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

Natural or supernatural - it matters not. Intelligent design cannot be categorically excluded from science.
And yet it is and here we are...Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

However, if intelligence is reducible to natural law then it is not qualitatively different than other results of natural law, in the sense of being above, beyond, or transcendent to nature.
Once again, ID is about EVIDENCE, not debating definitions (see Popper). A rational interpretation of the EVIDENCE shows that an input of organization at the nucleic level is a virtual necessity, and is (far and away) the explanation of living tissue that carries the greatest parsimony with all other evidence on the matter. Further, it is fully supported by associated biological evidence, the fossil record, qualitative data, and even those crazy human experiences such as noticing that specified functionality has never been recorded coming from anything but an act of volitional agency, intelligence, and foresight. And the good just keep on coming - ID fits perfectly with genetics, embryology, physics, cosmology, and even Charles Darwin’s special Theory of Evolution. So what is not being addressed? 1) Natural Law did not create Joseph’s car, even if Joeseph's car was created within Natural Law 2) Quad’s separate phenomenon is natural, yet seperate at the same time. 3) ID is only about evidence “Never let yourself be goaded into taking seriously, problems about words and their meanings. What must be taken seriously are questions of fact, and assertions about facts: theories and hypotheses; the problems they solve and the problems they raise“ - Karl PopperUpright BiPed_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

BTW JayM, "No Fee Lunch" has that demonstration you are asking for- starting on page 292.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

JayM [65], Ah, I think we may be getting somewhere. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between your premise (intelligence is reducible to natural law) and your conclusion (intelligence is not qualitatively different from other results of natural law). In the first place, how does it follow that all effects resulting from a common cause are qualitatively identical? As a kid, I used to play with K'Nex and with Legos. Are you telling me that the rubber band gun I made with K'Nex is qualitatively identical to the castle I made with Legos? That these are qualitatively identical to the PB&J sandwhich I made for lunch? To the spreadsheet that I compiled for work? Are you really saying that none of these things are qualitatively different from each other, simply because *I* am the common cause of them all? I think it's important to remember that transcendence is not a necessary property of intelligence. I do not believe that my intelligence transcends nature or natural law, but I *still* maintain that I can create things that nature cannot without my intelligent assistance. It is true that natural law simultaneously constrains and makes possible my ability to create, but my intelligence is *required* for certain things nonetheless. Otherwise, my company could save a lot of money by relying on, say, wind (creative)power rather than hiring me to validate their data. It also seems that you are caught up on complexity (very common), but the issue is much more about relating what we observe with our prior knowledge about what effects are uniquely the product of intelligent activity. Is it not true that *SIMPLE* elements, that do NOT occur naturally, are produced by scientists in laboratories? You see, it really has EVERYTHING to do with our knowledge about the unique products of intelligent activity - complexity be darned! Now, just because something relies upon a medium does not mean that this medium has the ability to produce it. I record data to a jump drive, but the jump drive cannot produce the data itself. Here, I am acknowledging that the medium of intelligence may very well be matter and natural law - But that does not qualify as an explanation for the existence of intelligence. To explain an effect, you need prior experience with a cause - Knowledge of how an effect is sustained once it appears does NOT count. Thus, we do NOT have an explanation for the origin of intelligence, even conceding, for the sake of argument, the premise that intelligence is reducible to nature. A probable point of confusion is the jump in logic you made between your premise that [intelligence is reducible to natural] and your conclusion that [intelligence is the *result* of natural law]. Just because I accept that intelligence is reducible to natural law does not mean I accept that intelligence is the *product* of natural law (for reasons just stated). In order to say that the flagellum can be the product of natural law on grounds that intelligence is the product of natural law, you would have to move beyond saying that intelligence requires a medium, which is ALL we have established thus far. The origin of intelligence remains completely unresolved, and thus the origin of "similarly complex" phenomena also remains unresolved - not that complexity even matters in the first place! :-p Now, why couldn't intelligence be a fundamental property of nature? Or, why couldn't intelligence have always existed, just as matter, energy, laws, or the multiverse - or whatever materialistic notion of historical reality - has always existed? Bah, I digress ... The important point is: Intelligence is a REAL phenomenon that can be studied and quantified. Just because intelligence relies on the same matter and laws as the keyboard I'm typing on does not mean that intelligence cannot affect my keyboard in unique and quantifiable ways. Am I to believe that I cannot study the difference between the effects of bathing my hands in hand sanitizer and bathing my hands in mud, simply because these things rely on the same natural laws? Of course not. Thus, we can study the effects of intelligence, regardless of whether or not it is reducible to nature. Natural or supernatural - it matters not. Intelligent design cannot be categorically excluded from science.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1):
ID Does Not “Require Supernatural Causation” ID as a scientific theory does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer. This has been the consistent view of ID proponents for the last two decades, and Judge Jones was presented with extensive documentation of this fact in amicus briefs filed by the Discovery Institute and FTE, which the text of his opinion seemed to have ignored. Judge Jones also ignored—or misinterpreted—key passages from the Pandas textbook that addressed this issue. For example, the published version of Pandas used in Dover schools explained that ID merely seeks to infer “intelligent causes” and is compatible with a wide variety of religious viewpoints, including pantheism and agnosticism:
The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source.
That said Forrest claims that the ONLY alternative to "natural" is "supernatural". That has been proven to be false. And yes, dictionaries are an authority when it comes to defining words. THAT is their purpose. Without that authority communication would be pretty complicated. So those who disregard the authority of dictionaries don't have a clue when it comes to communication. And that disregard is a sure sign of deception.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

As R0b(17) points out, natural is the antonym of supernatural in the Encarta thesaurus DaveScot evidently regards as definitive. Anybody who knows anything about thesauri knows that they serve to lead a writer to words that have a meaning s/he already has in mind. Thesauri do not presume to define, but dictionaries do. And to get an idea of the latitude in dictionary definition, go to the Dictionary.com entry for supernatural, which includes definitions from multiple dictionaries. Anyone who knows anything about research into natural language processing by computers knows that when machinable dictionaries first became available, AI programs immediately discovered that they were full of circularity and inconsistency. The distinction of natural and non-natural (synonymous with supernatural in one of its senses) in the ID literature goes back to Phillip Johnson, IIRC. I can cite chapter and verse in the case of Bill Dembski. The fact that ID writers have avoided the religious connotation of supernatural does not mean that Forrest is incorrect in her use of the term. Anyone who regards a dictionary, let alone a thesaurus, as authoritative has not outgrown grammar-school indoctrination. What is truly remarkable here is the psychology of putative "question authority" types who in fact love to appeal to the "proper" authorities.Sal Gal_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

That PoV may be part of some definition, but it is NOT based on science. Now if someone wants to claim that my car is reducible to law and chance, let them have at it. It is mainstream science tat has provided us with the tried-n-true design detection techniques. Now people cry "foul" when they are applied equally across the board. And what about those "laws"? Are they also reducible to "law and chance"? The BEST explanation "they" have is "they just are (the way they are)" Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time". But you are right, if nature, operating freely, can produce a living organism from non-living matter, then the bacterial flagellum is off the table by BEHE's criteria.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

QuadFather @63 (Love the nym, by the way.)

Unless we can show that those natural physical processes cannot account for intelligence, claiming that ‘the design process is not reducible to the laws of nature’ is an empty assertion.
Even if you believe that intelligence IS reducible to the laws of nature, it still constitutes a unique phenomenon. Or should we say that NOTHING exists except laws and fundamental particles? Clearly, this is problematic. Whether intelligence is reducible to natural law, is a stand-alone property, or is an emergent property, it *exists*. If we know it exists, we must be able to observe it. And if we can observe it, we can study it.
I agree completely. However, if intelligence is reducible to natural law then it is not qualitatively different than other results of natural law, in the sense of being above, beyond, or transcendent to nature. If natural processes can produce something as complex as intelligence, why shouldn't they be able to produce something as complex as the bacterial flagellum? JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Joseph @61

If we take the methodological naturalist point of view, humans are the result of billions of years of evolution via purely natural processes.
That PoV is not based on science.
That point of view is a common definition of part of the scientific method. See the National Academy of Sciences and other similar mainstream organizations if you don't believe me.
IOW claiming that design is reducible to law and chance is an empty assertion.
So is claiming that design is not reducible to law and chance. We need evidence.
As I said we have tried and true techniques for determining design or not. . . . If someone can demonstrate the power of non-telic processes- that is demonstrate non-telic processes can account for CSI then you would have a point.
It's not my point, I'm trying to present the methodological naturalist point of view fairly so that we can address it directly. I have yet to see a calculation of CSI for a real world biological organism or component such as the bacterial flagella. Until one is provided, the claim that CSI is too vague to be useful in the detection of design is pretty strong. Do you have such a demonstration? JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

JayM, "Unless we can show that those natural physical processes cannot account for intelligence, claiming that 'the design process is not reducible to the laws of nature' is an empty assertion." Even if you believe that intelligence IS reducible to the laws of nature, it still constitutes a unique phenomenon. Or should we say that NOTHING exists except laws and fundamental particles? Clearly, this is problematic. Whether intelligence is reducible to natural law, is a stand-alone property, or is an emergent property, it *exists*. If we know it exists, we must be able to observe it. And if we can observe it, we can study it. All of this blather about where it comes from is beside the point.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

And if a scientist goes into a lab and designs a flagellum, would that "prove" ID? Science has demonstrated that only life begets life. Why doesn't THAT count against MN?Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

If we take the methodological naturalist point of view, humans are the result of billions of years of evolution via purely natural processes.
That PoV is not based on science. So why should I care about it? IOW claiming that design is reducible to law and chance is an empty assertion. As I said we have tried and true techniques for determining design or not. We have a word "artifact" tta is used to differentiate between designed and not designed. So perhaps we shpuld get rid of that word as well as archaeology. No more murder because all deaths are natural. If someone can demonstrate the power of non-telic processes- that is demonstrate non-telic processes can account for CSI then you would have a point. Until then all you/ they have are empty assertions.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Joseph @58

So if the design process is reducible to the laws of physics, doesn’t that mean that it’s reducible to chance and necessity?
But the design process is not reducible to the laws of nature.
Why not? I am sympathetic to your view, which makes me want to see it supported all the more. Unfortunately, I have yet to see such support. If we take the methodological naturalist point of view, humans are the result of billions of years of evolution via purely natural processes. Intelligence is simply a result of having a complex, physical brain with many interconnections. Thought is purely chemical and electrical in nature. Unless we can show that those natural physical processes cannot account for intelligence, claiming that "the design process is not reducible to the laws of nature" is an empty assertion. JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB @49
I was hoping that you would respond to these two questions: Do you think that there is any qualitative difference between the cause of the formation of the beach and the cause of formation of my sand castle?
There is certainly a quantitative difference in the level of complexity of both the creation process and the result. By this I mean Kolmogorov complexity. Whether or not there is a qualitative difference is the exact issue under dispute. If, as methodological naturalists assume, humans are the result of billions of years of evolution through purely mechanistic, "natural" processes and, further, that human intelligence is simply an emergent phenomena arising from our complex but natural physical brains, then in that sense there is no qualitative difference between the two. Both are the result of causes that can be explained in purely mechanistic terms. If we want to claim that there is a qualitative difference, we must provide an objective way to measure or specify that difference and demonstrate that intelligence meets that criteria. We can't simply beg the question.
If you saw a sand castle on the beach, how would you explain its existence? (Assume that it is five stories tall, contains three garages [each of which shelters a sport car], and tops out with a perfectly shaped dome.
I'd explain it by recognizing that even six-year-olds are better at building sand castles than I am. JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Dave, yes my computer is designed, it operates according to the laws of nature, and I don’t see any scientific reason to think that the design process operates outside the laws of nature either.
The laws of nature programmed your computer? I doubt that. Ya see computers operate according to their design and the programs they can run. And the design process does not operate outside the laws of nature. If the design was implemented before nature existed then there was nothing to be outside of. And all designs implemented after obey those laws.
So if the design process is reducible to the laws of physics, doesn’t that mean that it’s reducible to chance and necessity?
But the design process is not reducible to the laws of nature. Those laws can only constrain the design.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

----Seversky: "I would say that the forces that formed mountains and streams and the forces that formed the people who contribute to these blogs are part and parcel of the one natural world. What the original cause of all that was I have no idea." Ah, but what about the immediate design of the written paragraph.StephenB_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 40
I gather, then, that you think that “having” a nature is synonymous to being “in” nature. Here is a quick tip: The two formulations are not even being close to the same thing.
The Greeks believed that the world could be investigated and understood by studying the natures of things. On that basis the world of natures is the same as the natural world. The problem is that, as this discussion shows, one word can have many meanings and these meanings can drift over time. There is no one 'right' meaning. All that is required is that, when we use a word, we try to be clear about which meaning we intend and that we use it consistently.
In any case, let’s get to the bottom line. Are you prepared to argue that the same forces that form mountains and streams also designed the paragraph that you just wrote. According to Barbara Forrest, they both occurred “in” nature, so they can both be explained by the same cause. Since that is her argument, I assume that is also your argument.
I would say that the forces that formed mountains and streams and the forces that formed the people who contribute to these blogs are part and parcel of the one natural world. What the original cause of all that was I have no idea.Seversky_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem @ 36
Is it your contention that since presumably God has what the classical Greeks would call a nature, that God is thus a part of the natural world and falls within the domain of scientific study? Or do you contend that God does not exist, and that therefore any nature of God is purely hypothetical? Or does God not qualify as an intelligent agent? Which of those alternatives would you attribute to Dr. Forrest?
I would contend that, if God exists, He has a nature, is thus a part of the natural world and consequently falls within the domain of science. In fact, when I looked up the entry on "supernatural" in Wikipedia, I found this entry which comes pretty close to what I believe:
This is a view largely held by monists and process theorists. According to this view, the "supernatural" is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science. Materialist monists believe that the "supernatural" consists of things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science, while idealist monists reject the concept of "supernatural" on the grounds that they believe "nature" is the non-material. Neutral monists maintain that "nature" and "supernature" are artificial categories as they believe that the material and non-material are both either equally real and simultaneously existent, or illusions that stem from the human mind's interpretation of reality.
I haven't decided whether I'm a material or a neutral monist yet, though.Seversky_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Dave, yes my computer is designed, it operates according to the laws of nature, and I don't see any scientific reason to think that the design process operates outside the laws of nature either. So if the design process is reducible to the laws of physics, doesn't that mean that it's reducible to chance and necessity?R0b_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

ROb Your computer is designed. It has specified complexity. Does that put it outside the laws of nature?DaveScot_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

DonaldM Yes..because, as Dave S has already pointed out, the only antonym for supernatural is natural, but supernatural is not the only only antonym for natural. As Dave said, antonyms of antonyms are not necessarily synonyms. Forrest clearly uses the term “natrual” in a scientific context, so we need to look for its antonyms there…instead she sets up the false dichomoty with religion we’ve been discussing in this thread. Well. Then please tell me whether John Morris uses the dichotomy in an acceptable fashion. Is he speaking in the following essay merely as a Christian teacher or as a scientist? http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=352 I'll freely admit that perhaps I completely misread Dembski's argument concerning the S-word in Chapter 25 of his The Design Revolution. Please enlighten me.riddick_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Dave:
Forrest claimed there is no alternative to “natural” other than “supernatural”. Do you at least agree that statement is false because there are indeed alternatives like “technological” and “artificial”?
Certainly, in the sense that each usage of the term natural has its own complement.
I’ve asked many times what exactly about living things requires a designer to violate the laws of physics (i.e. supernatural agency). The only answer I get, which is vague and arguable, is the human mind.
Of course we're on the same page here. But Dembski's method of design detection hinges on the assumption that design is not reducible to chance and necessity. Doesn't that put design outside the laws of physics?R0b_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Riddick
So, do I understand you correctly to say that it’s okay for a pastor to use this dichotomy, but it’s not okay for Barbara?
Yes..because, as Dave S has already pointed out, the only antonym for supernatural is natural, but supernatural is not the only only antonym for natural. As Dave said, antonyms of antonyms are not necessarily synonyms. Forrest clearly uses the term "natrual" in a scientific context, so we need to look for its antonyms there...instead she sets up the false dichomoty with religion we've been discussing in this thread.DonaldM_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

JayM: I asked, "Under the circumstances, do you think that the same forces that formed the beach also designed my sand castle?" ----You wrote, "I won’t presume to speak for Forrest, but I suspect that her position is that human intelligence is a natural phenomena, just as are the waves that formed the beach." I was hoping that you would respond to these two questions: Do you think that there is any qualitative difference between the cause of the formation of the beach and the cause of formation of my sand castle? If you saw a sand castle on the beach, how would you explain its existence? (Assume that it is five stories tall, contains three garages [each of which shelters a sport car], and tops out with a perfectly shaped dome.StephenB_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

And if we follow all the scientific data and observations back to a supernatural agent, so what? Do we then have to deny's its existence because it won't submit to our poking and prodding? Science is a tool to help us gather knowledge to figure out the reality behind what it is we are observing and questioning. "How did it come to be this way?" is one of the main questions science asks. IDists then ask "By design or not?" Determine that first and then set out to find the other answers to the questions raised by that inference.Joseph_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Since ID offers no methodology to distinguish the technological or artificial from the divine or supernatural, this is a distinction without a difference. Forrest could have been more precise, but her criticism of the introduction of supernatural causes by ID is legitimate, if disputed.
ID does not offer a methodology to make this distinction because nothing in science offers a methodology to make this distinction. ID does not introduce supernatural causes. Neither does it exclude them. ID is not the study of the cause of design. It is the study of the difference between artifacts and accidents.DaveScot_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Paul Glem @44

My reading of Forrest’s words, being as generous in interpretation as possible, is that humans are natural causes. By this reasoning, intelligent human causes are not qualitatively different from unintelligent natural phenomena but the intelligent agent posited by ID theory is not natural. The two possible responses to this are to show that human intelligence is not explainable by natural mechanisms or to show that the intelligent agent of ID theory is so explainable.
But it is plain then that this reasoning is extremely faulty. For intelligent human causes are qualitatively different from unintelligent natural phenomena. To refuse to admit this is to say that all of archaeology is bunk. For the pottery we find in mounds could just as easily be caused by “unintelligent natural phenomena.”
That conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Not all natural causes have the same effects. If human intelligence is natural, that doesn't mean that the results of actions by that intelligence will be indistinguishable from other natural events, any more than the result of tidal forces from the Moon is the same as the result of plate tectonics or any more than either are similar to the result of temperatures dropping below the freezing point of water. Waves, earthquakes, and snow are the result of natural causes, but those causes are distinguishable. If human intelligence is a natural phenomena, which appears to be Forrest's view, it's effects can be equally distinguishable. We can't simply assert that human intelligence is qualitatively different from natural forces, we must demonstrate it. That involves demonstrating that we are unique, possessed of some transcendent quality, which strays close to the line of theology. JJJayM_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB @41
I once made a sand castle. Barbara Forrest tells me that this act occurred “in” nature. Under the circumstances, do you think that the same forces that formed the beach also caused the sand castle?
Isn't this, broadly speaking, the point of contention between ID proponents and methodological naturalists? I won't presume to speak for Forrest, but I suspect that her position is that human intelligence is a natural phenomena, just as are the waves that formed the beach. With respect to the Forrest quote that anchors this thread, I believe she is distinguishing between human intelligence, which we can observe, and the intelligence postulated by ID theory that many ID proponents claim is the Christian God. (Yes, I know that isn't part of ID theory. It is a common perception, though, because of those claims.) JJJayM_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

JayM (#37), It's almost like Forrest is, and you are, deliberately being dense. Forrest is refusing to recognize the qualitative difference between humans and non-living natural causes. StephenB (#41) asked if a sand castle on a beach was created by wind, waves, and other unintelligent forces. What's so hard about answering "No"? What's so hard about allowing DeWolf to point out the contrast between intelligent and unintelligent natural forces and their abilities, without constantly asking whether the intelligent force is supernatural? This smacks of spin control. You say,
My reading of Forrest’s words, being as generous in interpretation as possible, is that humans are natural causes. By this reasoning, intelligent human causes are not qualitatively different from unintelligent natural phenomena but the intelligent agent posited by ID theory is not natural. The two possible responses to this are to show that human intelligence is not explainable by natural mechanisms or to show that the intelligent agent of ID theory is so explainable.
But it is plain then that this reasoning is extremely faulty. For intelligent human causes are qualitatively different from unintelligent natural phenomena. To refuse to admit this is to say that all of archaeology is bunk. For the pottery we find in mounds could just as easily be caused by "unintelligent natural phenomena." You will note that this response is not either of "the two possible responses". Are you so imaginatively challenged that you could not anticipate this response? Or were you just hoping that your spin control would make us overlook the obvious response?Paul Giem_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

ROb Forrest claimed there is no alternative to "natural" other than "supernatural". Do you at least agree that statement is false because there are indeed alternatives like "technological" and "artificial"? If you don't agree to at least that much then we have no common ground for further discussion. Your quotes from Dembski are 11 years old and the presentation was about the act of creation. His position was that creativity is transcendent. That is an open question which I acknowledged earlier. ID is about design detection. It distinguishes between what can be reasonably produced by law & chance and what is better explained by the action of an intelligent agency. It is not about the nature of the intelligent agency itself. That's not to say various ID proponents don't have opinions about the nature of the agency but those are personal views. We can sometimes infer minimal capabilities of the agency from the designed object. Design and construction of a bow and arrow requires some set of skills and abilities. Design and construction of a flagellum requires substantially different skills and abilities although it doesn't appear to be beyond conceivable human technology. I've asked many times what exactly about living things requires a designer to violate the laws of physics (i.e. supernatural agency). The only answer I get, which is vague and arguable, is the human mind. If we restrict the discussion to prokaryotes there is nothing that's been pointed out to me. If we ask about cosmological ID - the fine tuning of the physical laws of the universe - then we run into a brick wall as we have no concept of what kind of skills and abilities are required to design and construct a universe and the laws that govern it. That, at least at this point in time, appears as transcendent. DaveScot_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply