The Consensus of Scientists

_{Gil Dodgen

August 1, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Some people have concluded that the hideously complex, functionally integrated information-processing machinery of the cell — with its error-detection-and-repair algorithms and much more — is best explained by an intelligent cause. But this idea is only held by superstitious religious fanatics who want to destroy science and establish a theocracy.

That’s the consensus of “scientists” in the academy.

The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology.

Who is thinking logically here?

I have no interest in arguing with people who can’t think and don’t want to follow the evidence where it leads, because it’s a lost cause from the outset.

Comments

OOPS: My point here is that ID doesn’t actually explain ~~biological~~ [computational] complexity [a la Dell, Apple or Asus]. It only accounts for it. Any “explanation” via mere agency is based on vast speculation . . .kairosfocus_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Let's see:
My point here is that ID doesn’t actually explain ~~biological [computational] complexity [a la Dell, Apple or Asus]. It only accounts for it. Any “explanation” via mere agency is based on vast speculation . . .~~
In short, we are hearing materialistic prejudice, not a sound discussion. And, again to the point of reductio ad absurdum. Design is real, designers [who are in our expereince agents] are real, and designs have empirically reliable signs of their source. Also, we see again a strawman caricature of design theory. The design inference is on empirical evidence of reliable signs of intelligence to design as the signified causal factor. That designs in our experience have designers is an implication of what a design is: purposefully directed contingency. The real problem is that many committed materialis5ts are meta[hysically uncomfortable with the inference that on reliable signs of intelligence, life on earth is designed. [Cf here to see just how much of a struggle to avoid obviously dropping into blatant absurdity those who want to assure us that life on earth is a spontaneous product of chance and necessity have.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

@William (#100), My point here is that ID doesn't actually explain biological complexity. It only accounts for it. Any "explanation" via mere agency is based on vast speculation for reasons I've already outlined. If the biological complexity we observe was designed by some abstract or infinitely mysterious designer who's ways cannot be understood, this knowledge does not provide an explanation of the actual complexity we observe. Unless you're suggesting that the designer did not actually intervene at any point in the process, but merely set things up ahead of time, then this explanation it cannot be known by definition. However, this falls under the theory of Theistic Evolution, rather than ID. Of course, if I am ignorant as to how ID could actually provide this explanation, then by all means I'm interested in hearing otherwise. You might claim that assuming these features were designed will some how help us study the designer's handiwork. Therefore, we can better develop our own methods of modifying specific genes while leaving others unchanged, etc. However, it's unclear how the explanation of the combined choices of an vague designer or a designer who's methods and plans are beyond our comprehension gives us any more guidance on how to do this beyond an explanation provided by darwinism. For example, clearly, both human beings and a proposed designer would want to change some aspects of the genome, but not others. But how does the knowledge that some other agent wanted the same thing enable *us* to make these changes? It doesn't. It would only be helpful if we made the changes in the first place as we're the only designers who's process we could have knowledge of. But we're obviously not our own designers. Furthermore ID says we can't know anything about the designer except he designs things How do we make changes now? We often enlist existing processes found in existing organisms. That these processes may have been "designed" rather than incrementally developed by a natural process is irrelevant. Instead, we enlist them because they represent the processes that actually develop the biological features we want to change. Furthermore, if what we observe does not appear designed to us because our concepts of design differ from the actual designer or his plan is incomprehensible, it's unclear how assuming that a natural process was involved which has no design goals is any worse. Again, what a designer would or would not do in a specific case depends on factors that ID says we just cannot know, such as the designers means, motivation, opportunity, etc. We cannot make false assumptions about what a designer would or would not do if we do not assume a designer was involved in the first place. So, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that ID must be wrong. I'm suggesting that ID is a bad explanation compared to Darwinism and fails to actually explain the biological complexity we observe. Should such an explanation appear in the future via further study, this may change. However, it's unlikely that any explanation will be forthcoming for reason's I've outlined previously.veilsofmaya_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

VoM: I won't continue to correct your tautological "supernatural" straw man, because I think it's been revealed sufficiently here and it seems you have no intention of abandoning it, even after being corrected and instructed multiple times in one thread how it is erroneous. I appreciate your time.William J. Murray_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

@William J. Murray (#88) You wrote:
Once again: I, and virtually every religious scientist in history of note, and current ID advocates of all spiritual and non-spiritual stripes, do not argue for any “line in the sand” where scientific exploration must end. Copernicus drew no such lines; Newton drew no such lines; Galileo drew no such lines; Kepler et al drew/draw no such lines; Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Marks, Abel, and Axe draw no such lines.
William, Do you think God's abilities and methods can be explained and understood? That is, if you really think it was God who changed specific "bits" of genetic code to cause a particular biological trait, could we ever hope to understand the process he used to determine exactly which "bits" to change? If God changed a sequence of bits over the span of a few million years, which may be neutral or have relative insignificant impact on there own, but ended up having a significant impact when combined, could we ever possibly hope to understand how he knew which order they should occur in and at what time? If God managed to change specific "bits" of the genome while leaving all the others unchanged, can we possibly ever understand how he managed to pull this off? Certainly, this knowledge would be extremely helpful in, synthesizing proteins, creating organisms which can provide new energy sources and clean up oil spills, etc. Knowing how he made precise changes in specific locations while leaving others unchanged would be incredibly useful gene therapy, repairing genetic damage, targeting cancer and viruses that mutate rapidly, etc. However, If God really intervened to flip just the right switches at just the right time, then an explanation must be impossible by definition, not by observation or research. Note that I'm not suggesting we may not figure out means and method of on our own at some in the future. However, it seems very likely that if we created organisms they would be intelligently designed given that we are, well, intelligent agents. In fact, it would be very difficult for us to not design any organisms we created. What other path could we take? Would some other path even be possible? Nor is our current goal to cure cancer in some artificial organisms we intelligently designed. We're trying to cure cancer in human beings, which we did not create. Despite being a designer, we're not *the*designer of the biological complexity that already exists, which means we cannot provided the explanation for what we observe as it's designer. In both cases, that the biological complexity we actually observe was somehow designed by some other designer merely accounts for fact that we observe some features instead of others. It doesn't get us one jot closer to explaining the problem space that actually need explained since we still need to figure it out on our own. And if it was God who designed the biological complexity we observe by interceding at some particularly point in the genome, then a line has been drawn regarding what we currently observe at that point as no explanation could ever be forthcoming. After all, if it was possible that could discover an explanation that we as finite beings could understand in the future, then clearly the cause couldn't be God as this defies all definitions. Otherwise, God would cease to be God, right? Furthermore, sophists draw a line at regarding the limits of explanations when they suggest that we cannot know an external reality exists. This is based on the claim that, since conciseness is a first person experience, all we can know for sure is that we ourselves exist. The solipsist experiences everything you and I accept as external to ourselves, but claims it is somehow internal to themselves. Solipsism predicts exactly the empirical observations we observe . This means every every discovery in technology, medicine and particle physics also “supports” solipsism. They just happen to be internal to the solipsist, rather than external. However, the solipsist fails to explain why object-like facets of himself obey laws of physics-like facets of himself. In other words, if we take solipsism seriously we realize it's a convoluted elaboration of realism and a bad explanation. Therefore, we can discard it.veilsofmaya_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

@William J. Murray (#88) You wrote:
Not only did most of your post not in any significant way rebut or even correspond to any post I made that I can tell
William, Are you suggesting you couldn't tell which comment I was replying to? Since I quoted your original comment, it's trivial to find the comment I referenced by searching for the text elsewhere in the thread. Doing so revealed the same text was also found in comment #56, which you posted. Furthermore, how can we explain the comment number discrepancy? On one hand, comment numbers can increase after they are posted if one or more previous comments were submitted but not yet visible due to being temporarily held for moderation. On the other hand, it's possible that I simply transposed one of the numbers as I'm somewhat dyslexic. Since both the theory of comment moderation and the theory of human error fit currently available empirical observations, they are both logical possibilities and could account for the fact than an error of some sort occurred. As such, we must look at the specific error observed and compare it with the explanations behind each theory. For comment moderation to explain this particular discrepancy of four, rather than the mere existence of some abstract discrepancy, a total of at least four previous comments would have to have been held back. This is because the number I referenced was off by the same amount. When we compare the details of this explanation to the details of a human error error explanation for the same specific discrepancy of four it seems the most tenable theory is that I simply transposed one of the numbers. Note that it's when we criticize the explanations of the particular discrepancy of four, not just than a discrepancy that occurred, that a particular theory becomes more tenable. However, unless there are additional observations, such as someone from UD confirming or denying that moderation occurred, having a key logging or screen recording application running, etc. we simply can't be sure. In fact, it might be the case that I was off by 3 and a single comment was moderated, or some other combination. But until more information is available, we tentatively accept human error on my part. Of course, should we allow the inclusion of an abstract supernatural cause, it might be the case that some supernatural being decided to swap the ASCII character code from 06 to 02 sometime after having left my computer but before arriving at the UD server. Or it could have made me think I was hitting the '6' key when, in reality, i had hit the 2 key. Or we could insert a vast number of other possible supernatural means to account for the discrepancy. However, given that a "theory" of supernatural intervention also predicts the same observations, we're again left with comparing explanations regarding the specific discrepancy of four, rather than the mere existence of some abstract discrepancy. But, merely suggesting "that's just what the supernatural agent must have wanted" doesn't actually provide an explanation as the moderation or human error theories do. While being logical possibility, it's clearly lacking an underlying principle that explains the specific discrepancy we observe, which was being off by four. You might become more specific and claim that this supernatural agent took issue with my comment, so he wanted to discredit me. But this assumes that the particular supernatural cause has an opinion about our topic, disagreed with my comment, held the view that taking action was appropriate, had the ability to take action and actually did take action in this particular instance. It could be that any number of equally powerful agents may have held some supernatural battle while my comment was in transit to change the number to anything but two while others changed it back. It just so happen that the the last change made before arriving at the serve was six, rather than two. On the other hand, some other supernatural agent might think interfering in this situation would violate my free will. Or some other supernatural being might want to meddle with my post, but would be prevented from dong so by a more powerful supernatural agent because my comment may will only reinforce your view that ID is true. In other words, this agent would normally allow such meddling to occur but, in this particular case, my actions just so happen to coincide with the will of some all knowing, all powerful supernatural agent who's plan we're just not aware or cannot comprehend. All of these assumptions depend on easily varied assumptions about the agent(s) which are in themselves not evident, but theological beliefs. it's far to easy to present an interpretation of any event which supports or prohibits intervention. Furthermore, should you accept the supernatural cause, then the trail goes cold. We can't possibly hope to explain how the supernatural agent managed to switch from a two to a six. Nor does such an assumption tell us anything we didn't already know, such as how to more accurately type or transmit digital information, because we can't "know" how the supernatural agent did it, what its motivate was or if it will ever do it again. From an actionable perspective, we might as well think some unknown natural cause made the switch rather than some vague supernatural cause. Again, an abstract supernatural agent fails to explain why switch from two to six, rather than eight or zero. This information was useful in regards to differentiating between non-supernatural theories, but its explanatory value becomes extremely limited in the context mere agency. This is compared to other theories where the specific outcome is strongly influenced by the underlying explanation. This is why supernatural causes are excluded from scientific method. One can simply insert a miracle at any time for essentially any reason based on some mysterious circumstance, motive or belief regarding some supernatural cause.veilsofmaya_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray @95 — Some time ago at UD I pointed out that it is difficult to make a distinction between natural & supernatural. And to properly understand the word "natural", you have to first analyze what you are saying & meaning, as Aristotle did when he described at least 6 meanings of the word natural before he proceeded to do & interpret science. Yes you can try to investigate & examine anything that you happen to observe with the methods of modern natural science. The problem is that these "supernatural" events are exceptions to the regular natural order. So you can set up an intricate scientific apparatus to investigate say a demonic possession or an alleged ghost. It has been done, but results and the interpretation are subject to a lot of intricacy and complexity. But let's say you are lucky enough to record an abnormally low temperatures or abnormally high electric potential, or whatever, with you instruments during some such investigation — the problem is you cannot reproduce it again and neither can anybody else within the same parameters. Besides, even if everybody else will trust you, your observations and your measurements, (they will take you & your data, the accuracy and calibration of your instruments, etc., basically all on sheer faith), how do you interpret them? Say the measured temperature dropped unexpectedly by 20C during a spiritualistic seance, and not due to the failure of the heating or air conditioning system, what does that mean? Can you even interpret it? Or say a pencil moved and scribbled something, or say a person levitated and you observed it or even recorded it on video — what does that mean? That is what I meant when I said the proper object of natural science are repeatable events, and proper uncontroversial science with universally acceptable results can only deal with repeatable phenomena. Besides, only with such science you can employ the the "statistical" methodology which makes natural science what it really is. Use can try to use the methods of natural science, but they won't help you much alone, or they may even confuse your proper judgement about the proper interpretation of the phenomena. That is why the Big Bang and the origin of life, all being single events are prone to all sorts of speculation, including evolution. You are not really measuring things first hand (like the law of gravity which can be repeated at will and ad nauseam), but you employ all sorts of controversial secondary and tertiary aspects and assumption, measuring the after-effects of events that happened millions and billions of years ago. To properly interpret in these cases you really need ALL that the Science can offer — and I mean Science as I described it, that is both natural and theology. (Or rather whatever proper methods can be used or borrowed from either.) If you neglect theology/philosophy and insist on natural science alone, as Darwin did and Darwinists still do, you run into all sorts of paradoxes and contradictions, starting with the meaning of the crucial word "species", which Darwin attempted to explain in his "Origin of Species" and which so confused him and many others after him. To illustrate, let me give you what Chesterton says in his Everlasting Man: "Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it. We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department it would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry. We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be called fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts. ... etc. etc. (G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, ch. II Professors and Prehistoric Men.)rockyr_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: By now it is sadly clear that VOM is only here to put up talking points, and has been utterly unresponsive to the substance that corrects his errors. (The case of his reiteration of a talking point on a backwards wired retina despite being pointed to where he could enlighten himself on part of why it is the way it is, is an excellent case in point; as is his refusal to seriously engage either the weak argument correctives, or the inherent challenge of evolutionary materialism or even the insistence on ID is about the motives and identity of a designer than what it openly is: an inference from empirically reliable sign to signified design.) His lack of civility and pretence that he has not done what he has done in terms of projecting the Dawkinsian trilemma, just put icing on the cake. At this stage, and on the "don't feed the trolls" principle, if someone really needs some correctives on a point he raised, ask me or someone else who is likely to have a good idea. Okay GEM of TKI PS: Molch, if you are serious, get serious -- you might want to take a leaf out of the book of EZ. Right now, you are walking, waddling and quacking like a "duck."kairosfocus_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

rockyr: If you don't attempt to scientifically investigate a thing, how would you know that it cannot be repeated and successfully examined? In any event, you've espoused a tautology, defining "the supernatural" as "whatever science cannot investigate" and the saying that science cannot investigate the supernatural. My challenge stands: define for me something that is supernatural, and then list why science cannot examine it. Something in particular. Saying that science cannot examine a miracle because it is not a repeatable event is like saying that science cannot infestigate the big bang because it is not a repeatable event, or that science cannot explore what happened at Tunguska because it is not a repeatable event, or that science cannot investigate the origin of life because it is not a repeatable event.... there are lots of non-repeatable (apparently) events that science certainly investigates.William J. Murray_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Not to butt in between VoM and KF, but I thought this was a perfect misrepresentation by VoM to showcase: He said:"But, again, ID isn’t interested in explaining why eyes have backwards retinas. It’s only interested in “explaining” away darwinism." An intersting comment. Only an ID advocate would be interested in explaining "why" eyes have backwards retinas; under materialism, there is only "how". So, the materialist heuristic searches for the molecular bump or cellular twitch that made the retina the way it is (although, why the materialist would call a retina "backwards" is beyond me, as if there is some goal it should rather have been under materialism). However, the ID advocate, working under the design heuristic, does actually consider the retina "backwards" according to human design theory, and theorizes that there probably would be a purpose for the "backwards" state of the retina. This would organize an entirely different research direction (as it does with so-called "junk" DNA and other so called "bad designs") in finding out just what VoM insists ID theorists do not, or would not do: find out why (in terms of design theory) the retina is "backwards". Such a research heuristic might reveal, as reported in New Scientist, May 6 2010: ___________________________ "IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. Certain cells act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp. Although rods and cones are responsible for capturing light, they are in a curious position. Hidden at the base of the retina, they are covered by several layers of cells as well as the bed of nerves that carries visual information to the brain. One result is a blind spot in our visual field, leading the vertebrate retina to be listed among evolution's biggest "mistakes"." _______________________________ However, the article goes on to show how those odd shapes and strange designs actually improve vision - along with other functional necessities. The funny thing is, even though a design theorist predicts that the "bad design" might serve design needs that we are unaware of, and then research through physical experimentation to uncover those unknown design principles and needs, the materialist - if they follow their heuristic - doesn't think that such a shape need serve any design need or purpose at all. It is, from their perspective, most likely just the happenstance, junky, hodge-podge path evolution took. It's a product of chance - no reason to pursue it at all from the perspective that it might be designed that way for a reason.William J. Murray_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

@kariousfocus (#82) You wrote:
First, stellar distance measurement — BTW, the topic of my very first ever public presentation on any subject — is NOT a direct observation, but is based on a considerable ladder of inferences, especially on standard candles and the like; the story of the Delta Cepheid variable stars is particularly interesting on that. (And even if it were a direct observation, we need to realise that such observations can never suffice to warrant the theories that explain them as true beyond doubt or correction.
Nothing is a direct observation except the act of observation itself. Sophism might be true. Welcome to the problem of induction and the incompleteness of empiricism. However, despite being a logical possibility, I discard Sophism because it's a bad explanation of what we observe. I've gone into excruciating detail on this subject elsewhere, which I can prove references to if requested. Are you suggesting you've found some way way around the problem of induction? If so please enlighten us. Until such a workaround is found, science doesn't deal in the kind of truth you seem to want. Nor is it making such a claim.veilsofmaya_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray @88 and others arguing this — I don't mean to rudely budge into your debate about science & miracles, but your challenge has caught my eye and I couldn't help but respond. "Here’s a challenge: define for me a single so-called “supernatural” entity or force, and tell me specifically why it is beyond the capacity of science to properly investigate." People would save themselves a lot of trouble and mental anguish, and a lot of spilled ink, if they tried to understand why the science apparatus of natural science cannot deal with miracles. They are simply beyond the scope of science to deal with and investigate. Science proper as it is known today can properly deal only with phenomena which are repetitious and reproducible at will, I mean our human will. (I can by my will demonstrate to you gravity, or the effects of electricity, and thus I can eventually formulate the law of gravity or various electric and magnetic laws on which we can all agree as holding universally true.) A miracle is beyond the scope of such science, since it is not subject to these criteria. This is the "line in the sand" — miracles are subject to some other will, whatever that may be, or may be believed to be (such as God, angels, demons, fairies, etc.) To talk about supernatural forces in the scientific sense is nonsense. The reasoning about these natural exceptions (of exceptions to the normal expected course of nature), is subject to sound philosophy and it is in its highest expression called theology. (Mythologies were a simplistic attempt to deal with these phenomena.) Theology based on sound logic and philosophy is thus a "science", and was once called "Divine Science" in the Middle Ages, of which, in one sense, the modern natural science is just a sub-set. (Thus Science in its widest scope includes theology with its methods or reasoning and investigation, plus the natural science with its own methods which are suitable to investigate the natural phenomena.) To simply denounce or deny the miraculous and supernatural as nonexistent nonsense is a very simple-minded, untrue, and foolish attempt to deny the whole reality as it exists.rockyr_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#81) You wrote
(a) The Weak Argument Correctives, which address much of what is wrong in what he has to say,
Again, you seem to have missed the forest for the trees. I'm focusing on the structure of the theory in that it fails to provide an explanation while accepting the same observations and invalidating the prevailing theory in the process. I don't see anything that addresses the fact that ID is a bad explanation because it appears to be a convoluted elaboration of darwinism.
(b) … has confirmed the widespread Lewontinian materialist a priorism (evidently not realising that the issue is that this a priorism censors science from seeking the unfettered truth about the world — a central value of science),
Kairosfocus, First, I think you're confusing scientists who are theists with scientists that formally posit supernatural causes as explanations in scientific theories. While Newton may have thought he was studying God's handiwork, that "God did it" was not an explanation. That God A would or would not intercede in instance X depends on how you define God A; which could be different than God B. We would end up with different "scientific" claims depending on which God you haven to be believe since because his actions in specific instances would be "defined" by theological presuppositions. Second, I'm guessing you do not deny that a "material" realm clearly exists. Furthermore, I'm guessing you do not deny that "material" causes clearly exist. This common ground is the starting point for science. Nor is science required to to exclude quantum causes because they are somehow "non-material," which is poorly defined, or alien life forms that could have possibly arose elsewhere before life appeared on earth. Third, as I've said before, ID might accurately represent the actual state of affairs in reality. However, as Hume illustrated, the problem of of induction prevents us from knowing the "Truth" with a capital T.) At best, we can criticize competing theories and tentatively accept the one which provides the best explanation. ID fails in this respect for reasons I've already outlined here and elsewhere. You may think there is some way around this problem, which provides you with the Truth about biological complexity. Therefore, science should change to accept what you know is true. While you have every right to want to change science, this doesn't mean that you've somehow "exposed" some hidden aspect or directive of science. Regardless if it conflicts with your beliefs or the beliefs of others, the fact that science does not use supernatural causes as explanations in scientific theories is non-controversial.
(c) … the recent work of Marks and Dembski on active information is pathbreaking and that contributions such as even Abel on the plausibility bound are not insignificant …
Which is an argument in the form of a probabilistic barrier, which I addressed in the analogy presented earlier in this thread. Note: I'm referring to the possibility of another means to produce a phenomena beyond agent initiated, micro-managed probabilistic scenario presented. Yes, flight does not require this sort of accuracy, but the kind of probabilistic statistics being thrown around assume that the specific kind of life we observe represented a designer's predetermined goal, which is not evident. ID proponents constantly remind darwinists we do not have an complete understanding of how the genome translates into the biological features we observe or an exhaustive list of each mechanism of evolution and how they work (as if his was somehow controversial) Despite this fact, IDists somehow know these very same processes couldn't possibly result in the biological features we observe. Again, it seems that ID proponents already "know" the answer and are just waiting for science to "catch up" with what they already "know" is true. We're left with the probabilistic claims presented by ID which accept the same observations yet provides no underlying premise that explains the specific biological complexity. It's just like Darwinism except God, err.. a unknown abstract designer, steps in via some unknown means, motive and opportunity and acts in a way that indistinguishable from a natural process. This is logical possible, but how does it compare to other explanations? For example, we already observe DNA repair mechanisms exhibiting the ability to solve what appear to be NP-Complete problems in minutes rather than millions of years. Researchers are using DNA to perform biological computations, just as physicists are using qubits to perform quantum computations. In fact, some research suggests these phenomena may be somehow related. Problem solving revolves around either falsifying a theory because its predictions do not match what we observe or, in the case of theories that share the same observations, choosing one theory over the other because the explanation it provides is "better." But, again, ID isn't interested in explaining why eyes have backwards retinas. It's only interested in "explaining" away darwinism. Furthermore, if you think there is a specific outcome which represents the way things "ought" to be, then I can see why you might think this sort of argument is appropriate. However, science doesn't make such assumptions. This significantly calls into question the appropriateness of probabilistic arguments.
(d) Noting too that the “bad design = no design”
I'm not suggesting that bad design is no design. I'm taking the theory of ID seriously and asking it to explain why the designer would design the specific biological features we observe. But no explanation is provided other than "thats what the designer must have wanted." However, by using Microsoft as an example of bad design, it appears that we may share some common ground after all. :)
(e) Also observing that the “I would not design the eye that way so it is not designed” canard was also strongly corrected long since, e.g. here
Not my claim. Again, you seem be projecting some kind of argument, which I'm not making. ID might represent the true state of affairs in reality. However, the theory that ID presents provides no underlying premise to explain the specific biological features we observe. This is in contrast to "accounting" for why we observe features that are specific using agency.veilsofmaya_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#80) You wrote:
You need to be apologising and correcting yourself based on information you already have in hand, not digging in your heels with even more insulting insinuations that those who differ with you do so because they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
First, please point out where I've called anyone stupid, insane or wicked. You seem to be projecting some kind of argument, which I'm not making. Second, I have no problem with someone pointing out that I'm ignorant about a particular topic or domain. In fact, I welcome such observations. I find it difficult to understand why others would prefer not to be informed if they are acting or making uninformed decisions.veilsofmaya_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Petrushka (and Ilion): I have a course slide somewhere that corrects the Sagan-popularised quip on extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence:
Extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ [ADEQUATE] evidence
See, one quip deserves another; and a more justified one too. (Onlookers, for details on how this saying and the underlying Cliffordian evidentialism are classic examples of the question-begging and self-referential incoherence of selective hyperskepticism, cf here. In a nutshell, we perceive claims to be extraordinary because they cut across our worldview level expectations. So, if we then impose arbitrarily high standards of warrant on such [instead of carrying out proper worldview level comparative difficulties analysis], we end up begging questions and being inconsistent when we accept other factual claims of a similar type on a lesser standard because they tell us what we swish to believe. Selective Hyperskepticism is joined at he hip with hypercredulity about what one wants to believe . . . ) GEM of TKI PS: WJM: Thanks for the kind words; they help.kairosfocus_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

VoM @72: Not only did most of your post not in any significant way rebut or even correspond to any post I made that I can tell (you assign the post you respond to as #52, but I didn't make that post; perhaps you mean #64), but your post goes on and on about something I specifically stated that I was not bringing to the table: "the supernatural". Once again: I, and virtually every religious scientist in history of note, and current ID advocates of all spiritual and non-spiritual stripes, do not argue for any "line in the sand" where scientific exploration must end. Copernicus drew no such lines; Newton drew no such lines; Galileo drew no such lines; Kepler et al drew/draw no such lines; Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Marks, Abel, and Axe draw no such lines. It is lewontin and sagan et al who are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, saying science can go here but no further; arbitrary, because they cannot even give us an example of whatever it is they claim that science cannot examine, and cannot even describe the realm they claim that science cannot enter, or why. They - and you - simply use the specious term "the supernatural" to excommunicate certain ideas, theories, hypothesis, and heuristic from the table. Here's a challenge: define for me a single so-called "supernatural" entity or force, and tell me specifically why it is beyond the capacity of science to properly investigate. If you're going to claim that "the supernatural" is something science cannot investigate, then surely you can define it, give an example and show why science cannot investigate it.William J. Murray_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Petrushka @76: "The simplest reason is that there are no examples in the history of science where supernatural phenomena have been confirmed and in which a supernatural explanation has added anything to the understanding of the world. Not that there haven’t been attempts." Please support your claim, beginning with a definition of "supernatural".William J. Murray_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: I just want to say I have a deep appreciation for your tireless, civil reiteration of facts, logic and corrections in the face of relentless straw man, red herring, obfuscation, and invective. You are an example to us all.William J. Murray_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: "There is a rule of thumb in empiricism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's a quip. And it's just one more instance of the inherent intellectual dishonesty of ... hmmm ... "empiricists."Ilion_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

Well, we'll see if ID gains a greater acceptance and finds a consensus. Keep doing research, answer more questions, model more situations.ellazimm_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

EZ: You need to remember that a key value of science, and one that has gained it general respect, is that it seeks the objective truth about our world based on observed evidence. When the sort of censoring constraint described by Lewontin is imposed as a straightjacket, it fatally compromises that commitment; which in the end will destroy the reputation of science if left unchecked. To correct such a grievous error is a major service to science, and ID is carrying that out. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

PS: VOM has managed to make me think it a regrettable necessity to add a parenthetical remark on the immediate context of the Lewontin cite in my critical survey here, which will also feature in the update to the briefing note. So, I excerpt the cite with the plainly sadly necessary contextual remarks: _____________ >> we may read from Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin's 1997 New York Review of Books review of the late Cornell Professor Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, as follows: . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis added. (NB: The key part of this quote comes after some fairly unfortunate remarks where Mr Lewontin gives the "typical" example -- yes, we can spot a subtext -- of an ill-informed woman who dismissed the Moon landings on the grounds that she could not pick up Dallas on her TV, much less the Moon. This is little more than a subtle appeal to the ill-tempered sneer at those who dissent from the evolutionary materialist "consensus," that they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Sadly, discreet forbearance on such is no longer an option: it has to be mentioned, as some seem to believe that such a disreputable "context" justifies the assertions and attitudes above!)] >> ________________ I hope VOM understands the point. VOM of course also included the part on how astronomers look out a million LY and see this as a look into the remote past, without embarrassment. First, stellar distance measurement -- BTW, the topic of my very first ever public presentation on any subject -- is NOT a direct observation, but is based on a considerable ladder of inferences, especially on standard candles and the like; the story of the Delta Cepheid variable stars is particularly interesting on that. (And even if it were a direct observation, we need to realise that such observations can never suffice to warrant the theories that explain them as true beyond doubt or correction. Cf remarks towards the end of Section (a) here, on logical limitations on the degree of warrant for scientific theories. And, yes, a branch of philosophy is here laying down the law for the degree of warrant possible for knowledge claims in science. Through a proof.) When we turn to the very different problem of timelines on the remote past on earth,similar difficulties obtain [as may be seen here in part d, which came up in a recent exchange on the suggestion that the timeline for some artistically reconstructed fossil mammals was an independent factual observation of the past that transmutes the theory of macro-evolution into observed fact]. It is hoped that VOM et al will wake up to the point that atmosphere poisoning rhetoric does not ground the assumption, assertion and attitude of a priori imposed evolutionary materialism as a censoring constraint on understanding the past on evidence. And, even if it were historically true that post-enlightenment standards for scientific warrant were changed to exclude inferences out of the evolutionary materialistic circle [in fact, as I have long since cited, the evidence from even high quality dictionaries (cited as a marker of informed consensus at the relevant times) shows that until the Design issue emerged as a challenge, the understanding of science did not make any such imposition, which fatally compromises the key value of science that it seeks the truth about our world], all that shows is that standards of warrant in science change. So, in light of the evidence that there are empirically reliable signs of intelligence, and they point to directed contingency or design as their best explanation, it would be time for such standards to change again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is, sadly, pretty clear that VOM will not heed well-warranted corrections on the talking points being used, or on tone. I will therefore simply point you to: (a) The Weak Argument Correctives, which address much of what is wrong in what he has to say, (b) noting on how VOM -- though the mythical history of post enlightenment science has the timeline very wrong -- has confirmed the widespread Lewontinian materialist a priorism (evidently not realising that the issue is that this a priorism censors science from seeking the unfettered truth about the world -- a central value of science), (c)Observing that the recent work of Marks and Dembski on active information is pathbreaking and that contributions such as even Abel on the plausibility bound are not insignificant, not to mention Durston Chiu et al, and more [ignoring for the moment the whole cosmological side of ID where one of the key ID thinkers has been at the forefront of extrasolar planet research and has been a founder of a key concept, the Galactic Habitable Zone . . . literally expelled and slandered for his pains], (d) Noting too that the "bad design = no design" canard has long since been addressed, starting with: do you deny that MS Windows or similar software is designed because you object to certain features that you do not like . . . (e) Also observing that the "I would not design the eye that way so it is not designed" canard was also strongly corrected long since, e.g. here -- note the "badly designed" eye works very well thank you, down to the ability to respond to a single photon, and is chock full of FSCI that chance and necessity simply cannot cogently explain. __________ G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

VOM: You need to be apologising and correcting yourself based on information you already have in hand, not digging in your heels with even more insulting insinuations that those who differ with you do so because they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. This is truly sad, and revealing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

DonaldM: I would say that the explanation that explains the most AND successfully, specifically predicts future findings wins. No assumptions, no preconceived notions Pick something. Some aspect of the development of life. Something that both sides can bring arguments and interpretations to bear. Or is it bare? :-) Why not set up this forum as a place to present the best evidence from both sides forward, with everyone agreeing to stick to documented,well established evidence and let people read it and make a choice. I like reality. A lot. But sometimes it seems a slippery thing. I very much would like to see some particular situations presented and discussed so that I can compare and contrast the opposing views. Look, I've admitted I'm much more familiar with the modern evolutionary viewpoint. But I'd like to keep my mind and my options open. I will do my best to listen, understand and absorb. At the same time I would like to have everyone here be respectful, patient and to do their best to show me that, in some very particular cases, ID can match other paradigms for explanatory and predictive power. And it's gotta be specific explanatory and predictive power.ellazimm_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

You could save a lot of words simply by naming a phenomenon explained by supernatural causes that increases our knowledge of how the world works. But bear in mind that the central achievement of science is that it works the same in Pakistan as it does in Jeruselem and Los Angeles. A scientific fact can be tested by anyone skilled in the art and craft of research, regardless of race, religion, or creed.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Petrushka
The simplest reason is that there are no examples in the history of science where supernatural phenomena have been confirmed and in which a supernatural explanation has added anything to the understanding of the world.
That is not quite correct. Statements such as this have been made many times and at first glance seem to be strong enough to end the discussion. But, on closer scrutiny we find several built in assumptions which may or may not be true. So let's parse this a bit. First we have the word "confirmed". Confirmed by who? Scientists? Unless one actually accepts that science and only science is the route to ascertaining truth (which is scientism), on what grounds would confirmation by other means be excluded? Science and the scientific method can be called upon to confirm a number of things we observe, but certainly not everything. So, if someone claims to have experienced or observed something which they attribute to the direct action of a supernatural being (let's just say God here), you'd have to have something more than just "science can't confirm" to deny that it actually happened that way. Next we have "there are no examples in the history of science". Well again that depends on the presuppositions one brings to the investigation. The most glaring examples are the origin of the universe and the origin of life itself. Both may well be completely beyond the reach of science. But we know both events took place. The only question is did they occur by chance and/or necessity alone OR was something more involved? Just because science has no answer does not mean there isn't one. Then there's the whole concept of what is meant by scientific explanation, which is implied in the comment. Clearly, Petrushka believes that something can only be considered explained in a scientific sense if and only if that explanation is in completely naturalistic terms. Hence his argument that nothing has ever been "confirmed"...which really means confirmed by scientific method with reference to natural causes only. But that begs the question. Whether or not a supernatural cause has acted is precisely the point at issue in the comment, but Petrushka takes the route of just assuming its never happened and then asserts it is true with no real argument. And finally, if we have some observed phenomenon and for that observation we have 2 explanations, one being completely materialistic (or naturalistic if you prefer-- either will do here) and the other being supernatural, why must we choose between them as if they are competitors and why must we give preference to the natural cause? What is the confirmation for that competition and preference? Well one more finally, in which Petrushka claims that no supernatural explanation has every added anything to our understanding of the world. That only works under the assumption that we already know a priori that the supernatural explanation is not correct. If it turns out that a supernatural explanation for some event is exactly correct, and if we recognize it as such, then indeed, we have added to our understanding of the world. The reverse case is where the supernatural explanation is exactly correct, but for "scientific" reasons, we concoct a purely naturalistic explanation (even a plausible one). In that scenario we would have missed the real explanation entirely and thereby decreased our understanding of the world, since we are attributing the wrong cause to an event. It's not "simple" to just dismiss out of hand supernatural explanations without getting into very deep philosophical thickets. And that is the point!DonaldM_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Science excludes the supernatural for a number of reasons. One of which I’ve illustrated in an earlier comment.
The simplest reason is that there are no examples in the history of science where supernatural phenomena have been confirmed and in which a supernatural explanation has added anything to the understanding of the world. Not that there haven't been attempts.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#66)
You can drop the pretence that I am stirring up unnecessary controversy, because instead of explicitly saying that I have quitemined, you quoted context irr4elevant to the force of the point Lewontin made in the part I cited; as though that were corrective.
The fact that post enlightenment science excludes supernatural causes is non-controversial. Nor is it something that ID has "exposed." It appears to be hand waiving required to "Inform" people that this pre-exiting exclusion ultimately conflicts with the intuitions and theological doctrines that many people hold. While this might be new information for some, it's non-controversial in science. Furthermore, there are many absurd theories that science presents which people also reject, as illustrated in the complete passage I quoted. Clearly these views really do present a barrier to understanding. To quote the passage… Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn’t even get Dallas. Last, many of the phenomena previously attributed to supernatural causes are now known to have natural causes. That this sort of heuristic is wrong in regards to producing scientific explanations appears to be the is the appropriate term. Again, while you may want to change science to accommodate the supernatural, this is not the same as suggesting you've "exposed" some hidden aspect of science to anyone who takes the time to investigate it. Science excludes the supernatural for a number of reasons. One of which I've illustrated in an earlier comment.veilsofmaya_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

So, while there are ill-founded quack claims and there are frauds out there, the issue is by no means the simplistic contrast between accepting imposed materialism by the backdoor and uncritically accepting fakery and quack remedies.
I'm a little confused about all this. Reading through your post I didn't see any reference to an alternative to methodological materialism for sorting out claims of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, medical effectiveness, and such. I have to accept that at some level, most of what we know depends on trusting witnesses, but science supplements witness with data and procedures that van be independently verified. Folks here have amply pointed out what can happen, even in science, when claims cannot be verified. You can get mistakes and even hoaxes. There is a rule of thumb in empiricism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Following this rule of thumb, claims of cold fusion are greeted with more skepticism than claims that confirm our expectations. The bottom line is that one's BS detector needs to be set somewhere in its midrange. New data must age a while before being fully trusted. As for the explanatory filter, it seems to imply things like actual numbers, but I've never seen any real biological specimen, or anything else for that matter, submitted to the filter, with numbers calculated.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply