Richard Dawkins Makes a Fool of Himself

_{Barry Arrington

February 14, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Hello David, I certainly did not intend to evoke the questions you asked. Simply enough, the genetic code describes the system or method used to record the information which is passed from parent to daughter. The link I offered explains issue, if you are so interested. Since you asserted several times the engineering prowess of evolution in your previous post, I simply wanted to highlight that evolution itself is entirely dependent on physical requirements which it offers absolutely no solution for. :)Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

me: "you equate expanding consensus among scientists as scientific truth..." Neil: "moon landings: truth or hoax?" Pardon, but I doubt that those scientists and others who accept the moon landings as truth do so primarily because a majority of others do, but because of the evidence. Again, expanding consensus among scientists is not scientific truth. Heck, not even the evidence itself is truth; it's what one does with the evidence; regardless of what a majority does with it. Sometimes the consensus will be correct, and sometimes not. me: "you have already determined what “supernatural” means..." Neil: "there’s ambiguity even here? (no end to the creative cunning of the apologist.)" I wouldn't call it ambiguity; I would call it failure to define what is meant by "supernatural." That's why I believe the term is inadequate with relation to reality. I look at the Big Bang event as "supernatural" so far as we can adequately understand what "supernatural" means. In other words, while we can determine that the Big Bang event actually happened to a reasonably satisfying degree, how it happened seems to defy a natural explanation, as something that ultimately begins outside the realm of contingency. What one does with the fact that if there is contingency, there must also be necessity at the beginning (not necessarily in time, but outside of time and space). "Something" that exists but has no beginning, or is uncaused. If you want to call it "supernatural," I think you can see how the term itself is inadequate. It might not be natural in the sense of contingent nature, but it is no less a part of reality in order for anything else that we view as reality to be meaningful. What you're trying to suggest is that every phenomenon must necessarily be contingent; and then you end up with the absurdity of either an infinite regress of contingent causes, or an infinite regressive web of contingent causes. If you do what Stephen Hawking has done, you simply substitute what one would normally and reasonably deduce as "supernatural" (however you want to define it) with law, and declare that it is law itself that is the necessary framework or basis for contingent causes. But laws are descriptive, and not active or creative. Either way, you've acknowledged that there is something outside of or beyond contingency, which is necessary for the genesis of anything else. So I fail to see how a denial of "supernatural" adequately addresses these issues in a scientific manner. It sounds more like an avoidance of what is perceived as religious for the sake of maintaining an a priori worldview of materialism; but it doesn't work. And that's precisely why I would say that the endless cunning apologist is more the materialist than the theist or non-materialist.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I'm afraid I don't understand your objection, so I can address it usefully. What do you intend by "recorded information", which is different from the genetic code itself, which is what is inherited? Are you saying the genetic code is not physical? Or not inherited? Or that inheritance of this physical code is not a mechanism? Or (forgive me, I'm guessing here) you're saying that the observed mechanisms of the physical process of inheritance, and the theory explaining these observations, fails to explain how these mechanisms got started? If that's the case, then I really don't understand. That would be like saying the theory of gravity explaining why the moon orbits the earth fails to explain where the moon came from in the first place. And to me, that sounds like quite a different question.David W. Gibson_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

David, Evolution requires recorded information in order to operate. One is solely dependent upon the other. The phenomena of recorded information has observable physical entailments which themselves must be satisfied in order for it to exist. The Theory of Evolution does not provide a mechansism for those entailments to come into being.Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Neil at 38
I am indeed personally persuaded that the best minds that have been genuinely curious about life past and present — the yeast cells, algae, pterydactyls and raccoons — have hobbled together a robust explanatory framework supported by many different lines of evidence, molecular biology being particularly astounding in recent years (because of what it tells about relationships between now diverged species and the probable time the divergence would have taken). This broad understanding of the origin of the species of life is an amazing triumph of the human mind. That it has unsettling consequences for, indeed contradicts, legacy versions of human explanatory frameworks is just how things turned out: No designer/leprechaun needed.
You seem to be having difficulty confronting the actual content of ID. Instead of me bothering you by shuffling around English text that you don't appreciate, why don't you just tell me how I should get it across to you that ID does not challenge the observation that organisms have common operating systems and have changed over time. In other words, you are swinging at a boogieman that doesn't exist. Once you provide me with an example of text that will convince you of this now-legendary fact, I will repeat it back to you, then you can stop with this elegant but pointless defense of evolution.
ID comes from marshaling human intelligence to defend the legacy versions, and not from any curiosity about nature; indeed it finds most sympathy where there is hostility to that curiosity. From Alabama to Saudi Arabia, it finds its home where the people most yearn for imagined redemption experiences augmented by regular and frequent performance of ritual.
Ah yes, the “stupid people” defense. Forget about it being the last vestige of a lost argument, could there be anything more appealing than to vanquish your opponents with no more than an insult. I am quite certain you get a palpable sense of relief from it. Perhaps even more so if you could engage the arguments on the material evidence instead.
And I said I couldn’t make sense of what you wrote, suggesting to you the opportunity to restate it. Or link to something readable
I gave you a link to an argument that uses no more than easily accessible Queen's English (common language) to explain one of the instances of observable evidence, and it does so in no more than a seven-to-eight minute read. I shall assume you didn't follow the link, unless you tell me that even that text was confusing. If that should be the case, then I suggest you lurk for a while, until your prepared to defend your position against people who know it better than you do. Since you registered in order to engage, what do you have to lose?Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

My goodness! Why dont you people ever bother to read to resources page on UD? Always bringing up the same old tired objections to the table. Sheesh!kuartus_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

you equate expanding consensus among scientists as scientific truth
moon landings: truth or hoax? like it or not, all of our knowledge is probabilistic -- knowledge of whether we are presently wearing socks, whether we love our mommies, whether we're presently alive (tho i admit i'm having trouble with that last one) a claim about something that happened far away in time or space gets a truth rating according to the degree of consensus among smart, curious people i have reason to trust and who "get out a lot"
you have already determined what “supernatural” means
there's ambiguity even here? (no end to the creative cunning of the apologist.) outside nature; something in violation of the best confirmed laws of nature; akin to a fictional character which may have a sort of existence as neural stuff in the head but which is always absent on the outside i used to believe in supernatural stuff like the abrahamic deity; i also remember thinking ghosts were possible (and cool!)Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

There is a bit of the flavor here of conflict between "best-fit pending better evidence" explanations of what we observe, and "Absolute Truth" explanations. And some of this conflict results from semantic issues with the ambiguity of words. The theory of evolution, as it currently stands, assigns major importance to the interaction between biology and environment - BOTH of which are constantly in a state of change, so they are moving targets with respect to one another. So from what we are able to observe of the history of this interaction, do we see evidence of design? Well yes, absolutly! The environmental constraints limit, direct, and largely control the essentially limitless efforts of biology to keep changing. And in fact, many engineering design challenges today are soloved with basically evolutionary processes - that is, with trial-and-error-and-modification approaches embodying the essence of the environmental process. So was life designed? If we regard evolution as a design process (and Dembski's definition allows this), then life was designed. The problem arises when one insists that a MIND designed it. And this is a problem for two reasons - because no mind emerges from the evidence, and because the evidence does not require a mind to do the designing. Evolutionary solutions to engineering problems invariably surprise the engineers - it was never something they'd have thought of. No mind was involved in the solution, but the solution WAS designed. So the problem I'm seeing here isn't one of natural/artificial. Nature designs, and does so naturally. Instead, the problem is the religious one of force-cramming a Divine Intelligence into a process that doesn't need one and shows no evidence of involving one. ID is a religious notion, not an attempt to explain natural processes. THOSE are already explained, and have the major, indeed fatal, flaw of not needing or involving any Divine Intelligence. So ID isn't an attempt to re-explain the already well-understood. ID is an attempt to insert the Christian God into a process where this notion contributes nothing useful, other to pacify those who need to do so. And this is really a shame, because there's no real relationship between the origin of life and the meaning of life. The origin questions are well handled by appropriate approaches, and the meaning questions are well handled by THEIR appropriate approaches. There's no reason for either approach to claim territory to which it's not entitled.David W. Gibson_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

~~perhaps the hunger for these reality-denying experiences will be available by a genetic manipulation of the zygote~~ perhaps the elimination of the hunger for these reality-denying experiences will be available by a genetic manipulation of the zygoteNeil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Neil, "Claims about reality with supernatural content was indistinguishable from science long ago. Hypothesizing, speculating, a bit of observing: it was all natural “philosophy”. That’s getting fixed, and a supreme intelligence never comes up in the explanations with staying power." If you are arguing that the more we know, the more we know that a god or gods didn't do it, you are merely begging questions. It seems to me that you equate expanding consensus among scientists as scientific truth. How wrong you would be if that is your assessment. But the real cleverly disguised big point in all of this is that you have already determined what "supernatural" means and that you've decided not to believe in it or accept it as ever being legitimately in the realm of scientific inquiry. Therefore, anything that might appear close to what "supernatural" means to you is safely ignored without actually looking at the arguments. "Supernatural" is that magic word that means legitimate ignorant dismissal, and you get to label what you don't like with the magic word.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Because I personally believe them, it’s okay for..
I am indeed personally persuaded that the best minds that have been genuinely curious about life past and present -- the yeast cells, algae, pterydactyls and raccoons -- have hobbled together a robust explanatory framework supported by many different lines of evidence, molecular biology being particularly astounding in recent years (because of what it tells about relationships between now diverged species and the probable time the divergence would have taken). This broad understanding of the origin of the species of life is an amazing triumph of the human mind. That it has unsettling consequences for, indeed contradicts, legacy versions of human explanatory frameworks is just how things turned out: No designer/leprechaun needed. ID comes from marshaling human intelligence to defend the legacy versions, and not from any curiosity about nature; indeed it finds most sympathy where there is hostility to that curiosity. From Alabama to Saudi Arabia, it finds its home where the people most yearn for imagined redemption experiences augmented by regular and frequent performance of ritual. When we understand the processes more fully, perhaps this experience will be available as a pill; perhaps the hunger for these reality-denying experiences will be available by a genetic manipulation of the zygote. If you badly want a designer/leprechaun -- and you badly do -- then go ahead and claim it. But don't be surprised when the people who are filling in the gaps of ignorance ignore you... except, that is, when we catch you trying to sneak your designer/leprechaun into the classrooms of the nation. There are no practitioners pushing forward the many crafts of the life sciences who have any use for ID in practice or in theory, including many who are up on information theory. (And btw, I am not. And I said I couldn't make sense of what you wrote, suggesting to you the opportunity to restate it. Or link to something readable by a layman. I've been around the block with neo-creationist apologists, and by golly they do have a penchant for trying to drown people in dense intellectualized poo-poo, so sticky and stinky. But let me concede a non-zero probability to your paragraph about non-materially-reducible patterns constituting the most significant transformational leap in the understanding of nature in the last 50 or 150 years; and a website for religious apologists is precisely where one would expect to find such a canon-shattering reformulation, isn't it?) ID helps nothing when you want to know why a new strain of disease is hitting some plant, or why some elephant has weird foot bones, or why human brains do some things quickly and automatically and other things slowly. ID says: "you can't falsify the leprechaun".Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Neil at 25, Well, what a complete disappointment. Lets us take a moment and boil your comments down to their essentials.
[Evolution] says some primitive living things reproduced (following unguided material processes) with changes over time to make all the living things we observe. Because evolution is so fully evidenced, those who accept it are also likely to surmise that the first living thing was also the product of unguided material processes, but we don’t claim this is proven.
Translation: Because I personally believe them, it’s okay for materialists to publically conflate the issues of evolution with design. It is also okay that they then use this misrepresentation to justify the willful assumption of their conclusion - because after all - when they are pressed for evidence outside of the public forum, they will eventually admit they cannot prove their claims. This therefore appears entitrely reasonable.
A big part of the history of science is elimination of supernatural (non-)explanations, even when the discovering genius was an outright supernaturalist. (And the proportion of discovering geniuses that are supernaturalists is converging to zero.)
Translation: I need to sell my worldview, so I will abuse recorded history, then justify my ends by making over-reaching statements which are silly but self-serving.
As to your larger point, that ID makes no claims about supernatural agency, well this is disingenuous, right?
Translation: Even though I allow materialists to draw an inference I believe in, I shall chastise anyone else as “disingenuous” for doing the same thing.
As for the stuff about entailments and “non-materially-reducible patterns” in your #16, I didn’t speak to it because it makes no sense to me.
Translation: I am disinterested in any material evidence which may impact my certainty about those to whom I disagree, even if I am presented a perfect opportunity to understand their data.
Speaking to ID & evidence generally, I’ve been made to believe that since first slithering into the world (as a marketing plan to disguise old earth creationism
Translation: I intend to maintain my closed mind, by deploying mankind’s oldest form of political control – I shall demonize those to whom I disagree, and I shall misrepresent what they say.
Have I been misinformed?
Answer: Yes, to the extent that you've become convinced that your position has anything to do with being informed in the first place.Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Scott, Just think what they are saying- "natural selection is a major mechanism" but natural selection doesn't do anything. You also have to remember that project Steve and just about all evos insist that ID and creation argue against evolution of any kind, meaning we argue for a fixity of species.Joe_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

From the Steve Project:
Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.
In other words, we all agree that everything got here somehow. We debate how it happened, but agree that whatever it may or may not be shall be named "evolution." And by the way, just because we don't know how it happened that doesn't mean we can't rule out any intelligent involvement. Red flags should go up when someone says that they know how something happened except they're not sure how it happened but they can rule one really good possibility because it's supernatural, except they can't say why it's supernatural, but that's all okay because lots of people agree, so get on board or you're a science-denier. What's that warning about abusive jerks? They demand commitment when you hardly know them? That alarm is your inner BS detector. Listen to it.ScottAndrews2_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

So wait- one can be a christian without having any understanding what it even means? Well one can be an American just by being born here... But still color me flabergasted.Joe_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Had the Dawk been just a little more docile (teachable), instead of a bombastic gadfly, it would have occurred to him immediately to reply to the effect that, well, there's just a wee bit of difference between remembering a title of one word, and a discursive, even descriptive, title running to twenty-one words - all but the first few of which are invariably omitted as superfluous. But I think he knows in his heart that he has never had any kind of original intelligence, and has been found out in spades. He found a niche market in disaffected adolescents, who wouldn't recognise the scientific method from a hole in the ground, and plied it for all it was worth, while it lasted. He probably dreads waking up in the morning, for fear of digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. Isn't he even an embarrassment now to most of his atheist confreres, ducking out of debate after debate?Axel_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

As usual Nick, you should do your homework before you go making claims that fall apart upon scrutiny! (At least you are consistent in being wrong! :) )
What is wrong with the Shadow Shroud Hypothesis? Excerpt: Simple Chemistry Proves the Shadow Shroud Wrong One need only turn to many articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to find out about the chemistry of the image. Wilson should have done some basic research before writing his shadow shroud theory. Christianity Today’s editors should have sought out scientific opinion before publishing a pseudo-scientific article on the shadow shroud. The same can be said for ABC News. The papers in the peer-reviewed scientific journals don’t explain for certain how the images were created and they don’t opine on the Shroud’s authenticity. They only present scientific fact. (See list at right). The image on the Turin Shroud, the very thin layer of caramel-like substance, 180-600 nanometers thick, is thinner than most bacteria . The layer can be seen by phase-contrast microscopy. And with a scanning electron microscope the fine crystalline structure of the carbohydrate layer can be discerned. The image resists normal bleaching by chemicals or by sunlight. If the image were formed by a bleaching process, particularly an absence of bleaching as Wilson’s proposes, it would bleach out. The image on the Shroud of Turin can be scraped from the cloth, pulled away by adhesive and reduced with a diimide reagent, leaving colorless, undamaged linen. That cannot be the case with Wilson’s image. The picture on the right is a close up some Shroud of Turin fibers. The brown color is the caramel-like product, a melanoidin; the same stuff that gives beer its color, toasted bread its brown, and bodies their tan from sunless tanning lotions. Wilson’s proposed chemistry contradicts the scientific evidence. (See image-bearing coating picture in the right-hand column). The Problem with Blood for the Shadow Shroud There is the matter of the bloodstains. There is no image underneath the bloodstains. This means that wherever there was blood on the cloth it inhibited image formation. This cannot work in reverse. Wilson has failed to comprehend this problem. The Problem of the Second Face and the Shadow Shroud The simple fact that a second face has been discovered on the backside of the cloth is a major problem for Wilson’s Shadow Shroud. He was unaware. But when he found out about it he responded: "So, for now, I am undaunted by Fanti’s findings [=the second face], though I am aware that my confidence could yet vanish, as they say, like the morning dew." It is not possible to superficially and selectively not bleach both sides of a cloth and bleach the inner fibers between both surfaces with sunshine. Period. The Issue of the Shroud’s Age for the Shadow Shroud Wilson is assuming that the cloth is medieval, created sometime in the 13th to 14th century, a timeframe based on carbon 14 dating in 1988. He is aware, that the date was challenged by by Raymond N. Rogers, a Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, scientist. He wrote: "but those objections [=Rogers' findings] have only just gained definite credibility." What in the world does he mean by "only just gained?" He went on to write: "I have no desire to defend the carbon-dating performed on the Shroud, particularly after Rogers’ recent findings. Regardless, such artistic argumentation proves nothing." Artistic argumentation? It is nothing of the sort. Rogers’ findings are purely scientific, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is pure chemistry; pure science. Rogers not only proved that the carbon 14 samples, used in 1988, were invalid, but showed that the cloth was at least 1300 years old and possibly much older. This puts Wilson’s artistic method of painting on glass plate well beyond the time when glass plate suitable for his creation was available. ABC cited the 1988 carbon 14 tests and seemed unaware of the new findings. Did they not catch the news from Associated Press, BBC, Reuters, CNN and the New York Times? Did they not check their facts? Glass – Shadow of Doubt Shadow ShroudThe type of glass needed for Wilson’s proposed shadow shroud process did not exist in 1357, the latest possible date for the Shroud of Turin if it was a fake-relic. No one questions that the Shroud existed by then. Yet, it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that glass suitable for Wilson’s shadow shroud could be produced. The first flat plate glass wasn’t produced until 1688. Before then, plate glass was blown plate, which was rare, very limited in size and very distorted. Glass, very rare in 1356, was poor quality with many imperfections. According to the PPG Industries website: Flat glass for windows was still rare during much of the 17th and 18th centuries. Small panes were made by blowing a large glob of glass, removing it from the blowing iron and then rotating the glass quickly so it would spread and flatten. Such glass had a dimple in its center, many air bubbles and a pattern of concentric circles, but it was transparent and effective in keeping out the weather. At the end of the 17th century, the French learned how to grind and polish cast glass to produce plate glass, but only the rich could afford it. Great strides were made in the manufacture of flat glass during the 19th century. Compressed air technology led to flatter, better glass panes. Controlled amounts of air were used to blow a large glass cylinder, which was slit lengthwise, reheated and allowed to flatten under its own weight. Large, relatively inexpensive lites (panes) of glass were produced in this manner. What Wilson proposes, a shadow shroud, on a cloth that is 14 feet long and 3 feet wide is simply preposterous. http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/about/what-is-wrong-with-the-shadow-shroud-hypothesis/
bornagain77_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Let Christ himself redefine the term for you, tjguy: Matt 25:31-46 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."Axel_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Neil,
Can you think of any question that could be asked of someone who self-identifies as Christian, the wrong answer to which would suggest that the person is so completely unaware of Christian stories, claims, beliefs and practices, that the label “Christian” should not apply?
That's a clever question. Not answering implies that "Christian" is meaningless. A broad answer (There was once a person names Jesus and we should do what he says) doesn't help any. Any meaningful, specific answers (all Christians do or don't do [something]) lead to disagreement. If your intent is to show that there is abundant disagreement, you have done so. I didn't know that it was a secret. But Christianity doesn't (or shouldn't) argue that there is a consensus with which to agree. I think we can agree on that much. But that is a specific evolutionary argument. It's reasonable to ask what it is that all these biologists supposedly agree on. Have you heard of the Steve Project? (Google it.) In response to lists of scientists who question some aspect of evolution, the NCSE responded with a list of their own of over 1100 scientists named Steve supporting evolution. This is the text of what they agreed to:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
That's it? Natural selection is a major mechanism? Does everyone even agree on that?ScottAndrews2_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Neil Schipper, Intelligent design pleads to intelligence; the purposeful, intentional, goal-driven, foresighted, matter-manipulating well-known force operating inside of nature. Intelligence is not "supernatural," although I can see why it would seem that way to the Darwinist. ;) You can say that many I.D. proponents believe God was that intelligence, thus it qualifies as supernatural. My reply to that would be... so? The knock against bringing the so-called supernatural into science is that the supernatural isn't subject to empiricism or falsification. Yet, the reason for believing in I.D. is based on empiricism, and it is, in fact, falsifiable. The empiricism is the observation that the foundation of life is a semiotic language/code/software, which, based on innumerable observations over thousands of years, overwhelmingly points to an intelligent source. If design-deniers can demonstrate that nature (physics + chemistry), completely unguided by intelligence, can create such a system, then they will have refuted I.D. As Joseph would say, you refute I.D. by demonstrating the validity of the design-free position. Every single design-denying origin of life researcher, who's research is attempting to demonstrate an intelligence-free origin of life, is attempting to falsify I.D. That means many brilliant people have spent thousands of hours attempting to refute I.D., and they've all failed miserably. This is why design-deniers must resort to such laughably bad arguments. They don't want to accept I.D. for personal reasons, yet they have no valid scientific objections it, so they're forced to concoct as many silly excuses as possible. Conflating artificiality (intentional designs) with the supernatural is one of those silly excuses. "Who designed the designer?" is another. Motive mongering is another: "Michael Behe is religious, therefore, I.D. is false!" I.D. denialism is anti-science, anti-reason, and a major threat to science literacy throughout the world.Jammer_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

A bunch of born-again evangelicals defending an obscure catholic relic from the Medieval days when every monastery claimed to have some shards of the cross or spleen of John the Apostle or whatever? Weird. Remember Scott Minnich? DI fellow, ID proponent? Even he is skeptical: http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29124/NickMatzke_UD_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Barb, The questions you propose seem to me to be fair questions. They might be harder than the ones in the survey. Careful! I take issue with your calling my argument strawman! It hurts so bad! (I was making no claim about how anyone raises their children. I was trying to illuminate the idea that contentless self-labels can happen.) But sounds like you agree that we can in principle discriminate "Christian as empty label" vs. "Christian as adherent to some variant of Christian belief system." So we can use a survey to learn something tangible about a population (even if some respondents "make a mistake"). (btw, they used a prof. polling org, and these orgs know a thing or two about crappy leading questions, and these orgs do not want crappy reputations.) And politicians and policymakers can take into account the survey results when some in the community make demands claiming that they represent a large number of citizens with strong attachment to a particular point of view. So it seems we're on the same page, now.Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee,
Materialists’ rejection of anything “supernatural” (whatever they mean by the term) just because of the implications of there possibly existing a supreme intelligence to the universe, is just silly.
Claims about reality with supernatural content was indistinguishable from science long ago. Hypothesizing, speculating, a bit of observing: it was all natural "philosophy". That's getting fixed, and a supreme intelligence never comes up in the explanations with staying power.Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
evolution says Life was the product of unguided material processes
No, not the "the product of". It says some primitive living things reproduced (following unguided material processes) with changes over time to make all the living things we observe. Because evolution is so fully evidenced, those who accept it are also likely to surmise that the first living thing was also the product of unguided material processes, but we don't claim this is proven. A big part of the history of science is elimination of supernatural (non-)explanations, even when the discovering genius was an outright supernaturalist. (And the proportion of discovering geniuses that are supernaturalists is converging to zero.) As to your larger point, that ID makes no claims about supernatural agency, well this is disingenuous, right? If it is possible to weasel a statement of ID that excludes claims of supernatural origin, that does not alter the fact that it exists to defend supernaturalism. It's like a statement of Leprechaunian-Guided Evolution that's exactly the same as mainstream evolution except every molecular wiggle is said to not be unguided, but intended by the (supernatural) Leprechaun on the moon. Thanks to the Leprechaun could be included in every biology textbook and every genetics research journal. Now evolution would no longer be a purely materialist theory. Americans would be happy! As for the stuff about entailments and "non-materially-reducible patterns" in your #16, I didn't speak to it because it makes no sense to me. This may be because I'm dim, but maybe the argument is nefarious. Speaking to ID & evidence generally, I've been made to believe that since first slithering into the world (as a marketing plan to disguise old earth creationism, in turn as part of a lawyerly scheme to salvage a shrinking mythology that obstructs human understanding of reality) ID has made zero successful predictions in zoology or botany or microbiology. Have I been misinformed?Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I was thinking along those lines as well, Cannuckian Yankee. Closed-ended questions or complex questions are going to lead to biased responses. I'm beginning to wonder what exactly Dawkins seeks to gain from this. Why the survey? Why the vitriol? He's not making any converts to atheism, from what I can see.Barb_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Barb, Also the questions could have been intentionally formed in a certain way as to bias the interpretation of the responses. I have some experience with the way surveys are written. Good surveys/polls don't allow for any ambiguity in the questions. Bad surveys will make the questions so general that they open up a higher probability of gross misinterpretation by the surveyor. Frankly, any survey conducted by Richard Dawkins and his anti-Christian ilk (particularly on the subject of Christian belief) is in my thinking immediately suspect.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Neil writes, "As I tried to make clear, a thousand people answering clear short untricky survey questions is not like a person making a mistake. It provides evidence about what the members of the group know (like a geography test). Can you think of any question that could be asked of someone who self-identifies as Christian, the wrong answer to which would suggest that the person is so completely unaware of Christian stories, claims, beliefs and practices, that the label “Christian” should not apply?" I can think of a couple: "What did Jesus say would identify his true followers?" (The answer is found at John 13:35). Or, "What was the first miracle Jesus performed?" (Turning water into wine at a wedding reception). This is less about atheism and Christianity than it is about a smug, self-righteous blowhard (Dawkins) humiliating himself during a debate. "If every day for years you say to your child “I’m a Christian. You’re a Christian. We’re Christians.” but they are taught no other thing about Christianity, how meaningful is it that later they call themselves Christian?" Your strawman argument is noted. However, you mistakenly think that all Christians teach their children this, and nothing could be further from the truth. "And what if it was “I’m a Zeusian. You’re a Zeusian. We’re Zeusians.” Logically, the syllogism would state: A. Dawkins is a Zeusian. B. I am a Zeusian. C. Therefore, all people are Zeusians. This would lead to an invalid conclusion as premises A and B might be true, but they certainly wouldn't lead to premise C. Knowledge of two people does not equal knowledge of all people. Also, Dawkins did this via a survey, which may or may not be biased by the responses received. He might have had too small of a sample to be statistically meaningful.Barb_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Neil, ID implies a designer in the same way that Big Bang cosmology implies a designer. Whether by either of these one prefers it to be a supernatural agent or not is quite beside the point. One is free to either accept or reject a supernatural agent, or to modify what is meant by "supernatural" based on the new information. ID does not insist on it, but is focused on the evidence for purposeful design as opposed to chance. Materialists' rejection of anything "supernatural" (whatever they mean by the term) just because of the implications of there possibly existing a supreme intelligence to the universe, is just silly.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Neil at 18
ID says there was a designer — that’s what the D is about.
Correct, but 'what, how, who, when, why' are not part of the material evidence available to us. Like deducing the Big Bang without a shred of knowledge as how such a thing could come into being, the accessible artifacts of it nonetheless stand on their own.
ID says there was something outside material natural processes, a supernatural agent or actor
An individual ID proponent is completely within his/her right to conclude such a scenario, but that conclusion is not achieved by the material evidence itself, no more so than concluding that evolution says Life was the product of unguided material processes. If you insist otherwise, then we are obligated by that reasoning to also conclude that the Big Bang was a supernatural event. - - - - - - I noticed that your original comment made claims about evidence, yet when challenged, your follow-up was silent on the matter. Are you not interested in material evidence, or is it your preference not to dabble in issues which you see as possibly extraneous to your conclusion.Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Fixing my bungled sentence: If you can’t come up a question that can fairly identify a Christian then you are OK with "Christian" being a rather meaningless term.Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply