Someone please send Barbara Forrest a thesaurus

_{February 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Barbara Forrest responds to David DeWolf in The News Star.

Early in the article Forrest puts forth a false dichotomy which undermines all that follows. My emphasis:

DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.

Not only are there other alternatives but supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural. If we go to a thesaurus and look up the word natural we find listed among the antonyms the words technological and artificial. Notably we do not find the word supernatural listed as an antonym.

Maybe Babs should spend more time improving her vocabulary and less time disproving the assertion that ID is science.

Of course there’s an alternative explanation here. Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar. In fact that makes more sense as you usually can’t get a PhD without at least a college entrance-level vocabulary.

Comments

Paul Giem, I am happy to step out of the way. RegardsUpright BiPed_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

-----Rob: “It’s the “you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance” part that’s in dispute. When you distinguish the sand castle from the other elements on the beach, you have distinguished agency from law and chance. Just as when you separate the written paragraph from lucky noise, you have distinguished between human agency and law/chance. I can’t imagine why you would call that a dispute. I wrote, Are you saying that you cannot discern the fact that an intelligent agent is responsible for a written paragraph? ----You wrote, “When did I say or imply that? Please quote me.” I asked you a question. A question is not an assertion. The question persists. I will rephrase it: Do you believe that you can discern intelligent agency from a written paragraph? “Sorry, that was a brain cramp on my part. I meant C+N.” No problem. I don't fuss over typos. I want to know what you mean with your abbreviations. -----“Okay, I’ll be more explicit: chip marks that are characteristic of human flintknapping. Fine. So, do you accept that fact that human “flintknapping” constitutes human agency?StephenB_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Adel (#158), Thanks for your input. It is to be hoped that JayM follows suit. Upright BiPed (#159), Let's not judge JayM before he makes his comment. Once before, a long time ago in posts (#80), he was almost ready to give an unqualified "yes". I am giving him another opportunity and don't want it foreclosed unless and until he chooses to do so.Paul Giem_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Adel, JayM is in complete disagreement with you. He states that IF intelligence comes from natural causes (chance + necessity), THEN human intelligence is the result of natural causes. He draws no distinction between a circuit board and a sand dune. He is not expected to refine his argument. What he fails to respond to is: 1) that the premise is speculation, 2) that the conclusion of the premise is based on the previous speculation, 3) that it is not falsifiable Apparently he is also quite comfortable with a system of inquiry - one that only allows a single answer - to surprisingly come up with that answer, and to have that answer form the basis of all further inquiry.Upright BiPed_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

I find this discussion fascinating. I ask that Paul Giem and JayM please ignore me if I am intruding on their dialog, but I was wondering what issue was at stake in Paul's question:
The question which I asked still stands. Once we reach agreement on it, we can move on. Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing?
To me, for the little that it may be worth, the answer is obviously 'yes.' I doubt that nature without humans is capable of producing an aircraft carrier or a Honda Accord. I hope that helps.Adel DiBagno_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

JayM (#151), Thanks for your response. You avoided commenting on what you called a "quibble" earlier. The question which I asked still stands. Once we reach agreement on it, we can move on. Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing? The question is not intended to assume any judgments about whether humans are or are not a part of nature in some technical sense. Nor is it intended to assume the nature of intelligence, or, for that matter, even its existence. Nor does it assume methodological or philosophical naturalism or their negations. All it assumes is that (a) humans exist and (b) nature without humans exists. As I noted, at a maximum of some 6 million years ago, the latter was universal. It is still true for much of the solar system. So neither (a) nor (b) is hypothetical. Now just a yes or no answer without quibbling, and we can proceed. _________ Your comment
My primary point in this whole thread has been that, if we want to refute Barbara Forrest’s natural / supernatural dichotomy, we need to be able to clearly and objectively demonstrate that human intelligence is not a natural phenomena.
avoids the real issue of the post. DeWolf was contrasting "natural" and "intelligent". Forrest immediately stated that the only valid contrast that could be made is between the natural and the supernatural, strongly implying if not stating that DeWolf was in error. This is valid only if you answer "no" to my previous question. If you say "yes", then it seems clear that Forrest made an error, precisely the one DaveScot identified. A simple statement to that effect by you would clarify the issue. Then we could pursue all the side issues, or further implications, we wanted. Right now there seems to be a lot of spin. One exception is KF (#146) who points out in paragraph 5 that he is not assuming anything in his arguments about the ultimate origin of human or any other intelligence. I hope you can be as clear about your dependence or lack thereof on philosophical naturalism, and the distinction, if any, in your mind between philosophical and methodological naturalism. Once we get the spin out, we can discuss the evidence. Until then, there is no point in giving evidence. I can point out that MET (which I interpreted as mechanistic evolutionary theory, although there probably isn't any difference) mechanisms do not preserve neutral mutations, without using a strained meaning of "preserve". You simply deny it, and ask me to look up genetic drift and related topics, as if I were not familiar with them. Other than natural selection, no preservation as I defined it takes place. The other mechanisms are strictly laissez faire, and can only be said to preserve genetic variants in a passive, as opposed to an active, role. But you're so busy spinning that you can't agree with this simple concept. You may object to the word "spin". But I don't know how else to characterize the egregious series of statements you made near the end:
Second, you are assuming your conclusion. If, as assumed by methodological naturalism, human intelligence is a natural phenomena, then natural processes are sufficient to create the levels of complexity we observe in nature. To support the idea that natural processes cannot generate intelligence, we need real scientific evidence. To support the idea that the complexity we observe in biological systems requires intelligence, we need to show where the edge of evolution lies.
You accuse me of assuming my conclusion, and as evidence (I guess; it's the only evidence you give), assume the conclusion of "methodological naturalism", in actuality philosophical naturalism, as a rebuttal. That's chutzpah. Of course, if they are right, then they are right. The question is, are they right in the first place? You then tell me that we need real scientific evidence to support the idea that natural processes cannot generate intelligence. It is possible this that idea can be supported. But that was not what I was trying to do. Rather, I was focusing solely on your second statement, that "To support the idea that the complexity we observe in biological systems requires intelligence, we need to show where the edge of evolution lies." The fact that you could not see this suggests poor reading and comprehension skills. I would prefer to think that these are remediable. You have more denials, all easily accounted for by spin, none backed up well. If we are to reach any kind of agreement, we will need to go very slowly. First, have you personally read the Behe-Snoke paper? Do you understand what it says? Do you understand the criticisms of it? Do you understand the response of Behe and Snoke to the criticisms? What I am basically asking is whether you are thinking your own thoughts, as opposed to simply repeating what someone else says without personally checking it out. If you are, then we can discuss. If you are not, then you need to indicate whether you want to. If so, original links can be found here (comments 60---the original article--and 22--Lynch's reply and Behe and Snoke's response). If not, then we'll just have a spin contest, in which I have no desire to partake.Paul Giem_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

JayM
"Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?"
Neither chance nor necessity have never been observed creating FSCI - trying to push into evidence that we can see it in biology is assuming your conclusion. ...yet
The methodological naturalists have thousands of peer reviewed papers published annually regarding new discoveries of the natural mechanisms underlying intelligence.
Philosophical materialism allows no other conclusions. Can you honestly not see how illogical this is? You assume your conclusions without a moment of pause. - - - - - By the way, do you intend to continue to ignore the research paper I posted. You had made the comment that you knew of no such research, so I was just wondering about the integrity of your claim.Upright BiPed_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @146
Then the onward chain of reasoning is simple: we have abundant evidence that intelligent agents do produce FSCI, and we have no good cases where we observe chance + necessity doing so. [JM, responds, 134:] You keep repeating this, but have never supported it. Unless you can demonstrate that human intelligence is non-natural in some sense, then the results of human intelligence are the results of natural processes .
KF, you responded at great length, but nowhere in your post did you simply address the question. You claim is unfounded and constitutes begging the question. You can't simply say "Human intelligence generates complexity, there is complexity in the genome, therefore the genome is a product of intelligence." If you could, please, briefly provide any references to any empirical evidence that supports your claim, then we could discuss it seriously. Until then, it is simply a logical fallacy. JJJayM_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Namely, natural = chance + necessity acting on material objects etc, while intelligence produces artificial or technical items when they act on same objects
By contrasting chance+necessity with intelligence, you're again begging the question. Are you honestly not able to see this?R0b_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @141
Chance and necessity have never been observed (in any circumstance whatsoever, or under any scientific discipline) that can account for the highly organized and selective functionality observed in nucleic sequencing.
Once again you go back to begging the question. You are still saying, in effect, "Human intelligence generates complex functional systems, we observe complex functionality in biological systems, therefore biological systems require intelligence to arise." Can you honestly not see how illogical this is? The quick response that a methodological naturalist like Forrest would make to your claim is "Of course we have an example of natural processes creating complex functionality. Just look at any biological system." They then go and research how that happens. We need to do the same, to show the real limits of natural mechanism and, hopefully, determine the mechanisms used by the designer. JJJayM_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
No, they (materialists) insist that minds and wills emerge from material phenomena. That is incorrect. Materialists make no provision for minds or wills.
Can you cite a materialist who denies the existence of minds and wills? (As they define the terms, not as you define them.)
It is not a case of the “true Scotsmen syndrome.” In fact, there really are objective standards for rationality and some people do not meet them.
Yes, the objective standard is formal logic, which you have not presented. Your accusations of irrationality are directed to those who don't share your metaphysic. If you could formally prove your beliefs, then they would fall under math/science rather than metaphysics.R0b_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem @140
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since I was able to respond to you last.
Thanks for re-engaging. I'm going to try to address the highlights and essential comments in your long post. If you feel I've elided something important, please let me know.
First, it might be helpful to review what we agreed on. In #79 I asked, “Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing?” You replied (#80) Well summarized. Clearly the answer is yes, although the quibble is that “nature without humans” isn’t all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of the methodological naturalists. I pointed out the invalidity of your quibble in #81: The quibble that “nature without humans” isn’t all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of methodological naturalism is truly a quibble. Nature without humans exists now on Saturn and all of its moons besides Titan. Except for a few localized spots (which will stay localized if we sterilized the probes properly), it exists on Mars. Six million years ago, by anyone’s reckoning, it existed everywhere. So yes, this is definitely whining over details that are irrelevant.
I don't understand how this addresses the issue at all. My primary point in this whole thread has been that, if we want to refute Barbara Forrest's natural / supernatural dichotomy, we need to be able to clearly and objectively demonstrate that human intelligence is not a natural phenomena. Talking about "nature aside from human intelligence" avoids that core issue.
Nature without humans, however, seems to be practically limited to 2 neutral mutations at a time. That is what the Behe-Snokes paper calculates, and that is what The Edge of Evolution argues for on observational grounds. And it fits the Lenski experiment as far as we know. You replied, Your “at a time” observation is crucial. MET mechanisms preserve beneficial, and even neutral, mutations. As long as the number of possible simultaneous mutations is greater than zero, MET mechanisms can work. (The question of how far such mechanisms can go is separate, and more interesting.) This is inaccurate. MET mechanisms do not preserve neutral mutations, without using a strained meaning of “preserve”.
Actually, they do. Some biologists argue that this is more influential in the resulting organisms than is positive selection. Look up "genetic drift" and related topics for more detail.
The next statement, “As long as the number of possible simultaneous mutations is greater than zero, MET mechanisms can work.” suggests a profound misunderstanding. If you had phrased it “might theoretically work”, it would have been accurate. But the problem is not a theoretically possible pathway. The problem is that, in the case of higher animals, the pathway needs to be advantageous at each step, as even one neutral mutation will cause the process to stall out.
As noted above, this is not an accurate statement.
For bacteria, more than one disadvantageous mutation will cause the process to stall out.
Nor is this.
The Behe and Snokes paper demonstrated that.
In fact, the Behe-Snoke paper showed that, even with the pessimistic assumptions that they made, the probability of multi-residue features arising is relatively high. There are numerous discussions of this paper on the Web that point out this result.
The problem is that we know of some non-Darwinian pathways.
I've been careful to refer to modern evolutionary theory (MET) mechanisms rather than Darwin's original theory. What non-MET pathways, if any, are you referring to?
One of them leads to chloroquine resistance in malaria parasites, and is documented in The Edge of Evolution. One of them involves the HIV virus, and was rubbed in Behe’s face (unjustly, IMO). Another one is apparently the Lenski citrate transport mechanism. And another one is apparently the nylonase enzyme (I’m still looking at this last one).
How are these the result of non-MET mechanisms?
You quote me, So large-scale evolution appears to require an intelligence at least equal to that of humans and say, That doesn’t follow. In fact, if we accept the methodological naturalist assumptions, for the sake of argument, the ability of natural processes to produce something as complex as human intelligence suggests that other forms of complexity, such as biological constructs, are well within the capabilities of those same processes. The bland denial (”That doesn’t follow”) makes no attempt to explain why.
I beg to differ. I pointed out in the very next sentences, which you quoted, exactly why your claim doesn't follow from your premise.
If humans, and therefore presumably human-like intelliigences, are capable of creating genetic changes at will, and nature without humans appears to be stymied at 3 neutral/deleterious mutations for microorganisms and 2 neutral/deleterious mutations for large mammals, and evidence for Darwinian (no neutral mutation) pathways to new proteins appears to be lacking after careful search, then the idea that large-scale evolution appears to require intelligence does seem to be justified, at least as a tentative conclusion given the presently available evidence.
First, you haven't demonstrated that nature is "stymied" at any of these points. MET mechanisms have been shown both in the lab and in the real world to exceed these limits. Second, you are assuming your conclusion. If, as assumed by methodological naturalism, human intelligence is a natural phenomena, then natural processes are sufficient to create the levels of complexity we observe in nature. To support the idea that natural processes cannot generate intelligence, we need real scientific evidence. To support the idea that the complexity we observe in biological systems requires intelligence, we need to show where the edge of evolution lies. I believe it is a rich area for research, but we haven't made the case yet. JJJayM_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
You interpretet that as an analogy, but it was not meant as an analogy.
Where did I do that? Please provide a quote.
The point is that once you have discerned that human hands are responsible, then human agency has been established.
Your point was, "If you can distinguish between a sand castle that was made from human hands from anything that forms from ocean waves and wind, then you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance as defined by ID." It's the "you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance" part that's in dispute. Have you abandoned that now, trading it for a weaker and undisputed point?
Are you saying that you cannot discern the fact that an intelligent agent is responsible for a written paragraph?
When did I say or imply that? Please quote me.
Also, please state explicitly what you mean by C + D since I am not following your discussion with others nor am I making any references to measurement at the moment.
Sorry, that was a brain cramp on my part. I meant C+N.
Are you saying that natural forces cannot create chip marks?
Okay, I'll be more explicit: chip marks that are characteristic of human flintknapping.R0b_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

StephenB @138

It is you who are equivocating. If human intelligence is a natural phenomena, then the results of it are a natural phenomena. Calling the same thing, natural phenomena, by two different names and acting as though the names make a difference is nonsensical.”
There is only one person in this discussion that thinks human intelligence is a natural phenomenon and that is you.
Your willingness to leap to assumptions based on your biases is showing. I have never claimed that human intelligence is either natural or non-natural. I am discussing the original post at the top of this thread, namely the claim by some ID proponents that Barbara Forrest is making a false dichotomy between natural and supernatural. Methodological naturalists such as Forrest, by definition, claim that human intelligence is the result of natural processes. If you want to demonstrate that Forrest's arguments are invalid, you must show that human intelligence is not a natural phenomena. You keep asserting it, but have provided absolutely no support for your assertions.
—-”On what do you base this insulting assertion? (Darwinist posing as an ID sympathizer.) I could just as easily claim that you are attempting to undermine ID by presenting easily refuted, often nonsensical claims while posing as an ID proponent.” I base that comment on your earlier assertion that you are a Fuller/Behe type ID advocate. That clearly is not that case.
Prove it or retract it. I can support my claim that you are attempting to undermine the ID movement by posting easily refuted arguments by reference to any number of your posts here. Where is your evidence that I am other than what I say I am?
Further, the only time you have ever defended any propostion by an ID proponent was on the occassion of agreeing with Steve Fuller that ID needs to define the activity of the designer, the only point of contention between Fuller and other ID advocates.
As noted in that discussion, I find the refusal to discuss the nature of the designer scientifically indefensible and ethically questionable. I would like to see the ID movement take the high ground. That's far more supportive of the goals of ID than your preference for us to be disingenuous.
Further, You don’t seem to believe even in the principle of design inference since you question it at every turn.
This is supposed to be a scientific discussion. Belief doesn't come into it. For the record, I do think that design can be detected in principle, but CSI and other measurements currently being suggested are not sufficiently rigorous to do so. Again, I am supporting ID by encouraging the improvement of these tools, not just whining about how the real scientists won't take us seriously.
Further, you argue that “intelligence” is, or can be, a natural phenonenon, the very antithesis of ID.
Excellent, we're finally back on topic. Please provide the proof, or at least support for the idea, that human intelligence is not a natural phenomena. The methodological naturalists have thousands of peer reviewed papers published annually regarding new discoveries of the natural mechanisms underlying intelligence. We need to do more than simply claim "No, it isn't." JJJayM_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

SB: Well said. Looks like our evo mat interlocutors need some basics on critical thinking: 1] PPT, in PDF, 15 minutes. 2] 101 level Phil toolkit, 2 hrs. 3] Good online tutorial, requiring a few days. [Maybe we should add to the quick reference section, BarryA?) But, then, there is a longstanding issue on the rational coherence of evolutionary materialism that -- though often hotly dismissed -- is a serious and (on the merits) unanswered challenge. Laying the usual strawman to rest, first of all:
The issue is not [a] whether evo mat thinkers can reason, subject to the same finitude and fallibility we all have, but [b] whether they can ground the credibuiiity of the mind on their premises . . . [c[ and that has been so since Lucretius' attempt to use a random swerve to get around the implications of determinism ruled by blind lawlike forces; for [d] randiomness is no better at being rational than blind force.
GEM of TKI PS: Rob JM: it is not q-begging or No true Scotsman, to point out fallacious reasoning and even reductio ad absurdum, with warrant.kairosfocus_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

8 --> So, on inference to best current, empirically anchored explanation, DNA and its associated structures and software, are artifacts of intelligence. That is not a deductive proof [which is subject to rejection of axioms . . . ], it is empirically anchored, provisional warrant, i.e the same standard we use for science , forensics, history etc. 9 --> So, the core design inference is warranted, and that without begging questions, on inference to best among competing explanations as controlled by evidence and logical coherence. 10 --> On the specious objection that we must provide definitions, I have pointed out already that [1] we have done so, cf.glossary as linked top of page, [2] definition by concrete exemplar and family resemblance is more fundamental than precising or taxonomical statement. 10 --> As a further to this, [3] biology is no less science because it has no definition of life beyond examples and family resemblance thereto. 11 --> As to the further specious objection that there is no effective quantification of FSCI, I refer you to your PC, and to the files on it: they are measured in functionally specific bits: bits that do the work of a program or provide the data for a text or image etc. 12 --> Once the total of such bits exceeds about 1,000 [143+ ASCII characters . . . ], not even if the observed cosmos were converted to a search machine would the configs be likely to be found by chance + necessity. But, intelligences routinely produce same. 13 --> And, there are more sophisticated quantisations, including this one in the recent peer reviewed literature, for proteins, with a table of no less than 35 values. (BTW, linked at Weak Arguments Corrective, no 27, above.) ______________ BOTTOMLINE: Sadly, endless materialist objectionism, carried to the point of self-referential absurdity. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

JM (And Rob): re JM @ 134:
[Cites GEM, 119:] Then the onward chain of reasoning is simple: we have abundant evidence that intelligent agents do produce FSCI, and we have no good cases where we observe chance + necessity doing so. [JM, responds, 134:] You keep repeating this, but have never supported it. Unless you can demonstrate that human intelligence is non-natural in some sense, then the results of human intelligence are the results of natural processes . . .
This is why I have pointed out that we are at reductio ad absurdum: 1 --> The very topic for this thread is proof enough that intelligence and its artifacts "in some sense" are opposites to the "natural." 2 --> Namely, natural = chance + necessity acting on material objects etc, while intelligence produces artificial or technical items when they act on same objects; as my dropped die vs set up die example illustrates as a simple thought or practical expt. 3 --> Indeed, Wiki -- no fan of ID -- on TECHNE, ever since Plato, is apt:
Techne, or techné, as distinguished from episteme, is etymologically derived from the Greek word ????? . . . which is often translated as craftsmanship, craft, or art. It is the rational method involved in producing an object or accomplishing a goal or objective. The means of this method is through art. Techne resembles episteme in the implication of knowledge of principles, although techne differs in that its intent is making or doing, as opposed to "disinterested understanding."
4 --> So, when you -- self reference -- put up posts containing thousands of ASCII characters and constituting functionally specific, complex information as a known product of intelligence -- and in a context where no such text produced by chance + necessity is forthcoming -- we have a clear indication of an empirical sign of intelligence. Thus, your actions undercut your claims and reduce your argument to absurdity. 5 --> ALSO, THE APPEAL TO EXISTING OBSERVED INTELLIGENCES AND ARTIFACTS THEREODF IS INDEPENDENT OF DEBATES AND SPECULATIONS ON THE REMOTE UNOBSERVED ORIGIN OF SAID INTELLIGENCE. So, to anchor inferences in what we can all observe and test/confirm empirically is not to beg questions. 6 --> Now, that is also relevant to the origin of said intelligence and its sign, information. (All of which we can observe through existing examples and cases, i.e concrete, repeatable, observable,and reliably characterised.) 7 --> For, our existence is biologically based on cells that embed DNA and associated implementing machinery that implement algorithmic, coded, digital data strings of length sufficient that on needle- in- haystack grounds, it is not plausible that C + N on the gamut of the observed cosmos could plausibly -- as opposed to logically possibly -- produce. [Just as the stat form of the laws of thermodynamics are based on the same needle in a haystack issues.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{February 18, 2009
February
02
Feb
18
18
2009
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

-----Rob: "In regards to the rest of your post, do you really think that your argument is helped by your repeated claim that true Scotsmen — I mean, rational people — think like you do?" It is not a case of the "true Scotsmen syndrome." In fact, there really are objective standards for rationality and some people do not meet them.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

143 is a response to Rob.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

No, they (materialists) insist that minds and wills emerge from material phenomena. That is incorrect. Materialists make no provision for minds or wills. You are talking about epiphenominalism. Epiphenominalists posit a kind of emergence, but in the end, mind and will are, for them, totally grounded in matter anyway. Epiphenomiliasts, strictly speaking do not believe in minds as causal agents. For them, matter is the only substance, which hearkens back to my comment on human agency. Materialists and epiphenominalists both must, in the end, deny free will and intellect. That is because all mental events are caused by brain events, which in turn are caused by outside material events. Under the circumstances, free will is impossible as well. So, in the end, materialism and epiphenominalism amount to the same thing.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Rob, Let’s zero in a little bit and trim things down. I wrote, "if you can distinguish between a sand castle that was made from human hands from anything that forms from ocean waves and wind, then you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance as defined by ID." You interpretet that as an analogy, but it was not meant as an analogy. The point is that once you have discerned that human hands are responsible, then human agency has been established. We can make the same statement about a written paragraph. You can easily distinguish between gibberish and an organized paragraph. The organized paragraph is a function of agency. Are you saying that you cannot discern the fact that an intelligent agent is responsible for a written paragraph? (Also, please state explicitly what you mean by C + D since I am not following your discussion with others nor am I making any references to measurement at the moment.) I wrote, How do you think that archeologists know that the arrowhead is not a rock? What quality does it have? ------You respond, “Chip marks.” Are you saying that natural forces cannot create chip marks?StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

JayM
You seem to have an overinflated sense of the merit of your attempted refutation.
Properly inflated I would say. You setup a proposition based on speculation and then draw a speculative conclusion from it. I set up a proposition based on observable evidence and draw an empirical observation from it. You then insist that I must meet your challenge.
You need to read far more carefully. Methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science.
Is this supposed to be informative? Methodological naturalism has been an incredibly useful tool for mankind, but if it is used (as it is today) to rule out rational observation, then it becomes nothing more than establishment cover (philosophy) for unending speculation – all in order to not face the fact that an organized information code exists as the basis of living tissue. The simple globule thing didn’t work out. Neither did the fossil record. Neither did easy consciousness. Neither did the attack on irreducible complexity. Neither did chemical evolution. Neither did junk DNA. Neither did homologous structures equating to homologous genetics. Shall I go on?
If methodological naturalism is assumed, this is true. If you don’t believe it to be true, then you need to provide some evidence of how the assumptions of methodological naturalism either don’t allow an explanation of the phenomena or demonstrate how they result in a contradiction.
Okay. Chance and necessity are causal mechanisms that have been studied carefully from a variety of disciplines. It isn’t that we nothing of their footprint. Chance provides an independence from any one given result to the next. It does not organize, and it does not coordinate. Necessity brings periodic order. Neither periodic order nor independence of result is what is seen in nucleic sequencing. Nucleic sequencing is characterized by functional organization that is both intricate and pervasive. Unfortunately, only chance and necessity are allowed by doctrine as the answer to nucleic sequencing. What we end up is: Chance and necessity have never been observed (in any circumstance whatsoever, or under any scientific discipline) that can account for the highly organized and selective functionality observed in nucleic sequencing. Both fail as appropriate mechanisms based on qualitative and quantitative studies, therefore, only chance and necessity can account for such nucleic sequencing.
The rest of your post is based on your complete misunderstanding of this simple syllogism.
Let’s see what you’ve chosen to ignore: 1) The ability to falsify your claim. 2) Science not being upfront with the public it is to serve 3) A research papers that fundamentally impacts the questions you pose.Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

JayM (#83), A lot of water has gone under the bridge since I was able to respond to you last. First, it might be helpful to review what we agreed on. In #79 I asked,
"Can humans do things that nature without humans is for all practical purposes incapable of doing?"
You replied (#80)
Well summarized. Clearly the answer is yes, although the quibble is that “nature without humans” isn’t all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of the methodological naturalists.
I pointed out the invalidity of your quibble in #81:
The quibble that “nature without humans” isn’t all of nature if one accepts the assumptions of methodological naturalism is truly a quibble. Nature without humans exists now on Saturn and all of its moons besides Titan. Except for a few localized spots (which will stay localized if we sterilized the probes properly), it exists on Mars. Six million years ago, by anyone’s reckoning, it existed everywhere. So yes, this is definitely whining over details that are irrelevant.
You did not reply in #83. Does that mean that you accept my reasoning regarding the quibble? Or do you wish to challenge it? I commented that
Nature without humans, however, seems to be practically limited to 2 neutral mutations at a time. That is what the Behe-Snokes paper calculates, and that is what The Edge of Evolution argues for on observational grounds. And it fits the Lenski experiment as far as we know.
You replied,
Your “at a time” observation is crucial. MET mechanisms preserve beneficial, and even neutral, mutations. As long as the number of possible simultaneous mutations is greater than zero, MET mechanisms can work. (The question of how far such mechanisms can go is separate, and more interesting.)
This is inaccurate. MET mechanisms do not preserve neutral mutations, without using a strained meaning of "preserve". Natural selection is the only MET mechanism that can be said to preserve anything (mutations and genetic drift change neutral mutations if they do anything to them). MET simply sometimes allow neutral mutations to lie unchanged. And neutral mutations are invisible to natural selection. But probably some sources claim that MET mechanisms "preserve" neutral mutations, so you may have come by that mistake reasonably honestly. The next statement, "As long as the number of possible simultaneous mutations is greater than zero, MET mechanisms can work." suggests a profound misunderstanding. If you had phrased it "might theoretically work", it would have been accurate. But the problem is not a theoretically possible pathway. The problem is that, in the case of higher animals, the pathway needs to be advantageous at each step, as even one neutral mutation will cause the process to stall out. For bacteria, more than one disadvantageous mutation will cause the process to stall out. The Behe and Snokes paper demonstrated that. That is why it passed the peer-review process. The criticism that has been leveled at it is that it did not explore "Darwinian processes". This is not true (this discussion has been covered before). It did explore Darwinian processes; it just did not explore Darwinian pathways, where each step is beneficial. So the criticism does not invalidate their conclusions; it only claims that Darwinian pathways are always present, so that the difficulties pointed out by Behe and Snokes are only theoretical. The problem is that we know of some non-Darwinian pathways. One of them leads to chloroquine resistance in malaria parasites, and is documented in The Edge of Evolution. One of them involves the HIV virus, and was rubbed in Behe's face (unjustly, IMO). Another one is apparently the Lenski citrate transport mechanism. And another one is apparently the nylonase enzyme (I'm still looking at this last one). Thus the experimental evidence backs up the theoretical calculations. Now, you may insist that we have not proven our case. But we have at least showed some evidence that can be fairly interpreted as supporting it. It does seem like there should be some obligation for those who believe that virtually all proteins can be reached by Darwinian processes to give some either theoretical or experimental evidence that such pathways exist. But as I noted before, color vision is the only pathway I have seen offered, and this reportedly involved only 3 steps, nowhere near the tens to hundreds of steps typically needed to get a new protein. You quote me,
So large-scale evolution appears to require an intelligence at least equal to that of humans
and say,
That doesn’t follow. In fact, if we accept the methodological naturalist assumptions, for the sake of argument, the ability of natural processes to produce something as complex as human intelligence suggests that other forms of complexity, such as biological constructs, are well within the capabilities of those same processes.
The bland denial ("That doesn't follow") makes no attempt to explain why. If humans, and therefore presumably human-like intelliigences, are capable of creating genetic changes at will, and nature without humans appears to be stymied at 3 neutral/deleterious mutations for microorganisms and 2 neutral/deleterious mutations for large mammals, and evidence for Darwinian (no neutral mutation) pathways to new proteins appears to be lacking after careful search, then the idea that large-scale evolution appears to require intelligence does seem to be justified, at least as a tentative conclusion given the presently available evidence. Could you please explain why it doesn't follow in this sense? Your next sentence is a recipe for surrender, and phrased incorrectly. The assumption that you are suggesting that we take "for the sake of argument" is not methodological naturalism; it is philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism means that we assume naturalism and see how far we go. When one assumes that methodological naturalism can explain all the data, then one has shifted into philosophical naturalism. And that assumption means that all one has to do to argue that something is possible by natural means is to show that it happened. It then must, almost by definition, have happened naturally, and thus be possible naturally. There is no need to prove that it actually happened naturally, or even could have happened naturally. The mere fact of its happening is taken as proof that it can happen naturally. That kind of "logic" is totally impervious to any disproof, and therefore, in the Popperian sense, is not science. It fits better with what some think of religion. You say,
Just because intelligence is sufficient to create such results doesn’t mean that intelligence is necessary to create them. Demonstrating that is why we need more research into Behe’s edge of evolution.
I agree that more research into Behe's edge of evolution would be helpful. What I think you failed to realize is that for some of us the preponderance of evidence is already in favor of ID, and that for some, the considerations in the paragraph before your last-quoted one one mean that no matter how well we delineate the edge of evolution or show that present-day organisms are beyond it, they will not give up their belief in MET, because for them it never was about the science anyway. You will note that no assumptions are being made about the ability to explain human minds on the basis of combinations of chance and natural law. The only requirement for the argument in this regard is the assumption that human intelligence exists and is not widespread in nature as we know it outside of humans.Paul Giem_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
If you can distinguish between a sand castle that was made from human hands from anything that forms from ocean waves and wind, then you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance as defined by ID.
Does anyone else here think that this logic is valid? An analogous argument would be "You can tell Jack from Bob, so you can tell Democrats from Republicans." First, if the arguer can't establish Bob's affiliation, then his argument is dead. Second, if he can't show that Jack and Bob were distinguished on the basis of their party, then the argument is likewise dead. You haven't shown that human activity is non-C+D, nor have you shown that my reasoning, which I stated explicitly, works because one is C+D and the other not. That's two levels of fallacy.
Did you have another definition of “natural causes” in mind?
There are certainly other definitions, but I'm aware of your definition. The fact is that I answered a question about sandcastles, humans, waves, and wind, not "natural causes" or C+D (which are synonymous under your definition).
How do you think that archeologists know that the arrowhead is not a rock? What quality does it have?
Chip marks.
Materialists insist that there are no minds or wills,
No, they insist that minds and wills emerge from material phenomena.
You seem to disapprove of what I wrote on that thread, but you do not take up the issues that I presented, either then or now. So, why allude to it without responding to the points made?
I told you exactly what my point was in alluding to it: You're attaching metaphysical baggage to your terms. I don't know how else to respond to the claim that the academy teaches that nothing is man-made. In regards to the rest of your post, do you really think that your argument is helped by your repeated claim that true Scotsmen -- I mean, rational people -- think like you do?R0b_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

----JayM: "It is you who are equivocating. If human intelligence is a natural phenomena, then the results of it are a natural phenomena. Calling the same thing, natural phenomena, by two different names and acting as though the names make a difference is nonsensical." There is only one person in this discussion that thinks human intelligence is a natural phenomenon and that is you. ----"On what do you base this insulting assertion? (Darwinist posing as an ID sympathizer.) I could just as easily claim that you are attempting to undermine ID by presenting easily refuted, often nonsensical claims while posing as an ID proponent." I base that comment on your earlier assertion that you are a Fuller/Behe type ID advocate. That clearly is not that case. Further, the only time you have ever defended any propostion by an ID proponent was on the occassion of agreeing with Steve Fuller that ID needs to define the activity of the designer, the only point of contention between Fuller and other ID advocates. Further, You don't seem to believe even in the principle of design inference since you question it at every turn. Further, you argue that "intelligence" is, or can be, a natural phenonenon, the very antithesis of ID. Further, you claim that the words "law" and "chance" obfuscate. I'll stop there and add more to the list the next time we dialogue, or, I should say, the next time you express doubts about some aspect of intelligent design. You have refuted nothing because you have said nothing. You simply wax skeptical over what others say. ----"I know that people make sand castles. Big deal." The big deal is that you claim not to be able to distinguish sand castles from grains of sand formed by the wind and the ocean. That is the big deal. ----“Equivocate.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. This is the only correspondence in which I have used it. So, I don't know what you mean when you say, "keep using the word." I know very well what the word means. The question is, do you know how to avoid doing it? ----“Law and chance” seems to be a term that obfuscates rather than illuminates. It assumes that intelligence is different without demonstrating why that must be so. Perhaps it is, but you have certainly not shown why. Everyone knows what "law" and "chance" means given the context of the discussion. Plato's first introduced the law/chance/agency triparte explanation in his "Laws." If the terms were meaningless, ambiguous, or non-definitive, I am sure he or someone in the two millenia that followed would have picked up on that problem. The only person who claims not to understand the meaning is you.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB @129
That means, then, that you can distinguish human agency from natural causes, which is the point that JayM denies.
No, it means that you can distinguish one type of natural cause from another. Don't put words in my mouth.
He maintains that we cannot know the difference, meaning that we cannot differentiate between [A] a sand castle that was formed by the ocean and the wind from [B] one that was designed by human hands.
That's not true. Please either provide evidence for this claim or retract it. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @126
Jay, if you are going to cut and paste my arguments, please don’t ignore the passage that directly addresses your claim by 1) stating it just as you have, and 2) dismantles it for what it is.
You seem to have an overinflated sense of the merit of your attempted refutation.
You then want to argue that indeed it is; if intelligence can arise by natural law then the artifacts of intelligence also arose by natural law. So lets take your claim in its parts; the first part (beginning with “IF”) being pure speculation without a shred of empirical evidence. (Ahem)…now lets move to the second part of your claim (beginning with “THEN”) which is nothing more than a conclusion based on the first part. So my questions to you: 1) Is “IF intelligence can arise…” a speculative comment or is it not? True or False?
You need to read far more carefully. Methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science. In my comments in this thread I have been accepting that assumption for the sake of argument.
2) Is “THEN intelligence arose…” a conclusion based on the prior speculation. True or False?
If methodological naturalism is assumed, this is true. If you don't believe it to be true, then you need to provide some evidence of how the assumptions of methodological naturalism either don't allow an explanation of the phenomena or demonstrate how they result in a contradiction. The rest of your post is based on your complete misunderstanding of this simple syllogism. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB @121
In truth, your objection is little more than a refusal to make distinctions. So, if I ask if you just wrote the previous paragraph, you can say no, not really, it occurred “in” nature and was the result of a “natural process.” Or, you say, yes, I am part of nature and nature caused me to do it. Or, you can say, yes, I am part of nature and nature allowed me to do it.
And your reasoned objection to any of those conclusions is . . . ? In fact, I accept responsibility for my actions. I act as though I have free will. That doesn't change the fact you have not addressed the issue of whether or not human intelligence is the result of natural, materialistic processes.
If I ask if the aforementioned paragraph just happened as a result of chance, you can say, yes, it just emerged from “natural processes.” If I ask you if it was the inevitable result of physical laws, you say, yes, nature made it happen. So, the answer to all questions is yes and no.
"Inevitable result" is assuming facts not in evidence.
So, for you, a radical materialist, posing as an ID sympathathizer,
On what do you base this insulting assertion? I could just as easily claim that you are attempting to undermine ID by presenting easily refuted, often nonsensical claims while posing as an ID proponent. Why don't we just assume good faith and attempt to come to some conclusions that will advance the ID cause?
everything is “in” nature; everything is defined by nature; and everything can be explained by nature. For all that, you have not defined nature.
It is some ID proponents who are claiming that Forrest's natural/supernatural distinction is invalid. In order to substantiate that claim, human intelligence must be proven to be non-natural by the claimants, not by me.
In truth, “nature” is just a catch all term you use to refer to something without ever really explaining it. At least ID defines “natural causes” to mean law and chance. You, on the other hand, offer no definition of the word.
"Law and chance" seems to be a term that obfuscates rather than illuminates. It assumes that intelligence is different without demonstrating why that must be so. Perhaps it is, but you have certainly not shown why.
You simply refuse to accept IDs explcit definition, revise it into an all inclusive term that means nothing, and then wonder why ID can’t explain things in those terms.
It is you who are equivocating. If human intelligence is a natural phenomena, then the results of it are a natural phenomena. Calling the same thing, natural phenomena, by two different names and acting as though the names make a difference is nonsensical.
That is why you equivocate so much over my little sand castle. The question still stands by the way: If you think a six year old made the sand castle, how to you arrive at that conclusion?
"Equivocate." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I know that people make sand castles. Big deal. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @119
Then the onward chain of reasoning is simple: we have abundant evidence that intelligent agents do produce FSCI, and we have no good cases where we observe chance + necessity doing so.
You keep repeating this, but have never supported it. Unless you can demonstrate that human intelligence is non-natural in some sense, then the results of human intelligence are the results of natural processes. Unless you can demonstrate that FSCI is uniquely an indicator of intelligence, there is no reason to assume that FSCI in biological systems must be the result of intelligence. Unless you can rigorously define FSCI, explain how it can be calculated for biological systems, and show how it incorporates the mechanisms observed to occur by biologists working within modern evolutionary theory, any claims that rely on FSCI are literally meaningless. You can write as much as you want, but until you address these issues you are clearly begging the question. JJJayM_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "I know that you don’t intend to put words in my mouth, StephenB, but your questions and my answers said nothing about “natural causes”, an ambiguous term. You previously defined “natural causes” to mean “law and chance”. I cannot distinguish human agency from law and chance." If you can distinguish between a sand castle that was made from human hands from anything that forms from ocean waves and wind, then you can distinguish between human agency and law/chance as defined by ID. Did you have another definition of "natural causes" in mind? -----"When archeologists say that arrowheads are man-made, they mean that they were formed by humans. Whether human activity is reducible to C+N is a separate question." How do you think that archeologists know that the arrowhead is not a rock? What quality does it have? --"Anyone reading this would think that, if true, then JayM must be a nutcase. The same is true of your claim from the other thread that the academy teaches that nothing is man-made. Those professors need to stop sniffing their dry-erase markers." The academy, for the most part, promotes naturalism/materialism. Materialists insist that there are no minds or wills, and most Darwinists are materiaists in that same sense. You seem to disapprove of what I wrote on that thread, but you do not take up the issues that I presented, either then or now. So, why allude to it without responding to the points made? In any case, materialistic philosophy as a foundation for science causes the entire rational enterprise to break down. The investigator cannot be distinguished from the investigation, or the subject from the object. I wouldn't call materialists "nut cases," I would simply point out that they are not rational because they acknowedge neither [a] rational minds [b} the rational universe or [c] the decisive correspondence between the two. They are trying to dialogue about ID, without first acknowledging the first principles for right reason. This compromises their ability to reason in the abstract. Rational people know immediately what to say when confronted with the question, "Is a written paragraph designed?" Irrational people immediately begin looking for ways to sidestep the issue or make it more complicated than it is. It is not their fault. The academy has instilled in them a neglect and horror of the obvious.StephenB_{February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply