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

_{Barry Arrington
October 1, 2013

Intelligent Design

5}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Claudius, you can start from 424 above and read on down, noting especially the distinction between the world of life and the observed fine tuned cosmos, and coming down to the exchanges this morning. That you ask in the way that you do, strongly suggests that you are applying exactly the sort of selectively hyperskeptical dismissive filtering that Hume did to contrary evidence. KF PS: SA, see why it has been necessary to lay out a case in fair details repeatedly? 424 above, of course STARTS with the pivotal citation, duly emphasised and annotated.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

RDF, 606:
Over and over again I’ve said that my argument means it is UNLIKELY that a disembodied being can design complex mechanisms. I have NEVER said it means it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is not so. Notice, as I brought to your attention yesterday, but as usual you have studiously ignored. I clip 579 in response to your 576, which was further brought to your attention by SA at 601:
I think you are caught in yet another self-contradiction, between 576 and 422:
RDF, 576: Neither Meyer nor I have said anything about what is possible and what is not possible. RDF, 422: But we do know that the human brain is a fantastically complex mechanism. We also know [--> presumably, have warranted, credibly true beliefs] that in our uniform [--> what have you, like Hume, locked out ideologically here?] and repeated experience, neither humans nor anything else can [--> an unwarranted universal claim, with question begging implied] design anything without a functioning brain [--> confuses brain with mind].
I would consider, on good grounds that an assertion that speaks to “anything” and its capabilities — “can” — is a clear assertion on what is not possible. And, that assertion in 422 is heavily loaded with implicit materialism.
To this SA at 601 adds, from your remarks at 36:
RDFish #36: Based on our knowledge and experience, nothing without complex physical mechanisms for data aquisition, information processing, and motor output could produce other complex physical systems. In other words, it’s a priori unlikely that the ID hypothesis is true. In order for ID to be taken seriously as a scientific project, then, it must provide good empirical evidence that such a thing exists, or has existed in the past, or at the very least that such a thing is possible in principle. Nobody ever attempts to provide such evidence, which is why ID is a non-starter as a science.
The record is clear, and it both shows the underlying implicit materialism and the contradictions and denials of what you have directly asserted or implied. It is to be repeated that the design inference properly refrains from metaphysically loaded commitments on the ultimate nature of intelligence, it just reckons with the fact of it and the facts of its characteristic traces, It then infers that per tested reliable signs (billions of known cases, no counter examples) we may freely infer on sign from FSCO/I to design and the associated root of design, intelligence as credible cause. From the cases of such signs, we may then infer that complex text in a program is designed. Similarly, DNA code being a case of such complex text in evident programs, is designed. The world of cell based life is designed. As was pointed out above but ignored, from the beginning of modern design theory with Thaxton et al, such design of life is NOT inferred on the evidence to be designed by an intelligence that is immaterial. Venter et al show that a molecular nanotech lab would be enough. Of course the evidence is compatible with design by an immaterial intelligence (once one is willing to consider that such may exist.) The case of cosmological fine tuning plus signs of a beginning to the observed cosmos and the logic of contingent vs necessary being point to the serious possibility that the observed cosmos was designed by a necessary being who is by virtue of that immaterial [matter being inherently contingent]. Of course, likewise, these factors have been studiously ignored. It is time for some rethinking, RDF. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 612
As for empirical evidence, we do have repeated evidence of mental functions operating after brain death. These are from clinical observations.
What is the empirical evidence of mental functions operating after brain death?CLAVDIVS_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 610
RDFish: Here are two statements of experience: 1) Complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions 2) Intelligent actions invariably arise from complex mechanisms Both deal with both experience (always) and non-experience (never)
Kairosfocus: Neither of these is a proper summary of our observations and analyses. Both are ideologically loaded with in effect Hume’s selectively hyperskeptical filtering out of contrary observations...
What are the contrary observations to "complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions"?CLAVDIVS_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus #607: 1: we observe your ignoring of corrections of significant, mutually contradictory assertions on your part.
I trust that anyone can see that. Any sense of "counter-arguments" to our points are merely a repeat of statements that have been refuted already.
2: you continue to ignore identification of an a priori implicit commitment to materialism in 422, and more.
RDFish, I think you need to deal with #422 which has been referenced (admittedly sometimes embedded in a long text) several times. Your response below was contradicted there:
Over and over again I’ve said that my argument means it is UNLIKELY that a disembodied being can design complex mechanisms. I have NEVER said it means it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RDFish #422: We also know that in our uniform and repeated experience, neither humans nor anything else can design anything without a functioning brain.
Perhaps you've changed your mind about this, but as it stands, you've stated that "we know" (this implies certainty) that nothing can (a term referring to "possibly") design something without a brain. (I'm merely repeating a point KF made). RDF, you've improved your argument here wih this:
I’ve said that my argument means it is UNLIKELY that a disembodied being can design complex mechanisms.
"UNLIKELY" is better than "we know it can't be done". However, on what basis did you calculate this likeliness? There's a probability function here. What evidence did you use to determine that it is unlikely?
Well I don’t mean to ridicule anything,
Your reference to Halloween might have been accidental, but if not, then I do think you were trying to dismiss by ridicule.
but if you really want to press the point, simply describe some experiment where a disembodied intelligence was observed to design a complex mechanism.
Given there's no direct observation of he designing function in human beings or that it is necessarily embodied, the challenge returns to you. As for empirical evidence, we do have repeated evidence of mental functions operating after brain death. These are from clinical observations. From abductive reasoning, we take that empirical data and draw the most reasonable conclusion.
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.
We already know about several kinds of intelligences - animal, insect, machine, human, with a gradient of powers and capabilities. It's reasonable to conclude that there are other kinds of intelligences that explain the origin of these we observe.
“Intelligent design” subsumes two possibilities, since obviously the Intelligent Designer that ID is attempting to find evidence for is either material or not.
You've been corrected about this several times. ID is looking at evidence of design by intelligence. It is not seeking evidence "for a particular Designer". Is it possible that there is a being that is neither material or immaterial, but of some other, as yet unknown nature? If yes,then your argument fails. If no, on what empirical evidence did you conclude that there are only two possible kinds of intelligent beings (material or immaterial)? Perhaps you could look at the nature of Christ, as understood in historical Christian teaching. Material or immaterial? You could look at something like this: http://www.spiritdaily.net/Pios_biolocation.htm You can't counter by claiming "non-empirical!" since you've already set your argument on the non-empirical either-of "material or non-material". You don't know those are the only options. Could some ET intelligence straddle those two categories in some way we've never experienced? Again, you do not know this. If you're going to refer only to observed phenomena, then you should simply say that we've never observed anything immaterial and thus there's no evidence it exists. That's just rank materialism, and if you're arguing that, I'd think it would be best to make that more clear in your position.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

RDFish said:
I am perfectly content to agree to disagree about strength of the evidence for disembodied intelligent agents (especially those who can design complex mechanisms). You can simply acknowledge that the validity of ID as an empirical theory rests upon this particular claim.
IOW, you cannot support your bald, universal "queen's we" assertions, nor can you support your claims about the state of the evidence or research, so you're punting. And no, ID as a theory dosn't rest on the existence of "immaterial" intelligence even if the circumstances surrounding some phenomena thought to be designed might currently imply such a conclusion.William J Murray_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

RDF, 606:
Here are two statements of experience: 1) Complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions 2) Intelligent actions invariably arise from complex mechanisms Both deal with both experience (always) and non-experience (never)
Neither of these is a proper summary of our observations and analyses. Both are ideologically loaded with in effect Hume's selectively hyperskeptical filtering out of contrary observations, and implicitly appeal to scientism and materialism (probably in the guise of methodological materialism.) The observations and analysis that point to a fine tuned contingent cosmos decisively undercut the "invariably" claims, as pointed out already. Once fine tuning and design of the observed cosmos are reasonable possibilities rooted in observation and analysis, one has no right to confidently assert uniform or invariable observation that complex functionally specific organisation traces to embodiment. At least, if one is interested in not begging questions. Similarly, our own direct experience of mindedness as conscious intelligences, cannot reasonably be pinned to embodiment, brain organisation and processing. We neither can account for it properly on such embodiment, nor can we show empirically that such credibly arises from blind watchmaker processes. Indeed, we see a sharp difference between processing and insightful conscious reasoned thought that is sufficient to warrant holding that these are patently categorically distinct. Nor, should we forget that mere processing is blind and mechanical, thus we face GIGO and the implied point that no blindly mechanical process can credibly, per observation, account for the complex functionally specific organisation of brains or computer motherboards or analogue computers etc. (Cf. Leibnitz's mill wheels grinding away, or the electronic or neurons with ion flows and mV pulse equivalents.) We have no non question-begging grounds for claiming it to be an observational finding that intelligent actions and complex mechanisms are invariably causally associated. This perception, instead, is driven by implicit ideological a prioris. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

RDF, re:
[RDF:] 2) Human experience has NOT observed intelligence per se creating CSI (we cannot observe intelligence per se, but rather we observe behaviors and infer intelligence). [SA?:]Great, I’ve been arguing with a non-intelligent sentence generator. Kidding aside – are you an intelligence? If yes, then I have just indeed observed intelligence generating CSI. (large blocks of text arguing certain ideas) [RDF:] Saying that you are observing “intelligence” generating CSI is like saying you are observing “athleticism” win a race. These are not things in themselves; they are properties of human beings (or perhaps other entities).
And, do keyboards type coherent sentences by themselves, absent intelligent, purposeful, designed action? Would the body of a live monkey produce the same effect within reasonable resources? What is the difference between a bucket of bolts tipped over on a keyboard, or a monkey at the boars, and one of us? It is reasonable shorthand to speak of observing design by intelligence. Or, observing intelligence. We do observe behaviour, or events. We notice a distinct pattern -- one directly familiar from our conscious experience [see the back-door behaviourism?] -- that reflects a faculty we have which we properly label intelligence. Indeed, without that prior first fact, we cannot make OBSERVATIONS at all. To observe is not only to sense but to do so insightfully. Behaviourism is self-referentially absurd. It deliberately shuts the eye to what must first be in place for us to observe and analyse, in order to imagine that by suppressing the subjectivity involved, it becomes somehow more objective. This is yet another absurdity of scientism. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Mung: From 422, it seems RDF is doing more than saying our alleged uniform experience points to embodiment. He implies and seems to assert that embodiment is NECESSARY for intelligence, claiming to ground this in observation. That imports and imposes materialism by begging big questions. Such, of course will seem to be almost self evident to those caught up in scientism [cf. here Lewontin et al], but that simply shows how they are caught up in a questionable ideology. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

RDF, 1: we observe your ignoring of corrections of significant, mutually contradictory assertions on your part. Similarly, 2: you continue to ignore identification of an a priori implicit commitment to materialism in 422, and more. 3: You keep on simply asserting that our -- presumably, humanity's -- "UNIFORM" experience effectively excludes the credibility or even possibility that we have had encounters with mind beyond matter. 4: Or at least, you imply scientism: that's not science so can be brushed aside. 5: You have failed to show at any point how the gap between mechanical processing of organised components and consciously aware insightful thought and analysis can be and has been bridged. 6: You have had no reasonable, adequately observationally grounded account of how the latter can arise from the former through incremental improvement via chance variation and differential reproductive success. 7: We are left to see that the very minds we experience in action are credibly or at least reasonably possibly beyond mere brain matter blindly processing. 8: You have refused to acknowledge the difference between a common perception that we commonly see embodied intelligence in action and the assertion that, effectively, intelligence must be embodied. (The latter is a claim of logical necessity, the former at most, sufficiency.) 9: By contrast, the design inference is to intelligence, not to embodiment, and the inference is based on observed capacities of intelligence (which we recognise from our own experience) that exceed the plausible blind search capacities of our solar system or the observed cosmos. 10: Intelligence is a functional capacity and unless it is shown that embodiment is a necessary condition for it, mere correlation with embodiment is not equal to --- nor does it require a conclusion of -- causation rooted in embodiment. (Such a conclusion has materialism embedded as a silent premise, cf corrections to 422.) 11: Especially, as the difference between mechanical processing and intelligent, aware insightful thought and reasoning is patent. Cf the analogy of the mill and the Chinese Room thought exercise, etc. 12: Where also, the fine tuned observed cosmos that credibly had a beginning points beyond itself to an intelligent, designing cause. Even through a multiverse speculation, the root cause credibly is a necessary being that is intelligent and purposeful, intelligent, immaterial [as matter is inherently contingent], skilled and powerful. 13: That is at minimum, we have here a good reason to hold off on converting our common observations of embodied intelligence into the conclusion that embodiment is a necessary condition of such intelligence. 14: Once that necessity is held off your argument collapses into question-begging non sequitur. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Hi SirHamster
RDF: Most arguments are not logical proofs, of course. SH: Every argument is evidence -> conclusion. Logic is the steps to get from A to B. Sometimes the logic is weak, or strong, but there is no non-logical argument. The logic in your argument makes your conclusion unwarranted.
I take "logical proof" to imply formal logic; you are talking about using informal logic in argumentation. Never mind, let's skip this.
RDF: What I am arguing is that the hypothesis that intelligence could have preceded the first mechanism contradicts our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency, which invariably is observed to require complex mechanism. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis must be false; it simply means it is unlikely to be true, and in order to justify it we would need to obtain specific evidence. SH: A jet “contradicts” the uniform and repeated experience of pre-1900s humanity on human flight. But in truth it is not a contradiction, simply a lack of experience of that possibility combined with the lack of technology.
Ok, so someday we might discover intelligence existing without mechanism. But someday we also might discover mechanism arising without intelligent action. Do you see?
So the human experience that observed intelligences are intertwined with complex mechanisms would only mean that we should entertain the possibility that earth’s first life was created by an embodied intelligence. AKA ETs – which ID theory freely admits could be the source of earth’s first life. ID already accomodates your point as far as it can be logically taken.
Once ID posits that some intelligent life form was the cause of life on Earth, it has three problems: First, there is no evidence of alien life forms. Second, the hypothesis fails to address the origin of first life. Third, it would be simpler to assume that we are merely the descendants of these pre-existing life forms, rather than the products of their bio-engineering.
“Confirms” indicates that this is not the sole evidence used to justify the statement. No matter how many times you quote this sentence, it doesn’t justify the logic you are attempting to use, which treats humanity’s “non-experience” of disembodied intelligence as evidence that intelligence CANNOT be embodied.
I think you meant "...CANNOT be disembodied, right? Here are two statements of experience: 1) Complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions 2) Intelligent actions invariably arise from complex mechanisms Both deal with both experience (always) and non-experience (never)
It’s not justified, any more than non-experience of human flight shows that humans cannot fly. At best, they could conclude it’s unlikely – until that stops being true.
For the 100th time, that is all I am concluding!!!!!!!!!!!! Over and over again I've said that my argument means it is UNLIKELY that a disembodied being can design complex mechanisms. I have NEVER said it means it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2) Human experience has NOT observed intelligence per se creating CSI (we cannot observe intelligence per se, but rather we observe behaviors and infer intelligence). Great, I’ve been arguing with a non-intelligent sentence generator. Kidding aside – are you an intelligence? If yes, then I have just indeed observed intelligence generating CSI. (large blocks of text arguing certain ideas)
Saying that you are observing "intelligence" generating CSI is like saying you are observing "athleticism" win a race. These are not things in themselves; they are properties of human beings (or perhaps other entities). Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Hi William J Murray, I am perfectly content to agree to disagree about strength of the evidence for disembodied intelligent agents (especially those who can design complex mechanisms). You can simply acknowledge that the validity of ID as an empirical theory rests upon this particular claim. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed,
As I said well over 200 posts ago; “ID posits that there are observations made of nature which are best explained by the act of an agent, as opposed to undirected material process. The inference is derived from nature as we find it. This does not require knowledge of the physical complexity of the agent.”
The law of the excluded middle ensures one thing is true: An intelligent agent must either be a complex physical beings or not. Whether or not you want to talk about, the fact remains that when ID concludes that biological complexity resulted from intelligent design, it requires that one or the other of these types of intelligent beings existed and designed the first living organisms. And as I've explained endlessly, neither of these types of intelligent beings can be inferred from our uniform and repeated experience, as Meyer claims. If you wish to assert that disembodied intelligence is actually part of our uniform and repeated experience, however, like others here are arguing, we can stop here and agree to disagree on that point.
… and … “ID does not purport to explain ultimate causes, including where complex mechanisms ultimately originate; it can only seek to explain the appearance of biological complexity on earth.”
Well, as I've mentioned above, I take this to be a fair representation of ID's central argument:
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. [S. Myer]
I think that's pretty clear. If you don't think that ID even attempts to explain how the first living cell was designed, then you can disagree with Meyer and I'll debate ID with somebody else.
The inference to ID no more needs to know about the complexity of the designer than the existence of a book requires the complexity of the writer to be present in order to know it is a written artifact of intelligence.
This is very confused. Our experience confirms that books are invariably written by human beings, and never by disembodied entities.
Following the standard you set in your previous “alien” example, you now suggest that finding a disembodied entity that created life on earth would make ID a “likely” hypothesis? :) That’s mighty gracious of you.
You put words in my mouth: What I actually said was this:
RDF: Or, if you someday obtain evidence for disembodied entities who can produce complex mechanisms, then ID will become a likely hypothesis.
So it is only "likely", because you still would not actually have direct evidence that such a disembodied entity actually created life on earth, but only that it was possible for a disembodied entity to produce complex designs at all.
I do not challenge your observation that our universal experience suggests that all intelligence requires an organized entity in order to exist. I’ve also shown that the design inference is unchallenged by this universal experience.
No, you've just shown that you are capable of ignoring obvious truths about hypothesizing the existence of intelligent agents that designed the first living things.
You can get your foot in that door by demonstrating that the phenomenon of agency (one capable of dimensional semiosis) was impossible in the cosmos prior to its rise on earth.
Intelligence was improbable before the advent of complex mechanisms, because complex mechanism appear to be necessary for storing and manipulating information.
Allow me to be clear as well, whenever you are ready to challenge the material evidence that supports ID in biology, I am prepared to defend it.
I don't think there is any evidence at all for ID in biology, except what Meyer points out (that we invariably experience complex mechanisms arising from intelligent action).
Your first observation (that the rise of complex organization on earth required intelligent input) is not negated by your second observation (that intelligent input requires complex organization). You must reconcile that both observations can be true, but one is irrelevant to the other.
It is nothing more or less than a mutual dependency, intelligence and mechanism, like chicken and egg. ID arbitrarily chooses the chicken (intelligence), but one could just as easily pick the egg (mechanism). Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Hi Silver Asiatic,
You’re ridiculing evidence that conflicts with your claim that intelligence is necessarily dependent on a physical mechanism.
Well I don't mean to ridicule anything, but if you really want to press the point, simply describe some experiment where a disembodied intelligence was observed to design a complex mechanism. Again, I would be satisfied to agree here that the validity of ID as an empirical theory of origins depends on evidence of disembodied intelligence.
You skipped the first two theories: 1. Life was produced by an accidental molecular-chemical activity. 2. Life was produced through intelligent design. We have evidence of #2 and not of #1.
I agree (1) lacks empirical support. But of course so does (2): "Intelligent design" subsumes two possibilities, since obviously the Intelligent Designer that ID is attempting to find evidence for is either material or not. If the Designer is material, then we lack direct evidence of this Designer, and it would be more likely that life on Earth arose from genetic material from that Designer rather than from its bioengineering efforts. If the Designer is not material, then we lack direct evidence of this Designer, and immaterial intelligence contradicts our uniform and repeated experience. And that is why I say that ID does not represent a successful empirical theory of origins. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Hi All, I am taking this to be a fair representation of the central claim of ID:
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. [S. Myer]
RDFish_{October 21, 2013
October
10
Oct
21
21
2013
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus #579 I think you are caught in yet another self-contradiction, between 576 and 422: RDF, 576: Neither Meyer nor I have said anything about what is possible and what is not possible. RDF, 422: But we do know that the human brain is a fantastically complex mechanism. We also know [--> presumably, have warranted, credibly true beliefs] that in our uniform [--> what have you, like Hume, locked out ideologically here?] and repeated experience, neither humans nor anything else can [--> an unwarranted universal claim, with question begging implied] design anything without a functioning brain [--> confuses brain with mind]. I would consider, on good grounds that an assertion that speaks to “anything” and its capabilities — “can” — is a clear assertion on what is not possible. And, that assertion in 422 is heavily loaded with implicit materialism.
Adding to KF's finding ...
RDFish #36: Based on our knowledge and experience, nothing without complex physical mechanisms for data aquisition, information processing, and motor output could produce other complex physical systems. In other words, it’s a priori unlikely that the ID hypothesis is true. In order for ID to be taken seriously as a scientific project, then, it must provide good empirical evidence that such a thing exists, or has existed in the past, or at the very least that such a thing is possible in principle. Nobody ever attempts to provide such evidence, which is why ID is a non-starter as a science.
Contradiction noted, again. Beyond that, Newton, Einstein ... among thousands other acclaimed scientists not only affirmed that a non-physical, designing intelligence was possible, but that the empirical data pointed to it conclusively.Silver Asiatic_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
In order for ID to be taken seriously as a scientific project, then, it must provide good empirical evidence that such a thing exists, or has existed in the past, or at the very least that such a thing is possible in principle. Nobody ever attempts to provide such evidence, which is why ID is a non-starter as a science.
RDFish:
Actually there are other reasons why I think that ID is unscientific (whereas evolutionary theory is bad science, but I am not interested in arguing that here.
ID is false, ID is not false. ID is false but not false in the sense that you first said ID was false. ID is not science, but you probably never claimed that either, and if you did, when you said that "ID is a non-starter as a science" you probably did not mean to say that "ID is not science," and you probably didn't mean it in the sense that ID does not follow the scientific method and besides, you're not interested in arguing the point. Do you retract your earlier assertion that ID is not science?Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
In our uniform and repeated experience, all intelligent agents are complex biological organisms with brains, sense organs, motor effectors, etc.
So? When we talk about our uniform and repeated experience, we're referring to ourselves, as humans, after all. You think ID takes some other entity as it's starting point for "our" uniform and repeated experience? RDFish:
...just the sorts of things ID purports to explain in the first place.
Such as? RDFish:
In our uniform and repeated experience, all intelligent agents are complex biological organisms with brains, sense organs, motor effectors, etc.
But ID is not a theory of the construction and composition of intelligent agents. Sorry. RDFish:
So ID can’t propose exactly what we observe to be the cause of CSI in other contexts as the explanation of CSI in biological systems.
This is false. RDFish:
ID hypothesizes the existence of something else – something completely outside of our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency.
This is false. RDFish:
ID hypothesizes something that is not itself a complex biological system but somehow has the same sorts of abilities that we do (i.e. the engineering and construction of complex mechanisms).
This is false. Well, you're certainly off to an auspicious beginning!Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

@RDF, #576
Hahaha. There is nothing illogical about my argument, SirHamster. It is however non-logical, in the simple sense that it is not a logical proof. Most arguments are not logical proofs, of course.
Every argument is evidence -> conclusion. Logic is the steps to get from A to B. Sometimes the logic is weak, or strong, but there is no non-logical argument. The logic in your argument makes your conclusion unwarranted.
What I am arguing is that the hypothesis that intelligence could have preceded the first mechanism contradicts our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency, which invariably is observed to require complex mechanism. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis must be false; it simply means it is unlikely to be true, and in order to justify it we would need to obtain specific evidence.
A jet "contradicts" the uniform and repeated experience of pre-1900s humanity on human flight. But in truth it is not a contradiction, simply a lack of experience of that possibility combined with the lack of technology. For someone who isn't trying to use logic, "contradicts" is the language of logic. As I've already established, you can't use non-experience to argue what cannot happen - you can only use experience to argue for what can happen. So the human experience that observed intelligences are intertwined with complex mechanisms would only mean that we should entertain the possibility that earth's first life was created by an embodied intelligence. AKA ETs - which ID theory freely admits could be the source of earth's first life. ID already accomodates your point as far as it can be logically taken. If humanity ever creates self-reflective computer AI, that AI may logically use ID to conclude that it exists as the result of intelligent design, and that conclusion would be true. Re: Meyer Quote #2
Our experience-based knowledge of information flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified or functional information invariably originate from an intelligent source.”
Summarized: "Experience" confirms "CSI comes from intelligent source". Experience is evidence to confirm the following statement, which is a conclusion based on the ID logic I've outlined. "Confirms" indicates that this is not the sole evidence used to justify the statement. No matter how many times you quote this sentence, it doesn't justify the logic you are attempting to use, which treats humanity's "non-experience" of disembodied intelligence as evidence that intelligence CANNOT be embodied. It's not justified, any more than non-experience of human flight shows that humans cannot fly. At best, they could conclude it's unlikely - until that stops being true.
2) Human experience has NOT observed intelligence per se creating CSI (we cannot observe intelligence per se, but rather we observe behaviors and infer intelligence).
Great, I've been arguing with a non-intelligent sentence generator. Kidding aside - are you an intelligence? If yes, then I have just indeed observed intelligence generating CSI. (large blocks of text arguing certain ideas)SirHamster_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

First I would point out that this discipline is called Paranormal Research, for the reason that these phenomenona are not part of our uniform and repeated experience.
All you are doing here is using a convenient term and making up a definition for it that suits your bald, unfounded universal assertion.
I have never seen a ghost, for example, and scientists cannot say how one can replicate ghost sightings so that we can verify that they exist.
Can you support your assertion that scientists cannot, and have not, done exactly that?
However, if you would like to predicate the validity of ID theory on the evidence of Paranormal Research, I am happy to agree to disagree on this point. (And besides, it’s almost time for Halloween!)
I'm doing no such thing. I'm calling you on your bald, unsupportable assertions utilizing the queen's "we" and "us" to falsely imply universal and "uniform" agreement/experience in favor of your particular view. Your descent into ridicule only punctuates the assumptive and hollow nature of your grandstanding about what "our" "uniform", repeatable experience is.William J Murray_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Oh, and as far as the side conversation about deterministic mechanics explaining humanity, it has no chance. Just my $.02Upright BiPed_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

RDF,
??? Obviously a body of “organized energy” is complex and physical. There is nothing un-physical about energy (and besides, this gets back to my points about the ambiguity of “materialism”).
When I wrote my response, I immediately chose to italicize two words in the text. Those two words were “point being”. When I chose to italicize those two words, there was a palpable chance you would ignore both the words and the context in which they were used. That chance had a probability of 1.
As I have succinctly pointed out, many many times, there are only two possibilities for ID’s designer, and neither of them are empirically supported explanations of first life. Lumping these two hypotheses together under the rubric of ID doesn’t help.
As I said well over 200 posts ago; “ID posits that there are observations made of nature which are best explained by the act of an agent, as opposed to undirected material process. The inference is derived from nature as we find it. This does not require knowledge of the physical complexity of the agent.” … and … “ID does not purport to explain ultimate causes, including where complex mechanisms ultimately originate; it can only seek to explain the appearance of biological complexity on earth.” The inference to ID no more needs to know about the complexity of the designer than the existence of a book requires the complexity of the writer to be present in order to know it is a written artifact of intelligence. There are no circumstances in which the link between the two can be challenged by the use of material evidence. But if it were to be challenged, it would not the physical complexity of the designer that would be brought to bear on the matter, it would be the fact that – without intelligence action – wood pulp does not smash itself into paper and take on splotches of ink in a dimensional series of iterative shapes which can be interpreted to produce unambiguous function within a local system. In any case, you chose not to respond to those comments even though they were made in response to comments you specifically directed at me.
If at some future date you actually obtain evidence for an alien life form who created life on Earth, then you will have solved the problem of how life arose on Earth (but you will not know where the alien life came from, so you won’t have solved the problem of first life).
If we find such evidence then the material observations that constrain the ID hypothesis will remain intact, as they are today. The origin of life on Earth will have been predicted and resolved under the universal observation of intractable material evidence.
Or, if you someday obtain evidence for disembodied entities who can produce complex mechanisms, then ID will become a likely hypothesis. Until then, our uniform and repeated experience does not support any hypothesis that explains first life.
Following the standard you set in your previous “alien” example, you now suggest that finding a disembodied entity that created life on earth would make ID a “likely” hypothesis? :) That’s mighty gracious of you. As far as having any “uniform and repeated” support for the design hypothesis, I am prepared to defend that inference. If you intend on challenging that inference on purely material grounds, you will most assuredly lose that argument. It won’t even matter that you’ve already conceded the design inference in order to advance your own argument.
My premise is undeniably true: Our uniform and repeated experience of intelligence agency is that it is invariably a complex physical entity, reliant on complex physical mechanism to store and process information.
I do not challenge your observation that our universal experience suggests that all intelligence requires an organized entity in order to exist. I’ve also shown that the design inference is unchallenged by this universal experience. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. You can get your foot in that door by demonstrating that the phenomenon of agency (one capable of dimensional semiosis) was impossible in the cosmos prior to its rise on earth.
Forgive my inconsistency here; typing hundreds of posts to a dozen different debaters is a bit challenging.
I completely understand.
Let me be perfectly clear (as I have qualified this endlessly in the long thread above): I am not arguing that ID is false. In that sense, ID does NOT “fail” I am arguing that ID is not supported by our uniform and repeated experience. In that sense, ID DOES “fail”.
Allow me to be clear as well, whenever you are ready to challenge the material evidence that supports ID in biology, I am prepared to defend it.
Let us agree that we have strong evidence for the Big Bang, and that spacetime and matter/energy came into existence from nothing at that point.
Universal experience tells me that something preceded the universe, not that something comes from nothing.
This does indeed contradict our uniform and repeated experience that something cannot come from nothing!
Only if you assume that something came from nothing.
That is precisely why there was a great deal of resistance to the idea of the Big Bang, and why very good specific evidence had to be obtained before it was generally accepted in the scientific community!
The resistance to the Big Bang stemmed from the idea of a created universe (needing an explanation), displacing the idea of a steady state universe (needing no explanation from where it came).
Excellent example, UB! Thanks!
You respond, but you repeatedly fail to respond directly to the counter-arguments presented to you. Your first observation (that the rise of complex organization on earth required intelligent input) is not negated by your second observation (that intelligent input requires complex organization). You must reconcile that both observations can be true, but one is irrelevant to the other. But since you clearly do not wish to respond to this, there is little point in me continuing in the conversation to repeat it. cheers...Upright BiPed_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

KF:
What we do know is that skilled, knowledgeable design is the only actually observed and needle in haystack search challenge plausible cause of FSCO/I rich organisation. THAT, is what our Uniform experience warrants.
As far as I can tell RDFish doesn't disagree, but rather faults ID for not going further than this by making claims about the nature and attributes of the designer. RDFish thinks his inferences about the designer [allegedly based upon the same principle of uniform and repeated experience] are just as valid as Meyer's inference to design or your inference to design. The mistake RDFish makes, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is in thinking that this is at all relevant to ID theory. With respect to ID theory, nothing at all follows from his inferences. His "argument" is one huge non-sequitur. If only straw men had brains.Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: In short, I am pointing to empirical fact no 1, our conscious insightful, aware intelligence, as a strong direct exception to the tendency to reduce intelligence and mind to brain organisation and signal processing. So, no, there is no uniform repeated experience that locks down mind to brain per "the brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile." That perception is created by a perhaps unconscious controlling metaphysical commitment, to materialism. I find that this commitment is strongly reflected in RDF at 422 above ass I have repeatedly cited and corrected from 424 on. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

F/N: to see my point in differentiating processing per nessentially mechanical interactions in chains etc (as also influenced by chance processes) and conscious, insightful thought, I suggest Leibnitz's mill and Searle's Chinese Room thought exercises, cf. as presented above. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Mung, In addition what we commonly observe is conscious, active intelligence in action in creatures that have brains. In no wise does this imply that intelligence is produced by the organisation and processing of a brain, or that brains are necessary conditions of such intelligence. As I have repeatedly corrected in RDF's 422, there is an implicit premise of materialism here that is controlling the conclusion improperly. That premise becomes highly questionable when one sees that processing is not even in the same category as conscious intelligence. An organised brain is a case of processing but that does not begin to touch conscious intelligent thought. And we have not touched on accounting for the organisation of the brain. What we do know is that skilled, knowledgeable design is the only actually observed and needle in haystack search challenge plausible cause of FSCO/I rich organisation. THAT, is what our Uniform experience warrants. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
My argument is that our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency creating mechanism makes the probability of the “disembodied designer” hypothesis low. That leaves us with the “embodied designer” hypothesis, which apparently you are in favor of.
Which of those two claims does ID make? Which of those two claims does Meyer make?Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
I appeal only to the same set of experiences that Meyer does.
No. You don’t. You merely pretend to by using similar words but in a different context. Exhibit A:
Meyer bases his conclusion on our experience, but the very experiences he is talking about also confirm the premise of my argument to exactly the same degree!
If you and Meyer are talking about "the same set of experiences" then you would be agreeing with Meyer. Exhibit B:
What you cannot do (if you wish to be consistent and honest) is pretend that Meyer’s appeal to our experience is valid, but mine is not.
If you and Meyer are talking about "the same set of experiences" then you would be agreeing with Meyer. But you're not, and no one here is fooled by your claim that you are. You and Meyer do not appeal to "the same set of experiences" and your claim that you "appeal only to the same set of experiences that Meyer does" is patently false. RDFish:
I am interested in showing that ID cannot consistently claim that our uniform and repeated experience supports the notion that intelligence preceded the first mechanism.
Well gee, if only that's a claim that Meyer, or ID, makes. Next straw man? RDFish:
My point here is not about what is scientific; it is only what ID claims to be true about its reliance on our uniform and repeated experience.
If you really want to discuss what ID claims, start by dealing with what ID claims and end the constant procession of straw men. RDFish:
I am not arguing that ID is false. In that sense, ID does NOT “fail”
You're arguing about what ID claims to be true, but not that ID is false. Got it. Not sure how that works out in actual practice, but ok. RDFish:
I am arguing that ID is not supported by our uniform and repeated experience.
Sure it is. But you won't find it my looking at straw men. Every time you post here and every time you read a post here you validate the ID hypothesis.Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
There are mountains of empirical evidence showing detailed reliance of mental function on brain function. Remember I am not claiming that brain function is sufficient for mental function; rather, I point out that it is, in our experience, invariably necessary.
So? ID theory isn't about whether the designer has "brain functions" or "mental functions". Next straw man?Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
...what we know from our experience is that intelligence is invariably required to produce mechanism, and that mechanism is invariably required for intelligence to operate.
So? ID theory isn't about what's required to produce mechanism or whether mechanism is required to produce intelligence. Next straw man?Mung_{October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply