelligence precede it?
The intellectually honest response in these cases is “I DO NOT KNOW”. I understand that most people are uncomfortable admitting ignorance, but I believe it is a very important thing to be able to do.
Well said!Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, RDF knows, or could easily know and certainly should know that several times above, a 101 discussion of the specifics of the inference to design on fine tuning has been linked (here), and it has been indicated that it provides onward links to much more. A discussion of the logic of contingency and necessity of being has also been linked more than once. But in any case the broad outlines are sufficiently well known that he must know that per the big bang evidence we credibly live in a contingent cosmos and that matter in it is also contingent. Further per dozens of factors fine tuning points to design of our cosmos -- the only observed cosmos. Even through a multiverse speculation, that fine tuning persists and points to design at the causal root of the cosmos. Where also, contingency leads to causal root in a necessary being. That leads to as the candidate to beat, an intelligent designer of the cosmos who is also a necessary being -- therefore immaterial. This means there is evidence and associated analysis that puts immaterial mind at the root of the cosmos and its fine tuning. On this alone, it is improper to assert that it is a universal experience that FSCO/I etc are invariably caused by an embodied designer, or one that requires a brain or the like. In short, this refutes the universal experience claim RDF has been making. But he predictably will find some way to duck, divert from or ignore; which is what he did and it seems will continue to do. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

RDF:
Now let’s try it with you actually answering questions about the topic at hand!
OK! In my view, there is no good basis for ruling out the possibility of intelligent action where we may have reason to hold that the source is not a CSI-rich physical entity. Oh, and our finely tuned cosmos is a relevant case in point.Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

You are entirely correct and I do sincerely apologize for my mistake!!! My comment was meant for SirHamster, and not you. You have been entirely cordial, cogent, and sincere in our debate, and I thank you for that!
Ok, thank you. I should have guessed it was a mistake, but I appreciate your reply.
We have no idea whatsoever how anything could store and manipulate information (much less manipulate matter!) without complex physical mechanism.
We have no idea about how an intelligence could design a cell or a universe -- but that cannot stop us from recognizing empirical evidence that intelligence was involved in such things. It's not a question of "how" but of "whether" intelligence was involved. The "how" and "by whom" are questions that follow ID's conclusions. We see empirical evidence that intelligence was involved. It meets our uniform and repeated experience. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that intelligence was involved. How it stored or manipulated or generated the new information is a different question.
If these hypotheses are intended to explain life on Earth only (instead of first life or CSI in the universe, as some people here insist), then the best hypothesis to explain life on Earth is that it came from another Earth-like planet in our galaxy.
How did you determine that was the best hypothesis? Why would you think that has more empirical support than the hypothesis that life started on earth via an intelligent designer here? I think one could argue that your hypothesis would have to propose only an accidental and non-deliberate (non-designed) transfer of life from one planet to earth. Because if it came through intelligence (a space-craft) then the ID proposal would stand (life shows evidence of intelligent design).
Here is an illustration of why accepting poor explanations – even if they are the best available – is not actually a good idea: Judge: I find the defendent guilty of strangling the victim! Defense Lawyer: But your honor! My client was sitting in the police station downstairs when the crime was committed, and I have 120 police officers and 10 nuns testifying to that fact, plus videotape evidence, and my client is a quadriplegic and confined to an iron lung! Judge: I don’t care! There was a motive (he didn’t seem to like the victim) and I don’t have any other suspects!
First of all, if ID is the best hypothesis, then it is that. I also understand your point, although the example above shows two hypotheses, one obviously better than the other (that he was not guilty). But we could say that there's a "best accidentaly-OOL theory" out there, and that's not saying much. So, you're right. But what it is saying also is that we have enough to judge the quality of the theory. I think we have far more evidence in favor of ID than of chemical-evolution OOL theories and given your 99% of scientists who believe the latter, that's saying a lot. Sure, there are weak points in ID theory. But I would hope you'd acknowledge the strengths. That is essential, especially when ranking another hypothesis over it (life from earth-like planet theory). Personally, I can't see the latter (earth-like planet) as being very strong. I mean, why wouldn't you try to rip that apart with the intensity that you're directing towards ID? There are clearly a lot of weak spots in the idea that an earth-like planet intentionally or accidentally seeding first life on (our) earth. There are some strengths also, true.
The intellectually honest response in these cases is “I DO NOT KNOW”. I understand that most people are uncomfortable admitting ignorance, but I believe it is a very important thing to be able to do.
Ok, but let's be consistent. There are levels of knowing. ID provides a reasonable hypothesis. If ID was eventually proven more absolutely correct, it would be by adding to the data we already know.
If you wish to argue that we do not need to use any part of our brain in order to design things, simply say so and we can agree to disagree.
In this kind of discussion there has to be some significant precision. We can't just appeal to a popular understanding. We do not have direct empirical observation of a thing which can be precisely identified as "intelligence". Like "athleticism" - it's not something that can be directly observed. It's not a substance or a chemical compound. It's an immaterial quality that can only be measured by observing "effects". In order to recognize that an intelligent action took place, you cannot have any access to empirical data about a thing called intelligence. You can only measure effects and infer that there is a thing called intelligence at work. That's exactly what ID does. You say that "we use our brains" for intelligent acts. But again, you cannot prove that empirically. Some strict materialists would not say that we use our brains at all, but that everything we do is merely a physical function. Our brains are directed by their evolutionary development. It's all a determined, physical process. So, they'd have to disagree that there's that kind of dualism. Do we know what the "self" is? Can we identify what and where the "designing function" is in the human brain? No. You'd have to conclude (I'd think) to be consistent that you really do not know that. But when you appeal to a popular understanding, "we use our brains for every intelligent act" it's an oversimplification. Then you try to make it sound ridiculous if a person denies that we use our brains. But we don't know what "the self" is, that "uses brains". Why should there be this kind of mystery in biology? How do you explain that? Why are other things relatively easy to explain, but the human person remains a profound mystery? Evolution caused it to be that way? Why not explore the possibilities and evaluate the evidence we do have? It's clearly a mystery and you haven't provided any good reason for ID to continue researching evidence to support the theory. I'd also think you'd need a better explanation. What is the origin of human rationality? That's an important question. ID has an answer for it -- the complex functionality in human beings that enables rational thought most likely from intelligence. What is a better, more likely hypothesis?
I’m very well aware of abductive inference. I am not here to argue that ID is not reasonable. I am arguing that ID is not a successful empirically supported theory.
I know your views on evolution and OOL, but what other historical science like ID would you consider to be a successfully empirically supported theory? And how did you judge it as such? That just helps to set the standard -- and see why you think that ID does not reach it.Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas, In case you forgot, the question I've asked you many times now is this: It is the case, or is it NOT the case, that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity. What is your answer? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
That is another false statement....
Again, I have made my argument very simple and straightforward, and I am trying very hard to eliminate terminological confusion and miscommunication so we can actually identify which premises and inferences we agree on and which we disagree on. Again, here is my argument very, very simply:
1) ID says that for every CSI-rich system in our experience, when we know the source, the source is intelligent action. 2) We observe CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says that intelligent action is therefore the best explanation for these systems. 3) I say that for every intelligent action in our experience, when we know the source, the source is a CSI-rich physical entity 4) I say that (3) implies that intelligent action could not have preceded CSI-rich mechanism in order to cause it
It is my belief that you disagree with (4), because you hold that the cause of CSI-rich mechanisms in terrestrial biology might itself be a CSI-rich mechanism (and that the CSI in the designer could be different from the CSI in terrestrial life forms). Am I now characterizing your objection correctly? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply