This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more
Comments
That’s called special pleading. You remove yourself from the picture you put others into, and claim that you’re immune to the process that you yourself use against others.
I disagree. It would be special pleading if I had also signed on to the BIOLA statement of faith, but argued that it was inapplicable to me for reasons outside the scope of the discussion. I contend, instead, that Dr. Hunter’s need to comply with that explicit dogma is a material distinction that the distinction can and should be analyzed.
You have a statement of faith, even if it is yet to be written down, for we all do, yourself not excepted.
Only for an extraordinarily broad definition of “statement of faith.” (This is similar to Dr. Hunter’s extraordinarily broad definition of “religion.”) Adopting that definition, yes, Dr. Hunter and myself both have “statements of faith.” But Dr. Hunter is also obliged to comply with a literal“statement of faith,” which we can examine directly for ourselves. It explicitly prohibits him from believing certain things, no matter what the evidence shows. (I did not notice any exception along the lines of “unless the evidence shows otherwise.” That distinguishes Dr. Hunter’s “statement of faith” from my own, such as it is.) My predispositions may make me disinclined to accept surprising or unwelcome evidence, but Dr. Hunter’s accession to BIOLA’s dogma expressly prohibits him from doing so.
I acknowledge that faith, and statements thereof, is a very tricky and subjective thing. It is entirely possible that Dr. Hunter has a more flexible view of the statement, and if he told us so, I would not argue with him. Neither of us has first-hand knowledge of his interpretation of the statement, though, so we can only go by the statement itself. As the document explicitly explains, only certain beliefs are permitted. Is Dr. Hunter open to evidence that contradicts those beliefs? I see no reason to believe that he adopted the statement provisionally. He could change my mind on that point merely by saying so, but you cannot. You are gainsaid by the document itself, which is unambiguous.
Dr. Hunter’s faith most certainly doesn’t prohibit him from following the evidence and argument wherever it leads, anymore than your religious atheism does.
Then what does the statement mean? Dr. Hunter has subscribed to a written doctrine that rules out certain beliefs. If he is presented with evidence challenging those beliefs, he would be forced to disavow the statement, which I imagine would entail resigning his post. Both he and I may one day be presented with evidence contradicting our opinions on origins; if I were to change my mind, my life would not change at all. Dr. Hunter, in the same situation, would have his life overturned, because he is bound by an explicit statement of his preconceptions that prohibits him from changing his mind. I do not see those situations as strongly analogous.
Indeed, your welcome to “believe” whatever you want about Dr. Hunter, but don’t call it a belief on the level of science, it is your personal belief, nothing more, and I see no grounds whatsoever in considering your anecdotal belief to be authoritative, especially considering that you don’t even know the man. The presumptuousness is really irritating, and I would advise you to stop, I’m serious.
I don’t see the basis for this relatively heated complaint. Where did I call my opinion of Dr. Hunter “a belief on the level of science?” Where have I claimed any special authority? I don’t see any statement here that could be bent so far. My comments are obviously my own personal beliefs. Anyone is welcome to read the statement of faith and come to their own opinions.
Science was an outgrowth of Christianity LH….
This is a baffling statement. Of course “science” is not an outgrowth of Christianity. Greeks, inter alia, were doing science long before Christianity. I am amenable to the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science, but it is not relevant to the point I made.
….and at all colleges there are Christians doing science. This ought to be obvious to those who aren’t biased and interested in painting a picture of a false dilemma.
It is obvious. So obvious that perhaps you should have slowed down and asked yourself whether your indignation was getting the better of you, and whether you actually understood the point I was making.
If someone at a Bible college cannot critique a scientific point of view because they aren’t a scientist, then you cannot defend a scientific claim because you aren’t a scientist either.
Someone at a Bible college can criticize a scientific endeavor. They can do it all day long. They can do it cogently and coherently and well. They can even embark on a research program and make new empirical discoveries. They generally don’t, though, for some fairly obvious reasons. Modern biology research (at least as far as I know) requires financial and other resources that are scarce even at research institutions, much less at smaller, less well-financed schools like Bible colleges. Bible colleges also have specific mission requirements that aren’t served by empirical research, which acts to discourage their faculty from devoting time and attention to such research.
(The same could be said, for example of law schools. Law school professors could make cogent and coherent criticisms of scientific research. They generally don’t, though, as law schools don’t have a budget to fund such work, and their professors are supposed to spend their time pursuing the school’s mission.)
The mission of a bible college is particularly relevant to this question, as it may directly impact the impartiality of the subject faculty. One reason we don’t expect bible colleges to do original scientific research is that a bible professor who did, and who reached theologically inconvenient results, would be in hot water. Despite the complaints of IDists, research institutions don’t maintain such binding ideologies.
You seem impenetrable with logic and common sense sometimes LH, I don’t mean that condescendingly, I really don’t.
Your comment would only be condescending if you put yourself on a higher level with regard to logic and common sense. Nothing you have written tends in that direction, and so I take no offense.
But it just seems obvious that you have a dog in the fight on your side as much as anyone else who you claim shouldn’t have dogs in the fight.
I don’t recall claiming that anyone shouldn’t have dogs in the fight. It would be an odd thing for me to say, because it is antithetical to my arguments. I do not contend that Dr. Hunter should not have a bias; I contend that his bias is apparent, and detracts from his credibility. I acknowledge that the scientists he criticizes also may have biases, although theirs are not as explicit as Dr. Hunter’s. Insofar as both parties have their own biases, I find the party that is willing to subject their theories to empirical, objective testing to be more credible. The fact that Dr. Hunter has been unable to establish his ideas outside his own faith-based context reinforces, rather than mitigates, the perception that his biases influence his work. Conversely, the fact that the scientists he criticizes are making discoveries that even he admits are significant suggests that their beliefs have empirical merit, whether or not they began with their own biases.
As your moderator, I would advise you to stop.
Threat noted.Learned Hand
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Learned Hand,
You are indeed wrong in assuming that my personal beliefs dictate my perceptions of the natural world.
That's called special pleading. You remove yourself from the picture you put others into, and claim that you're immune to the process that you yourself use against others.
but I have not subscribed to a statement of faith that prohibits me from following the evidence where it leads.
You have a statement of faith, even if it is yet to be written down, for we all do, yourself not excepted. Dr. Hunter's faith most certainly doesn't prohibit him from following the evidence and argument wherever it leads, anymore than your religious atheism does. This is motive mongering, and it isn't arguing on the merits of any science. Indeed, your welcome to "believe" whatever you want about Dr. Hunter, but don't call it a belief on the level of science, it is your personal belief, nothing more, and I see no grounds whatsoever in considering your anecdotal belief to be authoritative, especially considering that you don't even know the man. The presumptuousness is really irritating, and I would advise you to stop, I'm serious.
I look to empirical evidence to explain the natural world, rather than take the ID approach of relying on “inferences” that just happen to coincide with my preexisting ideology.
The belief that there is an outside world at all is based on inference. All knowledge whatsoever is inference-based. Science is based on inferences. Incredible. I know you're trained in law and not philosophy, but you're not discussing law, you're discussing philosophy.
Such statements of faith are, incidentally, one of several reasons why productive science is done at research institutions rather than bible colleges.
Science was an outgrowth of Christianity LH, and at all colleges there are Christians doing science. This ought to be obvious to those who aren't biased and interested in painting a picture of a false dilemma. If someone at a Bible college cannot critique a scientific point of view because they aren't a scientist, then you cannot defend a scientific claim because you aren't a scientist either. Goose, gander, all that good stuff. You seem impenetrable with logic and common sense sometimes LH, I don't mean that condescendingly, I really don't. But it just seems obvious that you have a dog in the fight on your side as much as anyone else who you claim shouldn't have dogs in the fight. You defeat your own credibility by arguing this way. If you can give a critique against ID, so can Dr. Hunter give a critique of whatever he wants in the same way. I reckon if you can't argue the science, go after the person and their motives. Do what CS Lewis called Bulverism:
The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth [and Twenty-First] Century.
–C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism,” in God in the Dock, p. 273
As your moderator, I would advise you to stop.Clive Hayden
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
How do you “know” that [his religion dictates his perceptions of the natural world]? Did you do research in the lab about it? I’m serious, if you claim to “KNOW” something about Cornelius, please tell me how you know.
Dr. Hunter is faculty at BIOLA University, which, as I understand it, obliges its personnel to subscribe to a statement of faith. That statement is available online, with the following explanatory text:
“The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.”
You can read it yourself at http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/. It is possible that Dr. Hunter secretly dissents from the statement of faith or feels that the explanatory text is in error, but I have seen no evidence of that.
And by that same logic, it seems indicative that your non-religion dictates your perceptions of the natural world. Am I wrong? If I am, so are you. For I only use against you what you use against Cornelius.
You are indeed wrong in assuming that my personal beliefs dictate my perceptions of the natural world. My beliefs certainly influence my perceptions, but I have not subscribed to a statement of faith that prohibits me from following the evidence where it leads. That distinguishes me from Dr. Hunter. And because I know that my beliefs may influence my perceptions, I look to empirical evidence to explain the natural world, rather than take the ID approach of relying on “inferences” that just happen to coincide with my preexisting ideology.
Such statements of faith are, incidentally, one of several reasons why productive science is done at research institutions rather than bible colleges. It seems that ID is a nonstarter among researches who aren’t constrained by religious dogma, and unable to compete in environments where empirical results matter more than preexisting ideologies. I can’t credit the default ID explanation for that phenomenon, a global atheist conspiracy, when ID advocates such as Dr. Hunter don’t even seem interested in attempting to generate their own empirical results. (If he is interested in beginning a research program, please correct me on that point.)Learned Hand
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Great. I take it that we now agree. Humans can draw inferences to agency apart from natural causes. Welcome to the ID community.
Because, as we all know, those of us outside of the ID community do not believe that artifacts can be identified as such.R0b
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial: "Vis sandcastles and cave men: Children on beaches capable of making such a distinction have already experienced years of immersion in human culture, human actions, and human artifacts, experiences that began at birth."
Yes, those four year olds are really sensitive to the cultural zeitgeist.
---"And as above, “there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives.”
Great. I take it that we now agree. Humans can draw inferences to agency apart from natural causes. Welcome to the ID community.
---"Those adaptations further prime us to soak up the implicit cultural tutelage we experience from day one on these questions. A similar observation may be made regarding your “first cave man.” All Homo sapiens have been obligately cultural creatures."
So, given that he was a creature of culture, could the caveman discern the writings on the cave wall as products of human agency apart from wind, rain, snow, and erosion?StephenB
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
——-Diffaxial: ”Your denials notwithstanding, there is a deep foundation within an evolutionary perspective for an understanding of how we make these distinctions in the abstract, as well as for making them in particular instances."
Yes, within your evolutionary model, all things are possible: causation comes and goes as it will, life pops out of nowhere, and molecules develop Oedipus complexes. That will definitely open up a few options for you.StephenB
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Diffaxial,
------"Your denials notwithstanding, there is a deep foundation within an evolutionary perspective for an understanding of how we make these distinctions in the abstract, as well as for making them in particular instances. That basis is understood in light of (at least) three levels of causation: 1) ontogenetic, reflecting immersion from birth in human activities and artifacts that confers an intimate awareness of the characteristics of such human-originated phenomena (and contrasting familiarity with natural physical events); 2) cultural, reflecting internalization of a rich cultural vocabulary for both forms of causation (natural and human) that further amplifies individual experience; and 3) phylogenetic, reflecting biological adaptations for social cognition, particularly human theory of mind, that unquestionably have evolutionary origins."
Let me distill that for you.
1. Sitting around looking at things.
2. Talking about it.
3. Mind arising from the movements of non-rational atoms just by virtue of them moving around.
Yeah, I believe that evolutionary story. I won't compare it to fairy-tales, because I think there is quite a lot of truth in fairy-tales, whereas with the above quote there is none.Clive Hayden
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Learned Hand,
---"What I do know indicates that his religion dictates his perceptions of the natural world..."
How do you "know" that? Did you do research in the lab about it? I'm serious, if you claim to "KNOW" something about Cornelius, please tell me how you know.
And by that same logic, it seems indicative that your non-religion dictates your perceptions of the natural world. Am I wrong? If I am, so are you. For I only use against you what you use against Cornelius.Clive Hayden
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 47:
Not true. A child can detect a sand castle from a mere glob of sand with no cultural experience at all...
...Incorrect. No cultural familiarity is needed to make a design inference. The first cave man would have known if someone other than himself had written on his wall and he would have known that the writing was not the result of a natural phenomenon
Your denials notwithstanding, there is a deep foundation within an evolutionary perspective for an understanding of how we make these distinctions in the abstract, as well as for making them in particular instances. That basis is understood in light of (at least) three levels of causation: 1) ontogenetic, reflecting immersion from birth in human activities and artifacts that confers an intimate awareness of the characteristics of such human-originated phenomena (and contrasting familiarity with natural physical events); 2) cultural, reflecting internalization of a rich cultural vocabulary for both forms of causation (natural and human) that further amplifies individual experience; and 3) phylogenetic, reflecting biological adaptations for social cognition, particularly human theory of mind, that unquestionably have evolutionary origins. Each perspective continues to be the subject of very deep and interesting research. And each is consistent with the view that human agency arose in the natural world.
You may wish to dispute the specifics of the above model, in part or whole (a little humor there), but you cannot claim that the "Darwinist" has no basis for understanding and making such distinctions, or distinguishing causal histories that result in tornados from those that result in burglaries. In fact we do, several, all of which drive substantial empirical research. So far as I am aware, no research is conducted from the hypothesis that "intelligent agency is non-natural."
Vis sandcastles and cave men: Children on beaches capable of making such a distinction have already experienced years of immersion in human culture, human actions, and human artifacts, experiences that began at birth. And as above, "there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives." Those adaptations further prime us to soak up the implicit cultural tutelage we experience from day one on these questions. A similar observation may be made regarding your "first cave man." All Homo sapiens have been obligately cultural creatures.Diffaxial
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
LH:
If life can’t begin from the undirected operation of natural laws, that leaves only miraculous, magical, or otherwise supernatural methods.
Just because you can say so doesn't make it so.
Also just how did those natural laws come about?
Natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because natural processes only exist in nature.
So where does that leave you?
Learned Hand,
If you don't like the design inference then all you have to do is to actually start substantiating the claims of your position.
It is due to the complete failure of your position that ID has made a comeback.Joseph
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
"do not do research into the mechanisms of creation" You should check into the discipline of Synthetic Biology.
"If life can’t begin from the undirected operation of natural laws, that leaves only miraculous, magical, or otherwise supernatural methods. See, i.e., Dembski’s zero-wavelength information beam."
More nonesense. Craig Venter expects to do it within 20 years. Is he is supernatural? Maybe in his mind.
"Except empirical evidence that undirected natural processes can create the building blocks of life."
Not nonsense but highly, highly irrelevant. You have said "Look Martha, they just found some natural lego parts." And Martha replies, "Now all they have to do is see how the winds and tides and heat from the sun assemble them into a space shuttle. Should be a piece of cake."
"Then where did the aliens come from?"
Just ask the people at Cornell which was the home of Carl Sagan and one of the people who inspired the SETI program. He thought there were millions of little green men out there. Sir Richard also thinks it could be a possibility.
As I said maybe you should just lurk and not comment. It all seems too off the wall to be of any useful dialogue. You seem to want to vent and nothing else.jerry
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
There is now and in the past much research done by people who believe in God so your statement is at best silly and very uninformed. I am not sure why you use the term but in the past the ill-informed tried to use it to disparage people they disagree with. Is that what you are doing?
Fair enough; I should have said that creationists (by which I mean those who subscribe to supernatural creation distinct in some scientifically detectable way from abiogenesis and evolution) do not do research into the mechanisms of creation. I am sure there are creationist psychologists, computer scientists, etc.
Who is talking about supernatural and what do you mean by supernatural?
Dr. Hunter is talking about supernatural, as is any IDist who complains that abiogenesis is impossible. If life can't begin from the undirected operation of natural laws, that leaves only miraculous, magical, or otherwise supernatural methods. See, i.e., Dembski's zero-wavelength information beam.
We are talking about design and recognizing it and doing science and research.
You're certainly talking about it.
---
Yet here we are, with probably millions of man-hours worth of research on the origins of life puzzle, and practically nothing to show for it.
Except empirical evidence that undirected natural processes can create the building blocks of life.
My opinion is that alien-based I.D. will be the dominant origins theory within a decade or two. Any intelligence-free origins of life scenario is simply too absurd to be taken seriously.
Then where did the aliens come from?
Alien-based I.D. will allow God-deniers to remain atheists...
Ah - God. Perhaps it's not reasonable to expect religions to perform original research.Learned Hand
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
From listening to some of these old cranks, you'd think life's formation was as simple as making instant mashed potatoes.
Yet here we are, with probably millions of man-hours worth of research on the origins of life puzzle, and practically nothing to show for it.
If brilliant minds can't do it, why should I or anyone else believe that blind chance could?
My opinion is that alien-based I.D. will be the dominant origins theory within a decade or two. Any intelligence-free origins of life scenario is simply too absurd to be taken seriously. Combined with the overwhelming (and strengthening) impression of design in biology, it'll be too much to ignore.
Alien-based I.D. will allow God-deniers to remain atheists while accepting what all knowledgeable, honest people already know - that Intelligent Design is a fact.ShawnBoy
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
"I did not say that science cannot be done by creationists. I said that it is not being done by them. As for studies “that will or cannot be performed by a pro ID scientist:” any empirical test of the mechanisms of supernatural creation."
Another absurd statement. First you mention creationist and this term is meaningless because if you believe in God, you are a creationist so essentially you equating belief in God with the inability to do research. Or are you saying that all scientists are atheists.
There is now and in the past much research done by people who believe in God so your statement is at best silly and very uninformed. I am not sure why you use the term but in the past the ill-informed tried to use it to disparage people they disagree with. Is that what you are doing?
Who is talking about supernatural and what do you mean by supernatural? We are talking about design and recognizing it and doing science and research. You are very confused so maybe you should refrain from commenting till you get up to speed.jerry
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: “We spend our lives with other human beings, immersed in human actions and artifacts.”
OK, so far.
----“We each also have a lifetime of experience with physical events in the natural world.”
So far, so good.
---“Due to that lifelong intimacy, we are extremely adept at detecting human actions, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from physical events in nature. Our culture additionally supplies a rich vocabulary for discerning and describing same.”
We don’t need lifelong intimacy with physical events to detect human actions.
---“That experience (and cultural tutelage) is the basis of our discernment of the causes of surprise disruptions in our homes and, with professional and scientific refinement, the inferences of archeologists and forensic investigators.”
Not true. A child can detect a sand castle from a mere glob of sand with no cultural experience at all.
I wrote: They cannot understand how a forensic scientist can observed a ransacked house, rule out natural causes [tornado], and conclude intelligent agency [burglar].
---- “Yes, we can understand that scientist’s inferences. The above described individual and cultural familiarity with human behavior explains the everyday accomplishment of detecting human agency, including the actions of burglars. References to “intelligent agency” when “human action” will do adds nothing and invites unwarranted generalizations.”
Incorrect. No cultural familiarity is needed to make a design inference. The first cave man would have known if someone other than himself had written on his wall and he would have known that the writing was not the result of a natural phenomenon. [I know that you like to define nature both as history and law/chance in order to have it both ways, but that will not do.] If he had been only the second human being that ever lived, he could have detected the presence of agency as opposed to natural forces. Design inferences are not dependent on cultural histories in any way shape or form.
----“And the above describes how we come to intimately understand that burglars and tornados embody very different sorts of causation, and to discern the characteristic results of each.”
No, it does not. We do not “come to understand” that tornados embody different sorts of causation, we can detect the difference from the patterns that each produces. I need no cultural history at all to know that a tornado would never open the doors of my refrigerator in search of food or my cabinet in search of jewelry [nor does the caveman need any cultural history to know when someone, not a natural force, entered his cave in search of his stash.] Your materialistic assumptions so inform your every response that you cannot come up for air long enough to grasp the argument. The design inference, which distinguishes law/chance from agency, is not a culturally conditioned phenomenon.StephenB
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
This comment jumped out at me:
Second, there is no reason why someone who is pro ID can not do any science in the world such as work on the Large Hadron Collider or cancer research or cosmology or plate tectonics. I suggest you name a scientific study that will or cannot be performed by a pro ID scientist.
I did not say that science cannot be done by creationists. I said that it is not being done by them. As for studies "that will or cannot be performed by a pro ID scientist:" any empirical test of the mechanisms of supernatural creation.Learned Hand
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 41:
What you wrote in those two convoluted paragraphs at the end of 41 reflects nothing more than your own confusion. There is nothing there of any substance.
Tell us which of the following you find difficult to understand:
- We spend our lives with other human beings, immersed in human actions and artifacts.
- We each also have a lifetime of experience with physical events in the natural world.
- Due to that lifelong intimacy, we are extremely adept at detecting human actions, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from physical events in nature. Our culture additionally supplies a rich vocabulary for discerning and describing same.
- That experience (and cultural tutelage) is the basis of our discernment of the causes of surprise disruptions in our homes and, with professional and scientific refinement, the inferences of archeologists and forensic investigators.
It follows that the following is false:
They cannot understand how a forensic scientist can observed a ransacked house, rule out natural causes [tornado], and conclude intelligent agency [burglar].
Yes, we can understand that scientist's inferences. The above described individual and cultural familiarity with human behavior explains the everyday accomplishment of detecting human agency, including the actions of burglars. References to "intelligent agency" when "human action" will do adds nothing and invites unwarranted generalizations.
For Darwinists, there is no substantive difference between a tornado and a burglar or the ways that each might go about its business.
And the above describes how we come to intimately understand that burglars and tornados embody very different sorts of causation, and to discern the characteristic results of each.Diffaxial
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Just for the record, I revisited the site at which Diffaxial claims that I abandoned the thread and, as it turns out, I responded to what he said but he simply ignored it.
Here is is again:
You just acknowledged that we can draw inferences to “intelligent agency”; now you are telling me that intelligent agency supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage.
After over a hundred posts, you finally acknowledge that humans can draw inferences about intelligent agency and then promptly disavow the affirmation.
Are you for real?"
That pretty much sums up Diffaxial's confusion, which is profound.StephenB
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
---yakky d: "Ok, as long as you are not saying that literally the same mechanism is responsible for both the production of sound by the piano and for the creation of music by the composer."
You understand me correctly. Thanks for asking.StephenB
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Diffaxial:
---"With that, Stephen abandoned the thread."
Do you delude yourself that I stopped communicating with you because you made any sense or because I had no response? You got the last word because you insisted on having it; not because your arguments are persuasive or even comprehensible.
My point still stands. What you wrote in those two convoluted paragraphs at the end of 41 reflects nothing more than your own confusion. There is nothing there of any substance. If you don't believe me, ask another rational person.StephenB
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 32:
In keeping with that same point, they cannot understand how a forensic scientist can observed a ransacked house, rule out natural causes [tornado], and conclude intelligent agency [burglar]. For Darwinists, there is no substantive difference between a tornado and a burglar or the ways that each might go about its business.
Stephen knows there is a response that entirely refutes the above. The question has been asked and answered:
StephenB:
Can you, if provided with sufficient evidence, observe an alleged crime scene, conclude that the recent disordered arrangement of furnture did not occur as a result of a natural cause, and therefore could best be explained by an intelligent agency?
My response:
Of course. We each spend a lifetime, literally starting from birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings and navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions – as well as engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes over time. As a consequence we are quite adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from unguided physical events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives.
BTW, you will notice that the above immersion and resulting adeptness represents experience with human beings, their actions, and products. “Intelligent agency” supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage, obviously planted by the baggage handler to support the unwarranted generalization that is certain to follow. We accomplish these effortless classifications (natural versus non-natural) without reference to or help from this additional conceptual baggage.
With that, Stephen abandoned the thread.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bait-and-switch-intuition-part-deux/#comment-329527Diffaxial
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
StephenB,
Ok, as long as you are not saying that literally the same mechanism is responsible for both the production of sound by the piano and for the creation of music by the composer.yakky d
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
---Am I reading this correctly? “Darwinists” believe that the same mechanism by which a piano produces sound also explains how a composer writes music? You cannot be serious.
Darwinists aren't very explicit about this, but clearly they think that "mechanisms" can explain everything. Thus, they look for a mechanistic explanation for Mozart's compositions, or for the conception of your written sentence, or for the design in a DNA molecule. Thus, when ID explains that creativity or intelligent agency does not proceed by way of a mechanism, as physical laws do, they respond brilliantly with, "well, where is the mechanism."StephenB
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Thanks, Joseph, for maintaining your customary high standard of discourse.
Are you conceding that Dr Behe hasn't done a lab experiment for the past decade? That's his business, but it makes your hypothetical question moot.
What lab experiments has your "position" done lately (to support whatever claims it makes)?Adel DiBagno
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Adel,
Your position seems to be incapable of doing anything in the lab that would support the claims made.Joseph
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Joseph,
However if Dr Behe, for example, went into a lab a genetically engineered a bacterial flagellum, would that be evidence for ID?
What do you think?
(I think Dr Behe would be incapable of going into a lab.)Adel DiBagno
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
All experiments are helping both sides to the same degree. Sounds like work load mongering. Materialism can be the work horse while ID is mainly the brains of the operation if that's how it's got to be :)lamarck
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
"The relative fecundity of empirical science is at least partially a product of mainstream scientists’ willingness to put their theories to the test. ID theorists’ failure to do the same is one of the key distinguishing factors that keeps them languishing on the sidelines while empirical scientists publish and discuss their new discoveries."
This is pure nonsense. There are many major areas where modern science is at a standstill. Origin of life is one. The only honest assessment is that they know nothing. In general modern science does poorly at origins. Where it does well is in those areas where there is constantly repeating phenomena and then there is massive amounts of data and studies published explaining the forces involved. When it does poorly there may still be massive amounts of studies, all showing why certain hypotheses are wrong. OOL is a prime example.
Second, there is no reason why someone who is pro ID can not do any science in the world such as work on the Large Hadron Collider or cancer research or cosmology or plate tectonics. I suggest you name a scientific study that will or cannot be performed by a pro ID scientist. The type of science a person works on does not determine whether that person is pro ID or not. ID scientists are very interested in areas where the only forces involved are lawful or best described by chance. So what you consider the wonderful world of science is also a wonderful world for ID researchers too.
There is a third element that explains phenomena and that is the willful acts of an intelligent agency. These sciences are not as precise at those sciences governed solely by lawful forces because the actions of an agent is not subject to the laws of nature. We have psychology, sociology, economics, marketing, archaeology, anthropology, organizational behavior, forensics, history etc. Because in each of these areas there is the phenomena of intelligent acts involved, the nature of the phenomena is not the same as those sciences driven solely by law and chance such as physics and chemistry.
So just as some of these many sciences investigate phenomena that violate lawful forces, due to intelligent inputs, ID looks at anomalies in the natural sciences to see if an anomaly is due to the intervention of an agency using a willful act to violate or initiate a lawful process. We have numerous places where the act of agent has violated the natural laws such as the steering of a rocket to escape the earth's gravitation, the damming of rivers, or in general any construction, etc.
I am sorry but that old worn out argument about ID not being science is so passé these days. It does not hold up to inspection. It implies that one holds a flawed image of what ID means. Those who support ID understand that lawful forces explain much of the world and actively participate in it. But they have a more enlightened view than the narrow minded philosophy of science that rejects agency as a possible cause in the effects noticed in the world. So ID subsumes all of modern science in the sense it is perfect agreement with it but goes further and looks at other possible causes which the straight jacket of methodological naturalism eliminates from consideration in modern science.
If you want to subscribe to this small minded philosophy be our guest, but don't expect us to share your illiberal prejudices.jerry
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
StephenB,
For Darwinists, if a “mechanism” can explain how sound comes from a piano as a result of a hammer striking a key, that same mechanism should also explain how Mozart conceived the patterns that create the music.
Am I reading this correctly? "Darwinists" believe that the same mechanism by which a piano produces sound also explains how a composer writes music? You cannot be serious.yakky d
August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
---Learned Hand: "Dr. Hunter admits that the scientific OOL program has demonstrated that key components of biological life can be generated by inorganic processes. That, in and of itself, is infinitely more empirical evidence than ID theorists have ever generated for the mechanisms of supernatural creation. The relative fecundity of empirical science is at least partially a product of mainstream scientists’ willingness to put their theories to the test. ID theorists’ failure to do the same is one of the key distinguishing factors that keeps them languishing on the sidelines while empirical scientists publish and discuss their new discoveries
The problem is less about ID theorists and more about their critics inability to accept or even understand what they are doing. In fact, ID critics cannot understand the difference between intelligent causes and natural causes or the fact that each cannot be tested for in the same way. For Darwinists, if a “mechanism” can explain how sound comes from a piano as a result of a hammer striking a key, that same mechanism should also explain how Mozart conceived the patterns that create the music. Because Darwinists' materialistic bias causes them to assume that everything is mechanical, they mistakenly conclude that creativity must be mechanical as well. In keeping with that same point, they cannot understand how a forensic scientist can observed a ransacked house, rule out natural causes [tornado], and conclude intelligent agency [burglar]. For Darwinists, there is no substantive difference between a tornado and a burglar or the ways that each might go about its business.StephenB