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 @77,
So, I’ll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome [number (4) above]]? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific. Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.
I refer you to the content of my comment in #39, where I entered this conversation. While I can understand your desire to take the focus off of my correction, let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.Upright BiPed
August 16, 2017
August
08
Aug
16
16
2017
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
CR @ 61 You are down to the remaining scraps of your argument here, CR. You tried to sell the narrative that ID proponents predict more function to be found in “junk DNA” because they believe “that some supernatural being is the designer”. Strike One: If I asked you right now if such predictions would require a supernatural being, you’d have to admit “no”. And even though you would follow that admission with another long-winded attempt to negate the point, the fact would remain that a prediction of significant function in “junk DNA” does not require a supernatural being. Strike one. Strike Two: I have asked you to provide the details of ID writers who make these predictions requiring a supreme being, but you have not provided any. Instead, you morphed into a mind reader who (shazam!) finds exactly what he is looking for. If ID writers won’t get off the physical evidence and write what *you know* they are thinking, then you’ll just assign it to them anyway and forge forward as if they had. Strike two. Strike Three Your last gasp in this dead argument is held together by the ridiculous notion that there just isn’t any other reason to predict function in “junk DNA” -- if not for some hidden belief in a supreme being. This is perhaps the weakest argument you could make. Researchers of every stripe have been looking to “junk DNA” (as one example) as the source of regulatory functions inside the cell, or as (a second example) involved in epigenetic responses, or (yet another example) involved in maintaining chromosome structure, or involved in scaffolding, or in some other biological process. You are not unaware of this. Strike three. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Your argument in #38 (that predictions of function in “junk DNA are “based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer”) is typical ideologically-driven rhetoric, and has been exposed as such. I understand you have no intellectual choice but to continue on as if nothing has happened, but the facts remain. Predictions of function (even pervasive function) in “junk DNA” do not require a supernatural being, thus ID writers describing evidence do not make such predictions, meanwhile, the field of genetics continues to find function among non-coding DNA and continues to look for it -- even if there may be significant disagreement on what the level and range of function will ultimately turn out to be.Upright BiPed
August 16, 2017
August
08
Aug
16
16
2017
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
@UB
So, I’ll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome [number (4) above]]? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific. Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.
Still waiting.critical rationalist
August 16, 2017
August
08
Aug
16
16
2017
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
CR @ 67: I'd have to say you made a point against (3). It isn't really an objective prediction about any necessary designer; but it is an observed quality of known designers. Also, as the number of such cases grow, the more demand is made against the (currently unknown, rumored to be entirely insufficient) guidance of the fitness landscape for evolution to be viable. on (4), are you stating that junk DNA is not supportive of evolution? Because it really does rest on a "no designer would do this" sort of basis, which you seem to be disagreeing with. In any case, if it turns out there is little to no junk and/or that junk is all deprecated/broken code, then the necessarily messy/junky process of evolution could hardly be credited. So, I agree that a designer is being unnecessarily profiled in those two points. However, both predictions coming true would present massive, perhaps insurmountable challenges to evolution; and, I assume that if it didn't "just happen on its own", we have to look for what did it.LocalMinimum
August 16, 2017
August
08
Aug
16
16
2017
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
critical rationalist @74: Apologies accepted. We're humans, hence we make mistakes. Regarding the last part of your comment, I don't understand your question @71. Can you explain it or rephrase it? What is it about? Are you sure it's for everyone? Maybe it's just for the person who was engaged in a discussion with you? Your questions (there are two) use personal references, hence don't seem open to everyone. Thanks.Dionisio
August 16, 2017
August
08
Aug
16
16
2017
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
@Dionisio Yes. I copied the wrong user name when composing my comment. My apologies for the mixup. However, the question is open to everyone, not just ET.critical rationalist
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
critical rationalist @71: It seems like you quoted ET @68 but attributed it to EugeneS. Is that right?Dionisio
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
I owe you a pint :)Mung
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
@EugeneS
What a joke you are CR. Just because ID is not about the designer doesn’t mean people cannot make assumptions about the designer.
So, you're disagreeing that ID makes those predictions? But people such as yourself can? That's not the impression I got from DATCG's #9 comment. He implied that ID makes those predictions, not people.critical rationalist
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Mung @69 I owe you a pint ;)EugeneS
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
"FSM is my professional area as well, so we are colleagues" Flying Spaghetti Monster professionals. Great. Just great.Mung
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
IOW, you seem to know a awful lot about a designer that we can supposedly know nothing about.
What a joke you are CR. Just because ID is not about the designer doesn't mean people cannot make assumptions about the designer. Why does anyone take evolutionism seriously, CR? It makes preposterous and untestable claims, so why would anyone take it seriously?ET
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Again, my criticism was pointing to these supposed prediction of ID.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
Both of them appear arbitrary because they make assumptions about the designer, despite ID supposedly not have a specific designer in mind. In the case of (3) this will not hold in the future. We will be able to create one off designs for customers that do not reuse exiting parts to due advances in design and production technology, such as 3D printing and vastly more powerful computers. Apparently, ID assumes we won't learn anything new and assumes ID's highly advanced designer wouldn't either. It's unclear how ID proponents know this. In the case of (4) it's unclear how you know that ID's designer isn't deceptive, wants us to know it designed anything or even cares about designing things in a way that doesn't leave junk in the genome in the process. We experience human designers are deceptive, do not care to take credit for what they create, etc. They take steps to remove "Junk" because of their limitations, as illustrated above. My point is, these "predictions" seem to be arbitrary given that ID's designer is supposedly abstract and has no defined limitations. ID proponents give up their ability to make predictions when they artificially limit their designer to an abstract entity so they do not exclude their preferred designer.critical rationalist
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
CR "And you wonder why people have a hard time taking ID seriously?" How can you take ID seriously if you don't even bother to understand what the claims are? I hoped for a fruitful and serious discussion. You did not even attempt to answer those questions I listed. I am not impressed.EugeneS
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
@EugeneS
If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck.
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? 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? And you wonder why people have a hard time taking ID seriously?critical rationalist
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I don't even know what "so much functionality in the genome" even means. And even if there was "so much functionality in the genome," so what? It certainly wouldn't falsify evolution.Mung
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
So, you have an explanation as to why ID proponents expect so much functionality in the genome of organisms?
Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?ET
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
CR "I am not being naive". I am afraid, yes, you are :) You are confusing so many things at once that it is difficult to get through them. The biggest one I can see straight away is that you conflate your world view with objective data. You have managed to even bring moral issues to the table. I am not discussing any moral or religious issues here, just science. If you like, as an Orthodox Christian priest I can discuss any of those with you but perhaps in a different thread. I am glad though that you agree that the processor and the code must work together in order for either not to be junk. This raises the question of the origin of a physical system that embodies the logical triple {code,protocol,processor}. The historically first (and perhaps simplest) triple of this kind must be explained. The trouble with explaining it using evolution is that evolution itself needs this triple to even start! In other words, the triple must have pre-dated evolution! The hypothetical pre-biotic evolution does not help either because it also, even if it did occur, would have to rely on the triple to exist in the first place. Without this triple, information read/write (and consequently, life itself) is not possible. Putting aside issues of design quality (which I hope we now agree on since I did not see any objections from you regarding this), do you think that design can be objectively and unambiguously distinguished post-factum from non-design? How do you think the translation machinery observed in the contemporary organisms formed other than by design? By translation I mean a mapping from one language to another, e.g. from Chinese to Russian or from sequences of codons to polipeptides. Please note that using the hypothesis of design has nothing to do with "God-of-the-gaps". On the contrary, we know from observation that intelligence can design things. Honestly, I expect you to agree with this, given your background (BTW, FSM is my professional area as well, so we are colleagues). What, in your opinion, is there in the natural world that would enable a persistent information translation mechanism to arise? Is there any natural law explaining what you or I type next on our keyboards? How can the laws of nature explain why a chessman makes this move next? How in practice can "a frozen accident" create adapters to interpret code with? How can "a frozen accident" code itself up for future reproduction? How can the existence of the laws of nature explain the existence of rules in rule-based systems such as computer networks, games, mathematics or biological organisms?EugeneS
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
@UB
I’m not having any problem at all CR.
So, you have an explanation as to why ID proponents expect so much functionality in the genome of organisms? I'm all ears! Surely, if it's not due to having a very specific designer in mind, then what is that reason?
You were corrected on it, and are clearly unable to answer that correction.
It's unclear what you mean when you say I'm "clearly unable to answer that correction." as, last time I checked, a correction is not a question. Furthermore, this statement is false....
UB: If the second statement is false, then so is the first.
...as it does not logically follow. Specifically, these two statement do not conflict with each other. S1: Everyone knows that the vast majority of ID proponents have a very specific designer in mind: God. S2: There is an ongoing effort to carefully refine and design S1 as to not require its proponents to explicitly confirm or deny S1, despite simultaneously continuing to claim ID makes predictions that imply S1 is true. Again, if we take ID at face value, it does not explicitly say anything about the motivation or moral character of the designer. Yet, for some reason, ID proponents still seem to think that said designer would want us to know it designed the biosphere, would not design it in such a way that results in a significant amount of junk in an organism's genome, etc. When I'm apparently more open minded about ID's designer than ID proponents themselves, what does that say? So, I'll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific. Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.critical rationalist
August 15, 2017
August
08
Aug
15
15
2017
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
CR: "Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not the same as “Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God.” UB: If the second statement is false, then so is the first.
I'm not having any problem at all CR. You made a false statement. You were corrected on it, and are clearly unable to answer that correction.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
UB, I'm not sure why you're finding this so difficult. Let me try again. Q1: Are you in agreement that biological ID predicts very high levels of functionality in the genome of organisms? Q2: If so, for what reason would biological ID make this prediction? Again, I'm asking because it seems rather arbitrary, given that biological ID doesn't say anything about the designer. It's unclear how you, or anyone else, would know what level of functionality an abstract designer would choose. For example, isn't it logically possible that a designer could "choose" to create organisms in a way that makes it appear that they evolved by using a process that resulted in genomes with a significant amount of "junk" for some good reason we cannot understand? It's unclear why an abstract designer wouldn't do this, given that biological ID supposedly makes no claims about the motivation, constraints or even moral character of the designer, including whether it even wants anyone to know it supposedly designed the biosphere. So, perhaps now you can see why I'm really quite confused as to why ID proponents here are making all of these assumptions for apparently no reason at all. Am I really supposed to believe they just don't have much of an imagination? Is that what you're suggesting?critical rationalist
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
UB, my comment is in regards to a particular prediction of biological ID, not as a whole. So, are you’re disagreeing that biological ID makes that prediction?
Are you really asking me if I disagree that function found within “junk DNA” obligates ID to a supernatural designer? Yes, I am. It seems to me almost impossible that you could miss that point.
If not, then what reason is there for biological ID to predict so much functionality other than a supernatural designer?
Have you read a book by Behe or Meyer, etc., that states that any function found in junk DNA requires a supernatural designer? If so, what was their argument? If not, then be a good fellow and put a sock in it.
“Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not the same as “Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God.”
If the second statement is false, then so is the first.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
The bottom line of ID is that undirected processes cannot create information, which is the data processing inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing_inequality All the ID theorems are different variants of this principle.EricMH
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
ID predicts that organisms are designed to evolve.
The Origin of Species by means of Intelligent DesignET
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Again, as I pointed out, there is junk in efficient code, even when we have automated systems to try and detect and remove it.
Evidence please. A poorly written code is different from a code with junk. There are diseases and deformities that are “junk in the wake” of biological ID. Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality? No one said ID predicts 100% functionality. Given a good design and genetic entropy I would expect some noise, but not 90%, as Larry Moran, et al. claim.ET
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
ID predicts that organisms are designed to evolve.Mung
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
@UB
A prediction of function in “junk DNA” does not obligate ID to a supernatural being. You’ve failed to present a case otherwise, and thus, the correction to your statement remains.
You corrected a straw man of my statement. "Everyone knows ID's designer is God" is not the same as "Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God." Furthermore, not everyone agrees on the predictions of ID, with possibly yourself included. ID was carefully constructed to include a hole big enough to allow God. This is by, well, design. And it's evolved as such in the hope that it will be taught as science. We have transitional forms in the case of "Of Pandas and People."critical rationalist
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
@UB
Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.
UB, my comment is in regards to a particular prediction of biological ID, not as a whole. So, are you're disagreeing that biological ID makes that prediction? If not, then what reason is there for biological ID to predict so much functionality other than a supernatural designer? Again, if we can know nothing about biological ID's designer, that prediction seems arbitrary, would it not? I mean, I could choose to design a process that resulted in vast amounts of junk, could I not? Why is this not just as valid of an inference?critical rationalist
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
“Quite often critics of Intelligent Design have never designed anything themselves.”
And people can be confused about their own experiences, including the ones they give to explain the process by which design occurs. As such, it's not necessary to be a designer to point out that a proposed description or explanation for design is absent or irrational. Second, I work professionally in the fields of user experience, client / server and mobile development. Currently, I'm the lead iOS developer on two applications, including one of the fastest growing mobile solutions in field service. So, even if that quote wasn't irrelevant, that description does't fit me.
If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck. You are obviously being too selective in your criticism. The issue here is not that programs could be improved but that they are invariably miles better than junk. And you know that.
Again, junk isn't just random bits. It's old routines or variables that never get used anymore, or code that get shipped despite never being used after some time, etc. Most of which gets removed because of automated processes that are applied with every new release. Are you saying that the designer of the biosphere is stripping dead code from the genome? Is it releasing new organisms? (BTW, where is the designer these days, anyway?) Android applications ship with compatibility libraries so developers can use new features not in the OS that shipped with the device. Programers make a buck because they figured out that shipping those libraries with applications themselves, which makes the original code "junk", get's around the fact that many Android devices simply never get updated because doing so is not cost effective. Tp use another domain, You might have a drawer or box of remove controls or AC adaptors that are 'junk' because you don't have a working device any more. They transmit on channels or have connectors / voltages that cannot be used with anything you have. They fit the definition of "junk" despite the fact that they still may some function, but not in a useful way in it current environment. The same can be said with floppy disks that cannot be read or applications that cannot be run because you do not have necessary hardware to read them, etc. Our broken gene that used to synthesize vitamin-c also fits the definition of junk.
Naive criticisms about suboptimality in biology often stem from failure to appreciate the difficulty of the entire problem.
I'm not being naive. There is an explanation for my optimism which comes from our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge, including knowledge in brains, books and even biological organisms. First, people (which would include human beings) are universal explainers. We can create explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality, which can have significant reach beyond the initial problem space. On the other hand, evolution cannot conceive of problems like we can. Nor can it conceive of explanatory theories designed to solve them like we can. So, the knowledge it creates is non-explanatory and has limited reach. As such, evolutionary theory would predict that biological knowledge found in organisms would have limited reach, as opposed to organisms designed by people. IOW, there would be significant room for improvement in the design of organisms because they are the result of useful rules of thumb. Second, regardless of how complex, something is either impossible because it violate the laws of physics, or possible because the necessary knowledge is present there. IOW, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving something not prohibited by the laws of physics is knowing how. This includes building better, more moral version of biological systems than those found in our biosphere. And when we do, ID proponents will no longer want to claim the design of the biosphere as a shining achievement of their preferred designer. Just as creationists today no longer bother to claim thunder. (Then again, they could always retreat to the old chestnut that their preferred designer had some good reason for designing the biosphere that way - we just can't understand it)critical rationalist
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
CR: Everyone knows ID’s designer is God UB: Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR. CR: Then why the supposed prediction of so much functional DNA?
This is incoherent. A prediction of function in “junk DNA” does not obligate ID to a supernatural being. You’ve failed to present a case otherwise, and thus, the correction to your statement remains.Upright BiPed
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply