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

RDFish:
My argument is this: 1. ID hypothesizes that ‘x’ was intelligently designed 2. What that statement means is that something intelligent (let’s call that something “E”) designed X 3. By simple logic (the Law of the Excluded Middle), either E has the property M or it does not. 4. If E has the property M, then it fails to support ID’s hypothesis (or is not the most likely hypothesis, depending on what you think ID’s claims actually are) 5. If E does NOT have the property M, then it contradicts our experience of intelligent agency 6. Therefore, it is not the case that ID represents the best explanation of X that is consistent with our uniform and repeated experience. THAT is my argument. Cheers, RDFish
1. ID hypothesizes that ‘x’ was intelligently designed. This is false. CheersMung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
And what I find from religious people is that they are often unable to comport themselves politely in debate. I am not attacking you or your rationality, but you choose to insult me and anyone else who doesn’t share your religious views. To be honest, I find your arguments poorly stated, and that you are generally ignorant of philosophy and science, and that your responses are far less cogent than many of the other debaters here. Now, if you’d like to continue debating with me here, you can refrain from insulting me, and I will gladly do likewise.
I'd like to debate you, but you insult my intelligence.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

RDFish to Upright BiPed:
You have now told me that ID proponents make a “design inference”, and where they derive that inference from, and what they base it on, and what they do not base it on. You have not, however, said just what this ‘design inference’ is. For example, does this inference purport to explain something? If so, what exactly is it supposed to explain?
Yeah, Upright BiPed, I blame you!
ID proponents make a “design inference”
Well, duh.
You have now told me that ID proponents make a “design inference”, and where they derive that inference from
Well, duh.
You have now told me that ID proponents make a “design inference”, and where they derive that inference from, and what they base it on
Well, duh.
You have now told me that ID proponents make a “design inference”, and where they derive that inference from, and what they base it on, and what they do not base it on.
Well, duh. RDFish:
You have failed to answer my question regarding what ID is supposed to explain.
Yeah, Upright BiPed, I blame you!Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

RDFish @731:
If you accept my definition of the word “intelligence” we can go on and make progress.
Given that you have been arguing against "intelligent design," since your post @36, why have you waited until 730+ posts into this thread to inform us that you have an exclusively personal definition of "intelligence"? Given that you have already conceded that: 1. The universe exhibits CSI – by empirical observed evidence. 2. The only known origin for CSI is intelligence. Which definition of intelligence were you using then and which definition of intelligence are you using now, and why does it matter?Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
6 The cause must account for the difference between what happened and what otherwise might have been expected to happen.
a counterfactual.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, Again: Exactly who is the authority that decided on "non-negotiable" rules for historical science?!?
1 Historical sciences are different from other sciences because they search for past causes as opposed to establishing universal laws by which nature generally operates.
The laws by which we observe nature operating now determine our expectation of how they operated in the past.
2 Causes that are known to produce the effect in question are judged to be better candidates than those that are not.
This is over-simplified; it is only true if all other considerations are equal. If some cause is known to produce some effect, but it is also known to have some property that is inconsistent with the explanatory context, then it is not necessarily going to be a better candidate. For example, oxidation is known to release light and heat, but other factors ruled out this cause for the sun's radiation.
3 There must be evidence that the proposed cause was, in fact, present. 4 Among alternatives, the hypothesis proposed must best explain the evidence.
Yes, and yes.
5 To qualify as best, a historical explanation must cite a uniquely adequate cause–a cause that has alone demonstrated the capacity to produce the evidence in question.
Again, I think this is over-simplified. Say we have two causes which both have demonstrated the capacity to produce the evidence in question. Other considerations (say, #3) may add support to one candidate over another.
6 The cause must account for the difference between what happened and what otherwise might have been expected to happen.
Not sure about this one, but I'll let it go for now...
7 The cause must be one that is now in operation.
Sure, we accept uniformitarianism.
8 If more than one explanation might satisfy the criteria of best, scientists must use a comparative method of evaluation and a process of elimination to evaluate competing possible causal hypotheses.
Well, obviously - but given #5 this appears to be impossible (how can two candidates both "alone demonstrate the capacity to produce the evidence in question"?)
9 The cause must have existed at the right time and place.
Yes - but this appears to be identical to #3.
10 There must be an absence of evidence for competing causes.
Again this would be redundant if (5) was followed, but yes of course (or if not a total absence, at least not good evidence).
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go back through those standards and re-evaluate your argument (especially your complex terms) in that context.
You are the one supporting a particular theory, not me! You need to show how your theory meets these criteria - all I have to do is show you that it doesn't.
Can you understand why we can retain [“intelligence”] as a possible cause, while we cannot retain [“intelligent agents”, which are things that use CSI-rich physical bodies to store and manipulate information (and possibly have immaterial souls or minds that they also use in designing things)]” as a possible cause. Pay special attention to rules 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, but do examine them all.
Again, you really need to show that ID meets these criteria, because I don't think that "intelligence" meets any of these criteria. But before we can begin to argue about this, we need to pin down just what we are including in this term. On one hand we agree that we shall not adopt any assumptions from metaphysics - specifically materialism or dualism - right? On the other hand, we need to be clear on what we are referring to. I propose that the word "intelligence" in this context refer to our mental abilities, including (but not limited to) perception, storage/recall of information, planning, language generation and understanding, and so on. In this sense, the word is analogous to "athleticism", which refers to our physical abilities (like running, jumping, throwing, and so on). I believe this meaning for the word "intelligence" is one of a number of senses of its common usage, and it does not imply nor rely on any materialistic or dualistic assumptions (i.e. it is perfectly compatible with both ontologies). If you accept my definition of the word "intelligence" we can go on and make progress. Otherwise, please suggest your own definition - again, that does not assume dualism or materialism. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

1. The universe exhibits CSI - by empirical observed evidence. 2. The only known origin for CSI is intelligence.
RDFish @726:
We know (1 and 2) from our experience
Whatever. How do we know these (1 and 2) from our experience?Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

RDFish to Upright BiPed:
Given your inability to refrain from nastiness and ad hominems, it is apparent that you are desperate to prove me wrong, but experiencing that sinking feeling that you are well out of your depth here
lolMung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

SB: Are you familiar with the principle of causal adequacy as it relates to historical science and the ID inference? RDF:
Yes, but Meyer does not set any “non-negotiable rules” for science, any more than anyone else does.
Now, come on, RD, I have read the book--you haven't. Here are ten non-negotiable rules for doing historical science, and Meyer accounts for all of them at various points in his presentation: 1 Historical sciences are different from other sciences because they search for past causes as opposed to establishing universal laws by which nature generally operates. 2 Causes that are known to produce the effect in question are judged to be better candidates than those that are not. 3 There must be evidence that the proposed cause was, in fact, present. 4 Among alternatives, the hypothesis proposed must best explain the evidence. 5 To qualify as best, a historical explanation must cite a uniquely adequate cause--a cause that has alone demonstrated the capacity to produce the evidence in question. 6 The cause must account for the difference between what happened and what otherwise might have been expected to happen. 7 The cause must be one that is now in operation. 8 If more than one explanation might satisfy the criteria of best, scientists must use a comparative method of evaluation and a process of elimination to evaluate competing possible causal hypotheses. 9 The cause must have existed at the right time and place. 10 There must be an absence of evidence for competing causes. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go back through those standards and re-evaluate your argument (especially your complex terms) in that context. Can you understand why we can retain [“intelligence”] as a possible cause, while we cannot retain [“intelligent agents”, which are things that use CSI-rich physical bodies to store and manipulate information (and possibly have immaterial souls or minds that they also use in designing things)]” as a possible cause. Pay special attention to rules 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, but do examine them all. (By the way, Meyer does not number them in this way and he groups them differently, but I have a good reason for enumerating and characterizing them in this fashion).
Just so we understand your position here: You are, it appears, actually trying to deny that we use our brains to design things. Honestly, I think this is a very radical, very marginal position that is impossible to defend.
No. That is not my position. But thank you for playing. RDF:
That is not a materialist assumption, Stephen.
I don’t recall attributing to you the position of materialism. The problem, as I perceive it, is your understanding of empiricism.StephenB_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed, You have failed to answer my question regarding what ID is supposed to explain. Different ID proponents have different opinions on what ID is a theory of, which makes it very difficult for me to discuss these issues without miscommunications. Would you please tell me what it is you think ID is a theory of? What does it explain? Am I correct to assume that ID posits the existence of some sort of intelligent being that somehow designs... something?
So on point #1, you agree without reservation.
Yes - I've been saying this all along.
And on point #2, I argue directly against your stated position that if the agent isn’t materially embodied, it would contradict our universal experience.
I argue that our universal experience is that intelligence is invariably embodied, so apparently we disagree on this point. I will be happy to have clarified our disagreement and leave it at that: You believe that our universal experience includes disembodied entities who can produce complex physical mechanisms (e.g. irreducibly complex systems), and I do not.
This is the position you adopt in order to attack Meyer, but I have already stated that the universal experience he speaks of has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical characteristics of the agent; it only has to do with the unrefuted fact that no one, under any circumstances whatsoever, ”can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input” – the very thing you just agreed to without reservation.
I've responded to this, but you didn't pay attention. Please read this carefully: It is my observation - not Meyer's - that no one, under any circumstances whatsoever, can demonstrate the existence of intelligent output absent some complex physical mechanism that stores and processes information. I am fully aware that this observation is not mentioned in ID literature. You deny that this fact is relevant, but I say that it shows that at least one version of ID (the one that attempts to explain the very first CSI in the universe) is not consistent with our universal experience.
This is what I meant when I said you “invalidate your own complaint”. The appropriate response from you would be to stop making this claim against Meyer specifically, and against ID in general.
I have explained my premises and my conclusion, and they do not invalidate my own complaint.
However, I realize that, given your choices and the energy you’ve expended, this option is not ideologically or intellectually available to you. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the circumstances.
Given your inability to refrain from nastiness and ad hominems, it is apparent that you are desperate to prove me wrong, but experiencing that sinking feeling that you are well out of your depth here :-) Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Hi Silver Asiatic,
You address this to me but I didn’t post the comment you ascribed to me. I would appreciate an apology/correction.
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!
You already know my view on #5.
Yes, I believe we've agreed to disagree on the state of empirical evidence concerning the mental abilities of disembodied entities.
1. The universe exhibits CSI- by empirical observed evidence. 2. The only known origin for CSI is intelligence. 3. It’s reasonable to posit, with empirical support, the existence of a designing intellect for the origin of the universe. 4. Since the universe pre-dates the earth (known through empirical data), the posited intelligence cannot have originated on earth. 5. Since matter itself originated with the beginning of the universe (supported with empirical data), the posited intelligence cannot be dependent on matter. That’s the empirical support for an immaterial, designing intellect.
We know (1 and 2) from our experience, but we do not know (3,4, or 5) from our experience. The latter are hypotheses that would require evidence. The fact that (5) contradicts our experience of intelligent agents does not mean that (5) is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that it does contradict our experience.
Empirical data points to a desigining intellect at the origin of the universe, but you’re claiming that our uniform and repeated experince is enough to refute that conclusion.
I do not refute the conclusion itself; rather, I refute that the conclusion is consistent with our uniform and repeated experience. Our experience is only of embodied intelligence, and moreover, everything we understand of intelligent agency relies on complex physical mechanism to store and manipulate information. We have no idea whatsoever how anything could store and manipulate information (much less manipulate matter!) without complex physical mechanism.
More importantly, to conclude that the design argument is not the most likely hypothesis, you’ve have to indicate which hypothesis is better, and I haven’t seen you do that yet.
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. If, on the other hand, ID purports to explain the first CSI in the universe, then I do not know of any hypotheses that are consistent with our experience that would explain that.
You might say that “ID is a weakly supported hypothesis” (I disagree) but to rank it as not the most likely is to point to one that is more likely. If there is none, then even weak as it is, ID would be the most likely of hypotheses.
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! Now, would you think that the judge’s best explanation of the crime should really be considered to be a justified conclusion? Of course not. 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 could merely ask you to show with observable, repeated evidence the physical location, precise physical mechanism, and immediate outputs of the “designing function” in human beings.
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. But I do not want to begin evaluating the evidence at this juncture, sorry - I would rather clear up any remaining misunderstanding about the argument at hand.
4. Therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that cosmological CSI was caused by intelligence?
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. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Mung: 1. Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we can infer that ‘x’ was intelligently designed. RDFish: First, obviously (1) is assuming your conclusion. For the nth time, an inference is not a conclusion.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
Some people (e.g. theists) apparently think we can observe disembodied entities designing complex machinery
Priceless.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
The reason I say that ID supporters try to prohibit talk about “design” is because they refuse to entertain any discussion about their specific claims.
This is false. At a minimum, both Upright BiPed and I have given you specific instances to consider. You've been invited to talk specifics and have (so far) declined to do so. I, for example, have on more than one occasion referred to your own posts as warranting a design inference. You have a better explanation for your posts? Do tell.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

The design inference entails there must have been a designer. We have no uniform and repeated experience of any designers. Therefore the design inference is not and can never be valid. That's your argument?Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
The ID supporter speaks of empirically supporting a “design inference”. In order to evaluation whether or not that inference is valid, I seek clarifications and compare what “design inference” entails with our experiential knowledge.
Just how do you propose to determine whether "the design inference" you're evaluating is valid? It's not a deductive argument. What's "valid" got to do with it? RDFish:
In order to evaluation whether or not that inference is valid, I seek clarifications and compare what “design inference” entails with our experiential knowledge.
So we should abandon the design inference because of what it entails? Why on earth should we do that? I trust you have an argument? RDFish:
In order to evaluation whether or not that inference is valid, I seek clarifications and compare what “design inference” entails with our experiential knowledge.
Ah. So you seek to defeat logic (entail: involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence) with "experiential knowledge." Talk about a fools errand!Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

So on point #1, you agree without reservation. And on point #2, I argue directly against your stated position that if the agent isn’t materially embodied, it would contradict our universal experience. This is the position you adopt in order to attack Meyer, but I have already stated that the universal experience he speaks of has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical characteristics of the agent; it only has to do with the unrefuted fact that no one, under any circumstances whatsoever, ”can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input” - the very thing you just agreed to without reservation. This is what I meant when I said you “invalidate your own complaint”. The appropriate response from you would be to stop making this claim against Meyer specifically, and against ID in general. However, I realize that, given your choices and the energy you’ve expended, this option is not ideologically or intellectually available to you. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the circumstances.Upright BiPed_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Abduction[1] is a form of logical inference that goes from observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data (observation) and seeks to explain relevant evidence. 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
1. It's possible that it rained. 2. When it rains, the lawn gets wet. 2. The lawn is wet. 3. Therefore the possibility that it rained it reasonable. 1. It's possible that unembodied intelligent designer exists 2. CSI is strong evidence of intelligence 3. Cosmological CSI is found where only an unembodied designer could be the source 4. Therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that cosmological CSI was caused by intelligence?Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

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.
I could merely ask you to show with observable, repeated evidence the physical location, precise physical mechanism, and immediate outputs of the "designing function" in human beings.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
And what I find from religious people is that they are often unable to comport themselves politely in debate. I am not attacking you or your rationality, but you choose to insult me and anyone else who doesn’t share your religious views. To be honest, I find your arguments poorly stated, and that you are generally ignorant of philosophy and science, and that your responses are far less cogent than many of the other debaters here. Now, if you’d like to continue debating with me here, you can refrain from insulting me, and I will gladly do likewise.
You address this to me but I didn't post the comment you ascribed to me. I would appreciate an apology/correction.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

1. ID hypothesizes that ‘x’ was intelligently designed 2. What that statement means is that something intelligent (let’s call that something “E”) designed X 3. By simple logic (the Law of the Excluded Middle), either E has the property M or it does not. 4. If E has the property M, then it fails to support ID’s hypothesis (or is not the most likely hypothesis, depending on what you think ID’s claims actually are) 5. If E does NOT have the property M, then it contradicts our experience of intelligent agency 6. Therefore, it is not the case that ID represents the best explanation of X that is consistent with our uniform and repeated experience. THAT is my argument.
Ok, that was very good. It's a clear presentation. You already know my view on #5. You're overstating what our experience of intelligent agency shows, and it's an arbitrary limit. Again, but abductive inference, we use empirical data to extrapolate to conclusions. 1. The universe exhibits CSI- by empirical observed evidence. 2. The only known origin for CSI is intelligence. 3. It's reasonable to posit, with empirical support, the existence of a designing intellect for the origin of the universe. 4. Since the universe pre-dates the earth (known through empirical data), the posited intelligence cannot have originated on earth. 5. Since matter itself originated with the beginning of the universe (supported with empirical data), the posited intelligence cannot be dependent on matter. That's the empirical support for an immaterial, designing intellect. You've elimated that argument with your #5 however. Empirical data points to a desigining intellect at the origin of the universe, but you're claiming that our uniform and repeated experince is enough to refute that conclusion. Regarding your #4, I haven't followed that part of your agument, but I believe you're saying:
4. If E [has the property M] is a complex physical entity, then it fails to support [ID’s hypothesis] that the thing was designed. [(or is not the most likely hypothesis, depending on what you think ID’s claims actually are)] or there is a better hypothesis.
It does not follow that if E was a physical entity, then the thing in question does not show evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Embodied intelligences design things. More importantly, to conclude that the design argument is not the most likely hypothesis, you've have to indicate which hypothesis is better, and I haven't seen you do that yet. You might say that "ID is a weakly supported hypothesis" (I disagree) but to rank it as not the most likely is to point to one that is more likely. If there is none, then even weak as it is, ID would be the most likely of hypotheses.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
He stated that in our universal experience, such information only comes about by the act of an intelligent agent. His claim was perfectly legitimate in the context in which he made it. Neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input.
Yes, and I agree with Meyer on this.
2) The design inference which ID proponents derive from the encoded information within the cell, is based on the material evidence in the cell, not from the physical characteristics of the agent. It makes no reference to the physical nature of the agent, and is valid regardless of that physical nature.
You have now told me that ID proponents make a "design inference", and where they derive that inference from, and what they base it on, and what they do not base it on. You have not, however, said just what this 'design inference' is. For example, does this inference purport to explain something? If so, what exactly is it supposed to explain? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Hi Silver Asiatic,
The term uniform is meant as singular, universal, unopposed. Meyer is saying that there is no reasonable alternative to the CSI-from-Intelligence argument. It’s “uniform”. There’s no evidence against it. This is true of the CSI in first life or in the universe or in human affairs (language, code, engineering).
Some people (e.g. evolutionary biologists) think we can observe complex machinery arising without intelligence. I disagree - I believe they are not observing but rather inferring this, and furthermore I do not believe their inference is empirically supported. Some people (e.g. theists) apparently think we can observe disembodied entities designing complex machinery. I disagree - I believe they are not observing but rather inferring this, and furthermore I do not believe their inference is empirically supported. And so, I conclude that neither of these things are observed in our uniform (across virtually all researchers) and repeated (able to be replicated) experience.
If you can’t see the difference between the “uniform, invariable” nature of the design argument, from the uncertain and variably-evidenced, inconclusive intelligence-as-physical-dependent argument then that’s a problem.
If you wish to argue that we can experience disembodied entities designing complex machinery, simply say so and we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, please admit that we have no such thing in our uniform and repeated experience.
In the one case, the CSI-design argument is certain. It’s virtually axiomatic. Language, for example, requires rationality and purpose, which requires intelligent design. That’s uniform and invariable.
You can make all of these sorts of arguments that you'd like, but you are not addressing my argument. My argument has to do with our uniform and repeated experience.
The fact is, we do not even know where to locate “designing intelligence” in the brain. Claims on the mind-body linkage are far from “uniform and invariable”.
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. Otherwise, please admit that in our uniform and repeated experience, people need to use their brains to design things.
Like I said before, sad – but I’ve learned from experience not to expect rationality from people who reject God.
And what I find from religious people is that they are often unable to comport themselves politely in debate. I am not attacking you or your rationality, but you choose to insult me and anyone else who doesn't share your religious views. To be honest, I find your arguments poorly stated, and that you are generally ignorant of philosophy and science, and that your responses are far less cogent than many of the other debaters here. Now, if you'd like to continue debating with me here, you can refrain from insulting me, and I will gladly do likewise. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

UB, would you be so kind as to put your counter-arguments in to a concise summary form so I can address them? Thanks.
Sure. 1) Stephen Meyer wrote a book, entitled Signature in the Cell, which explored the inference to design that can be observed in, and derived from, the presence of encoded information within the living cell. He stated that in our universal experience, such information only comes about by the act of an intelligent agent. His claim was perfectly legitimate in the context in which he made it. Neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input. 2) The design inference which ID proponents derive from the encoded information within the cell, is based on the material evidence in the cell, not from the physical characteristics of the agent. It makes no reference to the physical nature of the agent, and is valid regardless of that physical nature.Upright BiPed_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 701 Don't try to blame me for your own goal. You said @ 610 that there are contrary observations to the claim that "complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions". On its face that was an extraordinary comment from you. So I politely asked what contrary observations you were referring to. You replied, repeatedly, that the contrary observations I was asking about had already been described in this thread and you did not care to repeat them. What you should have said is that I had misread your meaning @ 610, due to your ambiguous wording, and that no contrary observations are described in this thread - which is what I was pointing out all along. Why didn't you just say this in the first place rather than treating me to a string of insults and misleading statements? Very strange.CLAVDIVS_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

SH: As for claims, you asserted that an intelligence creating first life is unlikely based on human experience. RDF: I mean that it contradicts our limited uniform and repeated experience, so we would not predict it to be true. Perhaps this will help you understand this: [...]
It is not our uniform and repeated experience. Thus, anything you derive from that premise is not logically warranted.
What I’ve pointed out is that none of our hypotheses to explain how life got started are likely to be true, given our experience. That is why we need additional evidence in order to say that one of our hypotheses has empirical support.
Nothing about human experience makes the probability of God unlikely. It only shows him to be possible or undeniable. This matters because "God did it" is a subset of ID.
SH: Again, that’s not how ID uses human experience evidence; human experience shows that intelligent causes of any CSI can always be considered a “reasonable possibility”. RDF: I’m saying it is not consistent with our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency, and that it is not an empirically supported theory of origins.
Wrong. I do not have to make any assumptions about your physical body to treat your posts as CSI and treat you as the intelligence cause of the CSI.
SH: ID does not use that human experience of CSI to assign unlikelihood to non-intelligent causes. Unlikelihood of non-intelligent causes was derived from mathematical analysis of what is needed for random chance to generate the necessary CSI; with particular attention to irreducible complexity due to its effect on the probabilities involved. RDF: I think all of these analyses are completely meaningless and wrongheaded, but that is a different discussion entirely. In this discussion, I have already granted that we know of no likely causes for complex mechanisms arising outside of human activity.
Who's "We"? Because "we" (commentors here and a large % of humanity) know of a likely cause for complex mechanism outside of human activity - God.
RDF: I’ve certainly never said anything like this. I’ve said our experience confirms that complex mechanism is required for intelligent action.
You didn't say it, but it follows from your position about "complex mechanism -> intelligence". And there you go again, sneaking in the word, "require" - which implies all sorts of things about impossibilities that human experience cannot confirm. It's logically unwarranted.
SH: Even trying to relax the statement to “in our experience, intelligence is always embodied in a complex physical mechanism”, it is still wrong. I have experienced God, who is intelligent, but not flesh. RDF: If you’d like to base your counter-argument on this, I’ll be happy to agree to disagree, and you can acknowledge that the empirical support for ID is dependent on one’s experience of God.
Empirical support for ID is the observation that intelligences generate CSI. Nothing you've said cancels out the empirical nature of these observations. The experience of God is not important to ID. I only bring it up as a factual refutation of your deliberately dishonest summary of "human experience" with respect to "complex mechanisms -> intelligence" - which you cling to even now. Like I said before, sad - but I've learned from experience not to expect rationality from people who reject God.SirHamster_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

RDFish #693
SA One key word to consider in the phrase that you’re using against ID is “uniform”. RF Um, I got this directly from Stephen Meyer :-)
The term uniform is meant as singular, universal, unopposed. Meyer is saying that there is no reasonable alternative to the CSI-from-Intelligence argument. It's "uniform". There's no evidence against it. This is true of the CSI in first life or in the universe or in human affairs (language, code, engineering). You're probably using some other definition of the term "uniform".
That word it used to validate the design argument (from intelligence). It’s “uniform” because there is no reasonable alternative view. WHAT????? About 99% of all professional biologists would disagree with you!!!
But you've already affirmed that they are all wrong. You're trying to play both sides. There is no reasonable alternative view. CSI only comes from intelligence. There is no evidence otherwise. The same is not true of the claim that intelligence is dependent on physical mechanism. So, that's not what we experience "uniformly". If you're looking for some kind of popular vote among scientists as an indicator of the truth of things, then you'll never reach an empirical conclusion.
ID is a complete non-starter, according to mainstream science!!! I happen to disagree with that and agree with people here that complex mechanisms in biology did not arise by known evolutionary mechanisms, but for you to assume it is not controversial is hilarious.
As I said, you need to consider the term "uniform". If you're denying that the design argument is "our uniform" experience, then you just started arguing that right now, after all these posts. Prior to this, you indicated that you accepted that the design argument is, indeed, our uniform experience. It can't be "uniform" is there is evidence against it. Meyer is saying, as every ID advocate knows, there is no evidence against the CSI-comes-only-from-intelligence argument. None. That's what is meant by "uniform". You might consider the term "invariable". It means, that there's not a variety of reasonable views. There's only one -- "uniform". It is "invariable". If you want to start arguing that now (and going against your own personal views?) then that's probably a much better discussion than we've had thus far. If you can't see the difference between the "uniform, invariable" nature of the design argument, from the uncertain and variably-evidenced, inconclusive intelligence-as-physical-dependent argument then that's a problem. In the one case, the CSI-design argument is certain. It's virtually axiomatic. Language, for example, requires rationality and purpose, which requires intelligent design. That's uniform and invariable. The fact is, we do not even know where to locate "designing intelligence" in the brain. Claims on the mind-body linkage are far from "uniform and invariable". You're trying to draw a parallel between the two arguments, but you have to acknowledge the significant difference in the two.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Hi Silver Asiatic,
Applying those definitions, I disagree that there is no empirical support for the fine-tuning argument. I also disagree that it is a theological argument.
I have been arguing something else for 700 posts now, and I do not want to get sidetracked on this. However, you have been a congenial and sincere debater, and I don't want to ignore your point. As for fine-tuning, there is clearly empirical support for the extraordinary narrow range of values for various physical constants that would allow life as we know it to exist in the universe. As for positing a disembodied intelligent being who existed outside of space-time and consciously chose these values, there isn't any empirical evidence at all. Clearly you feel compelled to believe this is the most reasonable answer, and I would never say that it is irrational or unreasonable to believe so. I simply point out that we have no empircal evidence to support that view.
But the fact that we disagree on what “empirical support” means, or how we can determine that it exists in any given situation — helps me understand why you would need to agree to disagree with my points.
I don't actually think we disagree about this.
Please show me one instance, or refer to one ID supporter on this thread indicating that ID tries to prohibit people from talking about what design means.
Here is what I meant: The ID supporter speaks of empirically supporting a "design inference". In order to evaluation whether or not that inference is valid, I seek clarifications and compare what "design inference" entails with our experiential knowledge. As far as I can tell, to say that "Y is designed" is to say "There exists some intelligent entity E, and Y was designed by E". Do you agree so far? The reason I say that ID supporters try to prohibit talk about "design" is because they refuse to entertain any discussion about their specific claims. For example, I may try to understand exactly what sorts of things are encompassed by the phrase "some intelligent entity E", and as far as I can tell, it consists of the following disjunction: 1) An intelligent entity that is similar to life as we know it; in particular with complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information. OR 2) An intelligent entity that is NOT similar to life as we know it, WITHOUT complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information. There is simply nothing wrong with unpacking the meaning of the "design inference" this way. It allows us to see how this inference aligns with our experience. The reason ID proponents object to it (try to prohibit such talk) is because it lays bare the unfounded assumptions required to pass ID off as an empirically supported theory.
Mung has answered your example already and I urge you to read it in post 621. You have not responded to that syllogism. Your entire argument fails on that. MUNG: 1. Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we can infer that ‘x’ was intelligently designed. 2. Either ‘y’ or ‘z’ must be true. 3. But based upon our uniform and repeated experience we cannot infer that either ‘y’ or ‘z’ is true.
My response: First, obviously (1) is assuming your conclusion. You are starting with a confirmation of the very point we are debating. So, Mung's argument ought to be this:
1. ID hypothesizes that 'x' was intelligently designed 2. Either ‘y’ or ‘z’ must be true. 3. But based upon our uniform and repeated experience we cannot infer that either ‘y’ or ‘z’ is true.
But this is not my argument! My argument is this: 1. ID hypothesizes that 'x' was intelligently designed 2. What that statement means is that something intelligent (let's call that something "E") designed X 3. By simple logic (the Law of the Excluded Middle), either E has the property M or it does not. 4. If E has the property M, then it fails to support ID's hypothesis (or is not the most likely hypothesis, depending on what you think ID's claims actually are) 5. If E does NOT have the property M, then it contradicts our experience of intelligent agency 6. Therefore, it is not the case that ID represents the best explanation of X that is consistent with our uniform and repeated experience. THAT is my argument. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

RDFish @ 697:
Apparently, after a dozen or so counter-arguments have been tried and dropped, these are the [three] remaining counter-arguments:
RDFish @637:
After trying a dozen failed counter-arguments, all that anyone has left here is to claim that disembodied entities are capable of designing complex mechanisms, and so our uniform and repeated experience does support ID.
One. Three. A Dozen or so. lolMung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

RDFish to Upright BiPed:
UB, would you be so kind as to put your counter-arguments in to a concise summary form so I can address them? Thanks.
Would you be so kind as to put your arguments (they appear to be legion) into concise summaries? Please use a form in which the premises are clearly identified along with the conclusion. Thanks.Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply