Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Paul Braterman at The Conversation, we learn stuff like:

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

Actually, string theory and multiverse theories are elaborate theories too; there is just no evidence for them. It simply isn’t the case, as Braterman claims, that the word “theory” in science means that the evidence base is vast or strong or even that it exists.  And

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Has this guy never heard of convergent evolution?  Lots of people have.

And how about this:

Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action. More.

Yes, that’s called design. And so?

The late Will Provine (1942–2015) used to note that creationist students tend to know more about evolution than their “just shoot the shot, pass, and forget it” peers (By Design or by Chance, p. 141). Seminars at churches are more informative than hanging out at pot shops and malls.

Note: Provine was also absolutely clear that teaching modern Darwinism meant teaching nihilism but he never fibbed about that:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

One concern is that if Darwinians cannot reach their social control goals peaceably, they will resort to other methods.

See also: Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?

Tales of the Tone Deaf, featuring dim profs writing in dozy journals about why people doubt Science and how to fix them.

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Comments
CR: To Mung, I wrote:
Mung, what about: [ID is:] the scientific/ empirical, logical and analytical investigation of [possible or actual] signs of design found in the natural world? Surely, such is at least potentially objective and empirically grounded towards learning key truths about our world and seeking to understand them in an integrated way suitable for a research programme and leading to a warranted body of knowledge that can be summarised and taught, learned and applied? Including, reverse engineering aspects of the natural world?
You will notice that "possible or actual" contemplates that there may or may not be such signs, though in practice we can readily identify such through the functionally coherent, specific complex organisation and associated information found in, e.g. the world of life. That starts with text, code [thus, language] and algorithms with execution machinery in the living cell. Could you kindly explain to us how this approach can be seen by you as ideologically loaded in a sense further loaded with insinuations of impropriety? Rather than, say being empirically based -- and, not locking out things that may on investigation that does not say load in a priori evolutionary materialism (which patently injects ideological censorship) -- and open to follow the evidence? KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
CR, your post at 103 doesn't appear to even attempt an answer to my question, so I'll repost it here. You'll remember that the impetus of the question is to demonstrate that you obfuscate against the evidence of design rather that address it in earnest.
We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system. They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?
Again, what say you CR?Upright BiPed
August 28, 2017
August
08
Aug
28
28
2017
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I can think of lots of fields that are carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude God. I'm not sure how one would even manage to define one that must necessarily exclude God. I wonder if CR has a problem with Newtonion Physics too.Mung
August 28, 2017
August
08
Aug
28
28
2017
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Mung, what about: the scientific/ empirical, logical and analytical investigation of [possible or actual] signs of design found in the natural world? Surely, such is at least potentially objective and empirically grounded towards learning key truths about our world and seeking to understand them in an integrated way suitable for a research programme and leading to a warranted body of knowledge that can be summarised and taught, learned and applied? Including, reverse engineering aspects of the natural world? KFkairosfocus
August 28, 2017
August
08
Aug
28
28
2017
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
CR: What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB? UB: Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern “God” from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise. CR: Again, you seem to have confused “ID being defined in such a way that it’s designer necessarily must be God” with “ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God.
I was asked a direct question and gave the factually correct answer. You, on the other hand, do not accept the factually correct answer, and cannot acknowledge it, particularly if you hope to maintain whatever is left of your argument. Nor can you show that it is not the factually correct answer to the question. So, to sum up, you asked what was scientifically inaccurate about the statement in question, I gave the factually correct answer, which you cannot acknowledge, so you responded with a sociopolitical diversion, which is irrelevant to the science.
“Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not a statement regarding the former, it’s a statement about the latter.
It’s a statement that is both inaccurate and irrelevant to the science.
I don’t plan on retracting your inteprration of what I wrote.
A man’s argument depends on inaccuracies and irrelevances, which he is both unable to acknowledge and unwilling to retract -- am I supposed to be surprised by this?Upright BiPed
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
critical rationalist:
ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God.
Could you post the definition of ID you are writing about?Mung
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
@UB
Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern “God” from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise.
Again, you seem to have confused “ID being defined in such a way that it’s designer necessarily must be God” with “ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God. “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not a statement regarding the former, it’s a statement about the latter. I don’t plan on retracting your inteprration of what I wrote. In carefully leaving a hole big enough to drive their preferred designer though, ID gives up is ability to necessarlly predict anything, which has been my critism on this thread from the start. I’d also point out, there is no evidence that can discern an actual heliosentrc universe with a giant, highly advanced sphere around the earth that merely simulates a heliocentric universe. Specifically, we cannot be 100% certain that the earth is not surrounded by a giant planetarium that merely presents an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system, rather than actually existing in a heliocentric solar system. This includes reflecting radio waves, lasers and photons back to earth as if they had bounced of a planets, comets and stars. It could capture space craft and return them with simulated telemetry, missing precisely the amount of fuel necessary for their planned journey and even return astronauts with implanted memories and fake moon rock samples. As such, you could claim what ever you like, or even nothing at all, exists beyond this planetarium. We accept the latter and not the former, because it is the best explantion for that evidence, not because of the evidence in some positive sense. There is no explanation as to why its designer would design this particular biosphere. Nor does ID explain the origin of the knowege present in organisms, by which they make copies of themselves, which is the thing that needs to be explained. “That’s just what the designer must have wanted” is a bad explantion.
CR: My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of critism. UB: No it isn’t,
It's not your theory that makes the prediction that there isn't much junk in the genomes of organisms? Then who's theory is it, if any? Do you agree that ID makes prediction or not? Again, this isn't a particularly difficult question. What gives?
and no your aren’t. As an example, both logic and physics show that Life requires language in order to enable the semantic closure required to organize the cell, start the cell cycle, and enable evolution. If you were serious you’d address such issues, but you don’t.
It’s unclear how pointing out that the aspect of life you’re referring can be defined as a possible task of a programmable constructor “ isn’t addressing such issues”. From this paper ..
2.1 Information Replication when regarded as copying is intimately connected with informa- tion. This has inspired some information-based approaches to fundamental problems in biology, [24]. Until recently, information had no place in fun- damental physics: expressions such as “information being instantiated in a physical system” were inherently approximate, or fuzzy. But the constructor theory of information has now incorporated information within fundamental physics, [17], providing an exact, physical characterisation to those expres- sions, as follows. A set of attributes ? is an information variable [17] if the task of per- forming any permutation over ? (allowing for waste), and the replication task over ?, as in (1), are all possible. The attributes of an information variables are called information attributes. An information medium is a substrate some of whose attributes constitute an information variable. Information media must obey the interoperability principle [17]: the com- posite system of two information media with information variables ?1 and ?2, is an information medium with information variable ?1 × ?2. This is a physical principle: it requires there to be interactions such that information is “copiable” from one information medium to any other. Thus, whether or not information media exist, i.e., whether or not informa- tion can be instantiated in physical systems, depends on the laws of physics. The intuition about replication being central to information is now expressed as a physical law: laws of physics permitting information media must allow information variables - i.e., replicable sets of attributes as in (1). A physical system M instantiates information if it is an information medium in one of its information attributes (belonging to some information variable ?) and that the task of giving it any other attribute in ? (allowing for waste) is possible. This is an exact physical requirement: for this to be possible, certain interactions must be available in nature. It is also an intrinsic, coun- terfactual, property of M. A constructor C for the replication task on some information variable ? C is called a copier of ?. Of its substrates, one - the target - is changed from having the attribute N to having the attribute (X,W); the other - the source, initially having one of the attributes X in ?, to be replicated - remains unchanged (but it may change temporarily during the copy process). Therefore (by definition of a constructor) C and the source substrate with the attribute X constitute a constructor C[X] performing the task TX = {N ? (X,W)} on the target. The information attribute X in the source acts as a constructor, instructing C to perform the task TX on N. See the figure 2.1. Figure 1: Two equivalent representations of a copier C (waste W omitted). On the left, C is a constructor with two substrates (represented by lines): the source, that remains unchanged; and the target, that is changed. On the right, C and the source substrate with the attributes X constitute the constructor C[X] performing thetaskTX ={N?X}onthetarget,forallX??. The copier is a simple example of a programmable constructor. In general, a programmable constructor is a constructor V that has, among its input substrates, an information medium M that can have any of the attributes P in an information variable, with the property that M with any of those information attributes is itself a constructor. The information instantiated in M is an abstract constructor - an instance of “information with causal power”, [25]. V [P ] is a constructor for the task TP , P is the program for the task TP and TP is in the repertoire of V . For example, V could be the ribosome, P the sequence that, when inserted in V , would cause V to perform the task TP of constructing a particular polypeptide chain.
Can you point out how this fundamental, physical definition is incomplete? Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out several time, it’s unclear how you’re actually making an inductive inference as no one has formulated a “principle of induction” that actually gives guidance as to which aspect of the future (or in this case, the distant past) will be like our (recent) past. For example, all of the trillions of experiences of designers having designed things have complex material neverious systems. Yet I’m guessing you don’t think that is a valid inductive inference. Right? Not to mention that your “physical theory of information” doesn’t define information, in a physical sense, as to include copying, unifying classical and quantum physics, etc. When will you address these issues? In fact, I would suggest you have no interest in presenting an genuine physical theory of information because that would be counterproductive to your actual goal.
They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?
I don’t know why you’ve having such difficulty here, as I’ve answered your question from the start. Nothing has changed. The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose. Yes, current cells are well adapted for the purpose of accurate replication. However, Neo-Darwinism doesn’t need accurate replication to get started.
Selection emerges from the interaction between the replicators and the en- vironment with finite resources. It may lead to equilibrium, given enough time and energy. If so, the surviving replicators are near a local maximum of effectiveness at being replicated in that environment. Thus, the environment is passive and blind in this selection process. Since it retains its ability to cause non-specific variation and passive selection again, it qualifies as a naturally-occuring approximation to a constructor. Crucially, it is a crude approximation to a constructor: crude enough that it could have arisen by chance and requires no explanation. Its actions - variations and selection - require no design in laws of physics, as they proceed by non- specific, elementary steps. So the logic of evolution by natural selection is compatible with no-design laws of physics. The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime - so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchang- ing and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inac- curate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws - as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fi- delity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation - any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)
In case it’s not clear as to how this is relevant to your question, we do not think that current day replicators represent the origin of life. Speficically, the origin goes back further with primiative replicators, and there was likely an intermediate step in which the components of the current mechanism played earlier, different roles. See this mini-site for details.critical rationalist
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
News, Please, help me with this English language lesson: In your OP the following quote is attributed to Will Province: "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." Did he mean that evolution is an invention, not a natural process? Did I miss something in that quote? It seems like shooting themselves in their foot, doesn't it? Or maybe he was referring to invented engines of atheism? Of all the invented engines of atheism, evolution is the greatest. Whatever. :)Dionisio
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
CR easily looses focus. You have to stop going off-script UBP.Mung
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
?Upright BiPed
August 22, 2017
August
08
Aug
22
22
2017
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB?
Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern "God" from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise.
My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously
No it isn't, and no your aren't. As an example, both logic and physics show that Life requires language in order to enable the semantic closure required to organize the cell, start the cell cycle, and enable evolution. If you were serious you'd address such issues, but you don't. Instead, when you are not issuing proclamations, you manufacture pointless thought experiments that are irrelevant to the data. Want to see:
We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system. They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?
What say you CR?Upright BiPed
August 20, 2017
August
08
Aug
20
20
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Mike, it matters because it is a) scientifically inaccurate
What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB? That ID doesn’t say anything about the designer or that it makes the prediction that the genome of organisms woudn’t contain much junk? Is there some reason you cannot answer the question? Seems to me that these two statements are mutually exclusive.
... and b) is a political tool.
Except, I’m not interested in politics. My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of critism. When I do so, it just doesnt add up. You want me to take ID seriously, as a scientific theory, don’t you? This is in contrast to being, as you put it, a political tool [link to the Wedge Strategy on Wikipedia]?critical rationalist
August 20, 2017
August
08
Aug
20
20
2017
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Also, let’s take the argument that teaching or adopting ID over evolution is somehow an answer to the problem of eugenics. It’s unclear why this would be the case unless the ID’s designer is some kind of ultimate authority, such as God. But that can’t possibly be the case because, ID’s designer isn’t God, right? After all, eugenics is a process of designing organisms. And that would make us, you guessed it, the result of eugenics. Human beings could be the result of some process by a tinkering designer. Or the result of a compromise between some committee of designers in which none of them got what the wanted, etc. Nor does ID say anything moral character, level of competency, etc. Again, all I’m doing here is trying to take these two statements seriously, as if they were true in reality, for the purpose of criticism. Apparently, that’s in short supply. And you wonder why I’m not an ID proponent?critical rationalist
August 20, 2017
August
08
Aug
20
20
2017
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
ID is not about the designer(s). That does not prevent anyone from making assumptions about the designer(s) or trying to figure out who it was.
Then why did the author of comment #9 claim ID makes those predictions, not himself personally? Again, I’m trying to take those two statements seriously, as if they are true in reality, for the purpose of criticism. Yet, when I do so, it’s unclear how both of those statements cannot be true. So, apparently, one of them is false. Which is it? Or does ID also propose some new theory about logic that isn’t widely known?
The predictions in 9 speak more to the design and less of the designer. We don’t see human designs that are 90% junk and we see human designs that utilize a Common Design. So the predictions are based on observations and experience.
Those predictions are based on a number of limitations I presented in a comment above. It was incorrect attributed to another person, so you might have missed.
Are you saying that the designer of the biosphere has a boss he has to impress and bills to pay? Does it work for a company that has to compete with other companies and have limited resources? Does it have to worry about the size of an executable taking up more bandwidth when it is downloaded by customers and eating up storage on devices? Does it have to compete with the products in how much space and energy it consumes on a customers devices? None of these things follow from ID’s designer because it is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, the explanations for why code we produce doesn’t have much junk simply isn’t applicable to ID’s designer. IOW, you seem to know a awful lot about a designer that we can supposedly know nothing about. Furthermore, you would never accept placing any such limitations on said designer. Right?
If I have two apps that are equal in functionality. One app has a bunch of junk code in it. The other does not. The former takes up half of my iPad. The other only takes up 60MB. The former app does’t add new functionality because it has a bunch of old code that its developer much muddle though to make improvements. The other can add features quickly. The latter takes hours to download, the other takes minutes. Which will I buy? If I don’t buy the latter, it will not make enough money to pay its developers. The other app will make more money, etc. So, the explantion for the lack of junk in code is either some external circumstance or some limitation of the designer. However, ID’s designer is abstract and has no limitations. It does’t have limited congative resources, so it can iterate new features just as quickly regardless of how much junk code there is. It doesn’t have customers, shareholders, release cycles, other competing companies and products to compete with. That’s because ID is specific designed do necessarily not exclude God. As such, it’s unclear why you would assume those experiences would necesarrly continue. It’s arbitrary. So, unless you, or someone else, is willing to update ID to include human limitations, then those predictions simply do not follow. However, that will not happen because ID’s designer is actaullly God. That, in a nutshell, is what I’m not a proponent of ID. In doing so it doesn’t predict anything that is consequential. Yet ID proponents suggest that we should care. Something doesn’t add up. So, it’s not that ID proponents have conjectured a theory and they are trying to constantly criticize it in hope to make it closer to truth. If they did, then why these predictions? Rather, it seems they already know the truth and are changing their theories seeking a way to justify it. But, by all means, provide a better explantion for the growth of knowege, and I’m all ears. That won’t happen either because anything that can be explained is simply unseen and cannot be God. That’s a prediction. Specifically, I’m positing a specific theory about the state of affairs, in reality, which that has necessary consequences. Some other theory of ID may appear, but the majority of people here will not support it for reasons I’ve already outlined.critical rationalist
August 20, 2017
August
08
Aug
20
20
2017
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Mike, it matters because it is a) scientifically inaccurate, and b) is a political tool. I would caution against taking the bait by people like CR. He is completely inept at dealing with the scientific evidence of design in biology (as has been demonstrated repeatedly on these pages in regards to semiosis in the cell) and therefore is massaging a socio-political argument in place of scientific debate. He is deluded by the simple-minded idea that it is anti-science and irrational to be a theist, so anytime he can get the word “God” in the conversation he believes he has scored a point against the physical evidence that he is thus far utterly incapable of addressing. You make many great points on this forum, but in this instance I would say simple stand back -- let him flop around like a fish.Upright BiPed
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
CR: ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God So what? If "God" simply means "creator of earth life" without elaboration, then what difference does it make? Is anyone trying to stuff some particular religion down your throat using ID? Are you one of those nutjobs who thinks that ID is part of some conspiracy to create a Christian theocracy in the United States? Grow up.mike1962
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
critical rationalist:
You are trying to conflate the following two ideas: (1) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God with (2) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarlly must not exclude God because for the vast majority of its proponents it actually is God.
This is false.Mung
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that.
ID is not about the designer(s). That does not prevent anyone from making assumptions about the designer(s) or trying to figure out who it was. ID is not about the designer(s) for the simple reason that we don't have to know who the designer is (or the specific process used) BEFORE we can determine an object/ event/ structure is the result of intentional design. The predictions in 9 speak more to the design and less of the designer. We don't see human designs that are 90% junk and we see human designs that utilize a Common Design. So the predictions are based on observations and experience.ET
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
@UB Let’s quote this in context, shall we?
Except human designers make things that are purely ornamental. And our actions result in unintended side effects, generate waste products, etc. So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it’s unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-“junk” as vast amounts of DNA could have no function. Oh, that’s right. Everyone knows ID’s designer is God and his actions do not result in unexpected side effects. etc. IOW, any such prediction isn’t the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It’s based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer. “That’s just what a designer must have wanted”, could explain absolutely anything, which explains nothing.
You are trying to conflate the following two ideas: (1) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God with (2) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarlly must not exclude God because for the vast majority of its proponents it actually is God. It’s unclear why I would retract (1) when that is your straw man of what I wrote. To use an example, imagine I ran across a theory that was based on an abstract number with no defined limitations on its upper or lower bounds, Yet, proponents of the theory said it predicts adddng 1 to that number would equal six. That prediction woud be arbitrary because the theory is defined in such a way that you cannot say adding one to that number necessarily ends up with a specific result, let alone six. So why six? Everyone knows this number is actually five, and adding one to it give you that exact result. IOW, any such prediction isn’t the result of the theory self, in which the number is supposedly abstract and has no defined upper and lower bound. It’s based on the proponents belief that the number is five. But it’s even worse than this, in the case of ID, because even a supernatural designer could choose a process that resulted in a significant amount of junk DNA in our genomes. So, apparently, I’m more open minded about ID’s designer than ID proponent themselves. Again, in carefully formulating ID’s designer to be abstract and have no defined limitations, as not exclude God, the result is a theory that can make no necessary predictions, such as (3) and (4) in comment #9. So, I’ll ask again. Do you agreee that ID predicts (4) in comment #9? If so, what argument is that prediction based on? I won’t be holding my breath.critical rationalist
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
CD, “individual experiences of human beings” Actually, they are not individual experiences, they are generic, even if referring to just humans (leaving animals alone). Humans generally are intelligent and therefore they do things in particular routines in a goal-oriented way. This behaviour is a hallmark of intelligence. I am feeling a bit uncomfortable explaining it to a software engineer who, I am sure, knows about design patterns.EugeneS
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
CR "artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations" What?! "individual experiences of human beings" Animals are intelligent beings also (where intelligence is defined as the ability to make choices to reach a goal state; NB no consciousness is required for that). "So, it could have created organisms in any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. At best, on could say “that’s just the order the designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing. " What a naive way of thinking... I'll ask you as a software engineer, do you always write code from scratch or do you sometimes reuse it? Your criticisms are superficial and do not themselves present a cogent argument against ID. Fundamentally, without recourse to intelligence one cannot explain decision making at all. And yet, decision making is at the heart of life, while not present anywhere else in the universe (except artifacts of known intelligent origin). Nature does not choose anything. Natural selection is a consequence of decision making, not the other way around. Because for NS to even start, you need to have a population of living organisms. You have no case, CR.Eugene S
August 18, 2017
August
08
Aug
18
18
2017
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.
Well, when someone comes in and drops his drawers and bends over, what do you think he was asking for?Mung
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
"you paddled his little behind pretty hard" lolPindi
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch. Or maybe it was a kickin' sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOaCD_JNgkA Barry Arrington
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
You mean retract your interpretation of my statement
Are these not your words in post 38?
any such prediction isn’t the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It’s based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer.
Yes indeed they are, and they've been shot full of holes (#78), which is why you now try to avoid them.Upright BiPed
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
@UB,
UB: …let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.
You mean retract your interpretation of my statement? Why would I do that?
ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so [its] designer [need not necessarily] be God, the opposite [is] necessarily true: ID’s designer must [be] necessarily defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.
I'd even say that a prediction of very little junk in the genome isn't even a prediction of an abstract supernatural being, as one could always retreat to the claim that said being left junk in the genome "for some good reason we cannot understand." IOW, ID's abstract designer's lack of necessary is not a feature. It's a significant detriment. It strips it of the ability to make predictions as necessarily consequences of the theory itself. An abstract designer with no limitations that gets what it want's for no other reason because it chose that outcome could choose anything logically possible. So, it necessarily predicts nothing, except the absence of logically impossible things. We can more efficiently predict the absences of logically impossible things because, well, they are logically impossible. Yet, in this thread alone, we have ID proponents claiming ID predicts very little junk in the genome. Why? Take this comment from ET..
Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?
Given that ID's designer has no defined limitations, why would the designer of the biosphere find it difficult to design around "a bunch of junk" like we currently would? Nor is it even clear that we would in the future. And no one will actually codify that limitation in ID the supposed scientific theory. Why not? Because everyone knows ID's designer is God. Not because of what ID says, but because of what it refuses to say. So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that. What gives?critical rationalist
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
...let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.
Like, never.Mung
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism.
What? The only things Neo-Darwinism can explain are genetic diseases and deformities. If Neo-Darwinism could explain life's diversity then ID would be falsified.ET
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
CR:
I’m saying that the current crop of ID lacks explanatory power due to artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations so it does not exclude God. As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism.
Just as you say, ID doesn't really require any particular designer. From what I see it is limited to showing the necessity of intelligence through the limitations and barriers to material causal chains. It is a very large and deep field, however; many cases to consider and compare, much like when modern chemistry was overtaking alchemy in all its established wisdom. Can you define the limitations on new-Darwinism, that make it so much better an explanation? Because, from what I see, it's a history of fleeing goalposts. Could you tell me where they'll stop and stand?LocalMinimum
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
@LocalMinimum
on (4), are you stating that junk DNA is not supportive of evolution?
I’m saying that the current crop of ID lacks explanatory power due to artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations so it does not exclude God. As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism. It’s a bad explantion. Predictions in science are based on the necessary consequences of universal theories about how the world works, in reality, not merely a number of individual experiences of human beings. ID’s designer is abstract and doesn’t “work” in any necessary way because that would exclude a supernatural designer, by definition. There are no necessary consequences to based them on. For example, take the order of appearance of organisms from least to most complex. New-Darwinism explains this order in that the necessary non-explantory knowege of how to build them was genuinely created over time via a process of variation and criticism. More complicated organisms could not be constructed unless the necessary knowege is present there. However, there are no limits on what the current crop of ID’s designer knows, when it knew it, etc. So, it could have created organisms in any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. At best, on could say “that’s just the order the designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing. ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so it’s designer not necessarily being God, the opposite must necessarily be true: ID’s designer must necesararly defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power. Specially human beings are good explanation for human designed things precisely because of our human limitations.critical rationalist
August 17, 2017
August
08
Aug
17
17
2017
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply