The Consensus of Scientists

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

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 TKI kairosfocus

@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

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

@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

@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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

@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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we'll see if ID gains a greater acceptance and finds a consensus. Keep doing research, answer more questions, model more situations. ellazimm

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 TKI kairosfocus

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 TKI kairosfocus

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 TKI kairosfocus

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 TKI kairosfocus

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

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

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

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

@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

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

@kairosfocus (#29) Kairosfocus, It seems you're having difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. Again, I'm focusing on the form of the theory, rather than arguing any specific claim. I'm suggesting it's very structure makes it a bad explanation. This is due, in part, to the absence of an underlying principle that explains the specific biological complexity we observe. An intelligent agent might represent the actual cause to why biological complexity exists, but the actual theory currently presented by ID lacks this principle which makes it insufficient to reach this conclusion. To clarify, let's list the similarities between the second engineer in my analogy and biological ID… + Uses a "evidence" of a probabilistic barrier to assign the cause to an unobserved designer with special, yet unobserved abilities + Implies the inability of human beings to exceed said probabilistic barrier as "evidence" that nature could not perform the task but some abstract designer did (if we can't do it in the lab, how can nature?) + Accepts virtually the same empirical observations + Invalidates the prevalent theory's explanation without providing one of it's own + Fails to provided an underlying premise that explains the specific biological features we observe: check In my analogy, the underlying principle presented by the first engineer explains much of the entire aeronautics industry as Darwinianism explains much of the specific biological features we observe. The second engineer invalidates the underlying principle of flight provided by the first which results in the aeronautics industry simply no longer making sense; just as ID invalidates the underlying principle that explains why we should find several variations of specific features that appear to be organically developed. ID just throws up it's hands and says "That's just what the designer wanted" For example, given the observation of eyes with significantly different structures, ID and darwinism present two different explanations. Darwinism suggests that eyes were so useful that they evolved via different paths. This includes the vertebrate eye, which exhibits a backwards retina and is obscured by layers of blood vessels and ganglion cells. Evolution selects traits and structures that are "good enough" despite being sub-optimal. On the other hand, ID implies a intelligent agent that could traverse the space of 10^300 folding geometries to produce specific functional proteins would end up creating an eye with a backwards retina. Again, ID simply isn't interested in explanation why this would be the case. "That's just what the designer wanted" Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Could it be that ID actually has an explanation that I'm just not aware of? veilsofmaya

@William J. Murray (#52) You wrote:

“God did it” was never an explanation. It was a heuristic. If it was an explanation, why did Newton go on to explain, in mathematical terms, the effect of gravity on mass? why not just stop at “god did it”?

William, There are predictions and explanations. The mathematical terms that Newton developed provided a means to predict observations. But we use these predictions, along with those from other theories to build explanations of phenomena, such as the orbits of planets and apples falling, etc. Predictions are only part of the problem solving process as any theory can make any prediction. As such, we compare explanations behind the predictions to determine which is the most tenable. While Newton's predictions are accurate enough to remain useful in many situations, we know it's much more incomplete than Einstein's model of space-time physics and general relativity, which is far more accurate. However, even then we know that this model is incomplete as it fails to scale down to what we observe at the subatomic level. We must switch to a different model when dealing the the strong nuclear force. The lack of a unified theory of everything is a clear indication that our understanding is quite incomplete. Yet, it's still commonly said that the existence of gravity is "true" in the context of a tenable scientific theory which we use to explain specific phenomena we observe.

Sagan and others are ideologically excommunicating the design framework from being utilized and included in scientific research and explanation not because it doesn’t provide the physical processes and mechanisms and mathematical theorems describing behavior; but because those theories and descriptions and explanations are arrived at via an unacceptable heuristic: the view that these things are not the happenstance occurrences of bumping molecules, but rather the ordered artifacts of a deliberate intelligence..

First, it seems your putting the cart before the horse. That these things are not the "happenstance occurrences of bumping molecules, but rather the ordered artifacts of a deliberate intelligence" represents an intuitive response to what you observe. However, we know that our intuitions and "common-sense notions" break down at the scale of the very large, small and complex. History has shown this to be true time and time again. Furthermore, we know human beings demonstrate cognitive bias and continue to see optical illusions despite having been shown they are false. Remove the ruler from an illusion of scale or dimensions and the illusion returns as if it had never been there in the first place. Again the full quote from Lewontin clearly indicates this sort of "heuristic" is problematic as it invites drawing an arbitrary line by which nature can be ruptured and miracles can be inserted at will. Second, the "supernatural" is poorly defined and often represented by conflicting claims from various religious factions. Given any particular instance in a particular scenario or phenomena, one particular definition or theology may "support" supernatural intervention, while another may "invalidate" it due to how the particular 'nature" of the agents supposedly involved or the particular historical claims surrounding them. However, in many cases, the characters can be interchanged as necessary since most supernatural interventions and theologies were designed to account for a wide variety of past and present observations. This easy variability regarding action or inaction by various forces or beings makes the supernatural a bad explanation. In scenario Z, God X would or did act, while God Y would or did refrain from interfering until some later time or perhaps not at all. It all depends on the particular theologies that surround them. To use an example, according to Christianly, human suffering did not exist until the fall as they were perfect creations. As such this would necessitate an initial physiology significantly different than the human beings we observe today. However, according to Islam, no such curse was issued. LIfe is hard because Allah chose to use suffering to differentiate between earth and paradise as a test. Furthermore, Allah supposedly "designed" the lifespans of each and every offspring of Adam. Clearly, such differences would have significant implications regarding the initial design of human beings, the timelines in which specific features appeared, etc. Did our hips start out wider, only to be narrowed by an intelligent agent at some point in the future to make childbirth more painful? Or where narrow hips part of the original design? This would depend on how you defined God and the particular theology attributed to him. Given God's abilities, an omnipotent and omniscient being could be the "best explanation" of all unsolved murder cases. However, It's likely you would exclude him from being the cause in these particular situations because of how you define God's nature. What about Satan? Again, you'd likely exclude him as being the murderer as his traditional role in monotheism is to account for evil by tempting and manipulating human beings, not killing them in an overt manner. Otherwise, human beings are victims rather than tempted co-conspirators, which undermines their accountability in monotheistic theology. If these supernatural entities are going to continue to account for good and evil, which appears to be the roles they were designed to play, they must stick to the script. This results in their exclusion of a cause despite their supposed supernatural abilities. In the light of these problems, it's unclear how supernatural agency could be used to determine if a specific intervention occurred as part of an explanation of any specific phenomenon unless you assume one particular theology or religion is right, while others are wrong. This is clearly problematic. Of course, I've only focused on monotheism. Adding eastern religions would only make the problem much worse. veilsofmaya

-"Science, as the only begetter of truth" Is that a scientifically verified proposition? Of course not. It's a self-refuting statement. -"it’s not designed to support our biases or presuppositions" This is an illusion. To claim otherwise is to pretend that it's not humans that are doing science but science somehow magically does itself. above

Petrushka: I note to you, that you are indulging in the inference from the false dichotomy, natural vs supernatural; distracting from the serious alternative, nature vs art. And, you have again -- on track record, sadly, unsurprisingly -- chosen loaded cases, which you have conveniently juxtaposed distractivley with issues over evolutionary materialism vs the inference from dFSCI in cells to the empirically warranted signified: design. The relevant issue here is not natural vs supernatural, but nature vs art. To examine that contrast, there is actually an existing, well-known routinely used procedure that has been summarised in the explanatory filter on which the signs of necessity point us to look for natural law, the presence of credibly undirected stochastic contingency leads us to examine the patterns of that distribution and statistical laws, and where signs of design lead us to infer to design as cause. Once design is a credible causal factor, we may then proceed to reverse engineer, and to seek identification on circumstantial details etc. Indeed, such methods are as well known and well trusted as the familiar courtroom decision on mischance of accident, suicide or murder in light of evidence. So, to outrageously push imaginary issues over astrology or the like into the case as though the choice is between superstition and materialism, is both false and utterly without justification. (Onlookers, I invite you to look here, on issues of warrant of knowledge claims in general, and here and here on the question of reasonable grounding of worldviews and consideration of evidence in general towards well-warranted and consistent approaches to knowledge. In short, the sort of dismissive superciliousness in tone on display above is at best ill-informed.) We have excellent grounds for rejecting astrology as claimed science -- or more fundamentally as a serious pursuit of knowledge on credible premises of warrant -- without having to resort to a priori evolutionary materialism by the backdoor. A materialism that is in itself inherently and inescapably self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false. When it comes to the question of UFOs, there have always been unidentified flying objects; the question is what they are. So far, we know enough to disregard all but a small fraction of cases, but for some of those cases we simply do not have enough credible evidence to come to a solid conclusion as to what they are; thus an open-minded agnosticism is well warranted for such cases. To do that sort of serious thinking and open-minded but critically aware restraint on conclusions, we do not need to impose ideological evolutionary materialism by the backdoor as a censoring criterion. Yet another fallacy of false alternatives. Paranormal phenomena is of course a loaded term on an over genralised issue, too often dripping with ideological contempt. Is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with over 500 witnesses and record within 25 years with most witnesses still alive a paranormal phenomenon? Is the accurate predictive prophecy of that resurrection 700 years beforehand in Isaiah 53? Is the transforming encounter with the risen Christ that has played a key role in millions of lives and has had impact for the good on world history for 2000 years [let's just call names like Pascal and Wesley and Wilberforce and Booth the founder of the Salvation Army as cases in point], a dismissible paranormal phenomenon? Is the testimony and experience of a living relationship with God that is a part of the lives of millions around us simply dismissible with prejudice and arrogance? Surely, we can do better than that! And so on. When it comes to quack medicine, the term is again predictably loaded. At any number of junctures, there are non-mainstream and folk treatments that can have good warrant on investigation, so much so that there is a movement to preserve patents for first peoples to the herbs and similar materials they use in traditional treatments. 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. In short, by their maliciously loaded strawmen shall ye know the ironically insufficiently skeptical unrepentant selective hyperskeptic. (Yup, to be selectively hypreskeptical and closed-minded against certain things one does not like, one has had to already swallow other things hypercredulously, like the tendency StephenB comments on to dismiss the law of non-contradiction, the tendency to try to escape the principle of causality, and the refusal to entertain uncomfortable evidence that does not sit well with evolutionary materialism, in general.) G'day GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Further, it is about the self-acknowledged a priori and absolute imposition of ideological materialism into the definition and praxis of science, on the excuse that the supernatural is inherently chaotic and absurd, indeed irrational.

You can see what happens when methodological materialism is dropped in the fields of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, quack medicine. Evolution is not the only battleground. Petrushka

CD: I just make the note that often, warranted [in the Plantinga-like sense] credibly true belief is what "knowledge" refers to, given issues over Gettier counter-examples and the common use of fallible and open-ended knowledge claims. G kairosfocus

5 --> Further, it is about the self-acknowledged a priori and absolute imposition of ideological materialism into the definition and praxis of science, on the excuse that the supernatural is inherently chaotic and absurd, indeed irrational. 6 --> That is -- on the charitable reading -- a blatant example of inexcusable historical and philosophical ignorance that props up the prejudices of our day. For, as van easily be seen from not only newton's Optics Query 31 [which gives the prototypal definition of the generic scientific method insofar as that is possible at popular level] but from say his General Scholium to Principia that the founding era scientists understood the Intelligent Creator to be a God of order and system, not chaos; so science was an exercise for them of reverse engineering the design of the world: thinking God's creative and sustaining providential thoughts after him, for the benefit of humankind. (And yes, my link is to App 5 my always linked, i.e. it was just a click away at any time, for your enlightenment.) 7 --> As for the Russell 5-minute universe paradox, I first point you to the place in my online course notes on phil methods and epistemology where I address it, in the immediate context of addressing the epistemological strengths and limits of scientific methods. Here are my key remarks:

Lord Russell's 5-minute old universe argument shows that empirical evidence, records, perceptions, memories and the reasoning that depends on such can never amount to proof beyond all rational dispute or doubt. For, it is always in principle possible to find a way to construct a skeptical argument that [if we were to accept it] could lead us to doubt any belief-anchored system of thought -- and that inevitably includes any worldviews that implicitly assume the general quality of the testimony of our senses, reasoning faculty [including language capacity] and memories etc.

8 --> Now, an underlying issue is plainly what you seemingly are objecting to is my point that science at its best seeks to be an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on empirical observations, experiments, reasoned [especially logical-mathematical] analysis and discussion among the informed. 9 --> That is the challenging ideal, and an indictment of imposition of Lewontinian a priori materialism as a censoring constraint on science. 10 --> Further to all of the above, it is now a commonplace -- someone above indulges in it -- to insinuate that the alternative to "natural causes" [interpreted in the sense of chance + mechanical necessity]is "the supernatural," which the very choice of terms like superstition, astrology and demons shows is being dismissed with extreme prejudice. 11 --> But in fact honest and informed thought would at once see that natural vs supernatural is a false, rhetorically loaded dichotomy. Ever since Plato in The Laws Bk X, the contrast relevant to design theory as a scientific project has been on the table: nature vs art, or design. (Cf the Weak Arguments Correctives on this, onlookers. There is no excuse for raising this canard at this stage; much less compounding it with willfully malicious slander. I will get to that part in a minute . . . ) 12 --> In fact, this is as close as the ingredients list of your friendly local box of cornflakes or the like: natural vs artificial flavours, etc. And, design theory is about inference to design from the empirically tested, credible signs of design, such as digitally coded functionally specific complex information [dFSCI], in a context where through the expanded view of the scientific methods known as the explanatory filter, aspects traceable to mechanical necessity and/or chance have already been identified through their characteristic signs. (Cf the introduction and summary :a href = "http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html">here for an overview and context.) 13 --> Now, for years, interlocutors have been invited to discuss with design theory proponents at UD on the merits of issues such as the above. We have even provided a glossary, a definition of ID, and correctives to commonly met weak arguments that often trace to Darwinist anti-ID rhetoric. 14 --> These may be seen at the top of this and every UD page. 15 --> So, I must ask you the onlooker to explain why it is that habitually we meet a pattern of distracting red herrings, led away to ad hominem-soaked strawmen, set alight with incendiary rhetoric to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion? 16 --> In this case, I draw attention to the pushing into my mouth of ideas about astrology that do not belong there, as I have emphasised above in the cite from VOM. 17 --> And so I explicitly address VOM in the name of basic broughtupcy and common decency:

Kindly stop the and unwarranted outrageous ad hominems, that so arrogantly pushed words in my mouth that do not belong there. In doing that, you went utterly beyond the pale of civil discourse into willful slander.

___________ VOM, You owe me an apology, not that I an holding my breath. Onlookers, let us see if we can deal with serious matters seriously on the merits instead of through the antics of the trifecta atmosphere poisoning fallacy and the politics of polarisation. G'day GEM of TKI kairosfocus

VOM: Pardon, but given your outrageous language in 49 [as excerpted below], I will be fairly direct: 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. At UD we all know the context for objections that insist on providing "context" for the Lewontin remarks in his 1997 NYRB review article -- namely the ill-founded and misleading, commonly encountered talking point that the cite I made from Lewontin in 46 [and commonly at UD etc, and in my always linked note] is out of context and misleading. And indeed it is now explicit that that is your objection:

VOM, 49: Let me ask, why should we search for truth and avoid falsehoods? What axiom supports this premise? After all, the truth can be counter intuitive, absurd or even painful. This is the key point being made in this passage. Science is not compelled by intuition, common-sense or what makes us happy. it’s not designed to support our biases or presuppositions . . . . While you may wish to return to the days when Astrology was a “science”, those days have past. Science does not use “God” as an explanation as he could have created everything 5 minutes ago and we’d be none the wiser.

Now, let me first hold myself back from immediately rebuking you as you deserve on your outrageous insinuation about astrology as I bolded in my excerpt. So, let me take this in steps: 1 --> First, the relevant point in the passage from Lewontin where he acknowledges the injection of a priori materialism as a censoring constraint on science, often disguised under the term, methodological naturalism stands on its own as a telling acknowledgement:

. . . 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. [[“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis added.]

2 --> My already linked discussion shows that it is not just a personal idiosyncrasy but a major ideological commitment backed by institutions such as the US National Academy of Science. 3 --> So, manifestly, the issue is not at all merely "all about" how scientific results may be counter-intuitive, which has been evident ever since Aristotle and Eratosthenes among others inferred form empirical data to the spehericity and circumference of the earth, the distance to the moon and its diameter, as well as a first estimate for the distance to and size of the sun. [Cf my discussion here in the context of grounding scientific research methods at first introductory level, FYI.] 4 --> No, it is about the notion that "science is the only begetter of truth," which is a blatantly self-referentially incoherent fallacy: it is unwise to make a philosophical knowledge claim to deny implicitly the capability of philosophy to beget knowledge. [ . . . ] kairosfocus

Hello Mike(v6), Thank you for your response and may I say that it does you great credit that you are participating in a forum such as this one in the first place. First of all, may I ask: do you consider there to be a third way or, do you agree with what I said originally: it all made itself or was it all made? Secondly, knowledge of how the designer operated is utterly irrelevant to the two competing worldviews I’ve described. After all, we have no evidence of how the Stonehenge designer operated but no-one thinks it made itself. I agree, ID hasn’t identified the designer, nor does it make any attempt to. When I talk about disbelieving atheists, I’m talking about the fact that they will disbelieve the knowledge yielded by observation and experimentation if they need to in order to cling onto their atheist beliefs. Atheists need to believe that it all made itself, regardless of where the evidence leads. Mike mentions pro-ID atheists. Let’s talk about theistic evolutionists too. I personally believe that both of these positions are self-contradictory, though both positions are closer to the truth than atheistic evolutionists are. The existence of pro-ID atheists is very revealing though. It tells us a lot about how unconvincing the evolutionist position has become (and how persuasive the ID argument is). Most theistic evolutionists do not believe that the Creator was surprised by His creation… on the contrary, most theistic evolutionists believe that evolution was all part of the plan. True evolution cannot be reconciled with a plan. Whether you are a pro-ID atheist or a theistic evolutionist the all important question is: did it all make itself or was it all made? Questions of identity, methods and compromise are much less important at this stage. I’m surprised that Mike is questioning the influence of atheism in many important institutions. Is Mike an American? That might explain it. I’m British and there really is no doubt that schools, universities, the media, the government, businesses, etc are all fully in the grips of atheist thinking. Religion is still tolerated, but evolution is actively promoted along with many other secular notions. Mike also seems incredulous that positions of authority and influence can be held by people who share a minority worldview. I would say that this is nothing new. Finally, Mike misunderstands me when he suggests that I assign (divinely) “revealed knowledge” to ID. Maybe he was thrown by the expression “justified true belief”. Let me assure him that I use that expression to refer to knowledge in itself, not how it came to be learned in the first place. Has Mike read Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”? And has he read “Signature of Controversy” a collection of responses to critics of “Signature in the Cell”? If so, can he identify the strongest case for ID from the former and do a better job of handling it than the critics dealt with in the latter? Then we have a discussion on our hands. Chris Doyle

mikev6: I didn't. I used the terms God and demons; I never said that such entities were beyond the means of science to usefully and practically describe in terms of what they affect and how. It is mainstream science, however, that applies the vague term "supernatural" to anything which it wishes to dismiss or avoid considering. Before germs/bacteria/viruses were discovered, illness and disease were largely considered to be caused by supernatural entities. Should anyone who believed that illness might be caused by invisible (at the time) entities that moved from person to person through breath or contact have been soundly dismissed by the scientific community for such "supernatural" beliefs? Should their work be ignored? Should we ignore the work of Newton who explicitly assigned the architecture of the physical laws of the universe to a god, and used his understanding of that god as a rational, solitary, elegant entity to inform the parameters of his research and theory to search for universal, elegant, rational equations? If god(s), demons, superstrings, other dimensions, or anything else appears to be the appropriate explanation for a phenomena, the response to such a theory shouldn't be "well, it can't be that, because we commonly define that thing as supernatural, and science cannot explore that possiblity by definition". Then all one is doing is using semantics to preclude by fiat a potentially truthful explanation that is certainly open to attempts at scientific discernment. The only reason to adhere to such semantics in avoiding these considerations is ideological. William J. Murray

William:

Who said anything about the supernatural?

Sigh. I'm assuming the response "you did" is going to elicit a flood of allegory or a war of competing dictionaries. But go ahead. mikev6

So, it this how it goes? a flock of sheep a murder of crows a slime of lawyers a consensus of scientists? Ilion

mikev6: Who said anything about the supernatural? William J. Murray

@veils -“This is because ID is intentionally incomplete”. Are you saying that darwinism is complete? It merely accounts for what we observe, rather than explains it… it invalidates the explanations provided by Darwinism.” So are you saying that darwinism is not descriptive but explanatory? How so? “In other words, ID’s explanation is limited to explaining away darwinism.” Actually, it’s the other way around. Not only explaining it away but barring it altogether. “Being “right” for the “wrong reasons” is still wrong. This is how science works.” Being right is being right. End of. If that’s how “science” works then it needs to be re-worked. Here’s a question for you… Let’s assume simply for argument’s sake that darwinism is wrong and ID is correct. Do you think it’s logical to divorce science from reality simply based on a priori assumptions as per the definition of science? Now unless you’re an anti-realist I fail to see how you can endorse such act as logical. above

GilDodgen, I share your sentiment regarding the "idiots" in science, and there are too many in the academia nowadays. I am sure many of us had to suffer reading trough the books or arguments of people like Monod, Teilhard de Chardin, Dawkins, even Darwin, and many other such "brights". In one sense it is the fate of the "wise" to suffer the fools, and to suffer them gladly. (See 2 Corinthians 11:19) However, I think there is a disclaimer in this. One can gladly suffer the "great" fools, (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffer_fools_gladly ), but it is an altogether different thing to suffer "simpering gutless fools", as Barry Arrington put it in the previous post on Dawkins. These twisty arrogant "small" or "small-minded" in-your-face logically inconsistent fools are hard to suffer, and I suppose that is why they used to burn them at the stake, like Giordano Bruno. (Who was another simpering gutless fool, one of the last to be actually burned.) We are presumably more civilized today, (if not necessarily wiser), and we don't want any Inquisition or punishment for stupidity, but we should at least demand an equal playing field and consistent laws of the game or of the engagement. We have no other choice but to suffer these fools or fight them the best we can, and call their foul play, even if it is often just an exercise in futility from our limited point of view. And we should often remind them, even with a scorn, what schmucks these small-minded fools really are. If for no other reason, but because that is the kind of game these fools like Dawkins and his ilk really want and force us to play. rockyr

The next time someone trots out the worn-out "scientists agree" argument, I'm just going to stare at them like they're speaking a Martian dialect. "Consensus" isn't even real when the deck has been stacked the way it has in the present academic environment. Real scientists, with real evidence and principled scientific arguments are simply being marginalized by being ruled out as "non-science"--not on the basis of the evidence or arguments they present, but on the basis of the conclusions their evidence points to. What kind of consensus is it when every one of your dissenters' votes isn't counted? Time to call in the U.N. election fraud investigators! stringsinger

William J. Murray:

Gods, demons, and whatever else must not be excluded from scientific inquiry on an a priori basis for any reason

One will get different answers from different people as to why this exclusion happens. I tend to take a more pragmatic view that including gods, demons, etc. hasn't been very successful. But this could be ignorance on my part. Do we have any examples where including the supernatural has produced repeatable verifiable results? mikev6

veilsofmaya: "God did it" was never an explanation. It was a heuristic. If it was an explanation, why did Newton go on to explain, in mathematical terms, the effect of gravity on mass? why not just stop at "god did it"? Sagan and others are ideologically excommunicating the design framework from being utilized and included in scientific research and explanation not because it doesn't provide the physical processes and mechanisms and mathematical theorems describing behavior; but because those theories and descriptions and explanations are arrived at via an unacceptable heuristic: the view that these things are not the happenstance occurrences of bumping molecules, but rather the ordered artifacts of a deliberate intelligence. IOW, Sagan and his ilk are saying that if we find a person lying dead with a knife in their back and their hands tied, we must proceed from the perspective that there is a natural explanation - period. No other explanation is acceptable. And, that we must regulate science strictly to this view in order to avoid "a demon haunted world" ... as if Newton, Bacon, Kepler, etc. were incapable of scientific discovery and advancement because they pursued science from just that very same "demon-haunted" perspective. As an adddendum: if demons do exist, and haunt us, how exactly is science going to account for it, if we must at all costs avoid it? Gods, demons, and whatever else must not be excluded from scientific inquiry on an a priori basis for any reason, least of all for the purposes of sticking with such a problematic, self-refuting perspective as materialism. William J. Murray

Chris:

When it comes to Intelligent Design, most of them don’t even dare to try and tackle it head on.

I, for one, would be more than happy to spend more time on ID evidence and less time discussing evolution, or Darwin and morals, or atheists and morals, etc. Although the number of references to atheists in this comment alone does not bode well for that.

Quite simply there are only two competing worldviews here: it all made itself or it was all made. There is no third way.

Umm, you don't have any evidence of how the designer operated. There are plenty of examples of human designs that incorporate random components or behavior. It's certainly possible that the 'bio-designer' did the same.

Always keep in mind that even if belief in evolution was universally acknowledged to be false, and acceptance of ID became widespread, there will always be die-hard atheists. Even if they paid lip service to ID, deep down many of these die-hard atheists will spend their entire lives disbelieving.

My understanding is that ID hasn't identified the designer, so what does belief have to do with it? Also, I understand from Ms. O'Leary that there are atheists that currently support ID. Perhaps you'd care to contact her and work out the discrepancy?

At the moment, atheism is enjoying the fact that atheist ideas strongly influence many important institutions. For most of our history, this has not been the case and it is unlikely to remain so for much longer.

Care to enumerate these "many important institutions"? And what 'atheist' ideas we're talking about? And how this can happen without the support of non-atheists who make up a much larger proportion of the population?

In the meantime, don’t be discouraged by those who have closed their minds, even if they’ve got a day job doing science. Be thankful that your mind is open and guided by justified true belief.

ID claims that it is guided by evidence, not revealed knowledge. Did I miss something along the way? mikev6

Your post is not entirely clear to me. Do you (still) want to change that consensus? If yes, is this blog a means to do so? And what other means are used or could be used? If no, do you think the consensus is going to change on its own? That could take a long time. second opinion

@kairosfocus (#47) You're attempting to manufacture controversy were none exits. Let me ask, why should we search for truth and avoid falsehoods? What axiom supports this premise? After all, the truth can be counter intuitive, absurd or even painful. This is the key point being made in this passage. Science is not compelled by intuition, common-sense or what makes us happy. it's not designed to support our biases or presuppositions. It's about applying a methodical process to solve problems. While you may wish to return to the days when Astrology was a "science", those days have past. Science does not use "God" as an explanation as he could have created everything 5 minutes ago and we'd be none the wiser. One could arbitrarily draw the line at any phenomena and claim we simply can't explain how it occurred because "God did it" and his ways are incomprehensible. You just so happen to have drawn the line at biological complexity. Others, such as theological evolutionists, draw the line farther back in time. Furthermore, limiting explanations to a material causes wouldn't rule out aliens or some other intelligent form of life that existed 3.4 billions years ago. If the universe is 13.75 billion years old, it would be naive rule out such a possibility. However, such a theory lacks a sufficient means, motive and opportunity to actually explain the specific feature we observe in comparison to Darwinism. In other words, we have a process that we've already observed making changes to the genome. Furthermore, we know there is much we do not understand about how all of the components of the genome result in biological features. Given that we're only in our infancy, it seems short sighted to say process X cannot do Y when we don't understand process X in the first place. If ID really is agnostic about the designer, then it's unclear how this "problem" is really irrelevant. veilsofmaya

kairosfocus:

The problem with sense 1 is that it is a fallacy. Only the merits of claimed facts, their representativeness of the material truth, the credibility of underlying assumptions, and the quality of logic involved can properly warrant a claim.

Sure, but humans are strangely able to behave in certain ways regardless of logic. Design researchers are no different from other humans and are susceptible to the same flaws. If ID gains the consensus it seeks, it remains to be seen what type of consensus it eventually builds. mikev6

oops on link kairosfocus

VOM: And so? How does the above remove the below from being a reasonable and substantially representative excerpt showing the fundamental claim, a priori assumption and argument being made? (I note as above and below, because there is a suggestion out there that the excerpt following -- which is longer than the ones often seen elsewhere -- somehow quotemines and materially distorts the message of Lewontin. In fact, it shows the substantial structure of his argument and its key a priori.) __________________ >> . . . 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 . . . . Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world. 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 . . . . Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997] >> ___________________ The excerpt just above is of course the verbatim text of the excerpt I have in Section E of my always linked note, excerpt that I have put the source at the end here. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

To put the quote posted by Kairosfocus in context...

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? 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. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

- Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons veilsofmaya

ME6: The problem with sense 1 is that it is a fallacy. Only the merits of claimed facts, their representativeness of the material truth, the credibility of underlying assumptions, and the quality of logic involved can properly warrant a claim. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

I completely understand the frustration that GilDodgen expresses. Surely most people with an anti-evolution, pro-ID stance feel it too. Many have already offered an antidote to this frustration, the latest of which is by William J Murray when he says: “Each well-made argument refines the points, polishes the delivery, softens resistances, develops new lines of reasoning, pushes the conceptual envelope, and shines a light on ideas not even thought of before.” Quite right. I would add that we can draw great encouragement from the fact that evolutionists are barely putting up a scientific fight any more. Their search for evidence to support their beliefs is becoming increasingly desperate and self-defeating. When it comes to Intelligent Design, most of them don’t even dare to try and tackle it head on. In this debate, most evolutionists spend most of their time trying to sling as much mud as possible at anyone who questions their beliefs. If you enjoy debating this subject, then those rare informed evolutionists that refrain from mud-slinging are to be valued indeed! Quite simply there are only two competing worldviews here: it all made itself or it was all made. There is no third way. Take encouragement from the fact that we can not only expose the errors of believing that it all made itself, but also provide compelling reasons to believe that it was all made. The more time and resource you have been afforded to make these points, the more you should make them. Don’t neglect the opportunities that arise: they may only have arisen for this very purpose! Always keep in mind that even if belief in evolution was universally acknowledged to be false, and acceptance of ID became widespread, there will always be die-hard atheists. Even if they paid lip service to ID, deep down many of these die-hard atheists will spend their entire lives disbelieving. At the moment, atheism is enjoying the fact that atheist ideas strongly influence many important institutions. For most of our history, this has not been the case and it is unlikely to remain so for much longer. Paradigm shift is coming. In the meantime, don’t be discouraged by those who have closed their minds, even if they’ve got a day job doing science. Be thankful that your mind is open and guided by justified true belief. Chris Doyle

kairosfocus:

You are conflating two very different senses of “consensus.”

Quite possibly, although I see a more complex world where both these can operate at different levels at the same time. Regardless of the nature of the consensus, the fact remains that ID still seeks it, because consensus == power.

If in say 50 years, design thinkers start to play by the tactics of 1, they would be just as wrong

Problems with consensus spring from human nature, not the specific ideas under discussion. I see no special characteristic of current design thinkers that would mark them as immune from the normal foibles of human discourse and behavior. mikev6

WJM: Very well said indeed. G kairosfocus

ME6: You are conflating two very different senses of "consensus." 1: Appeal to establishment as authority, which may well be coercive [appeal to the stick] or the fallacy of ill-founded appeal to modesty in the face of claimed authority 2: Particular paradigm that is in place at a given time. The first prevails just now, as the Lewontinian confession amply documents. The latter is a horse of a very different colour, as it is open tot he point that paradigms are open-ended and authoritative claims are no better in the end than their underlying facts, reasoning and assumptions. At this juncture the design inference and emerging paradigm premised on it hold to 2. Unfortunately, the current institutionally dominant paradigm too often hews to 1. If in say 50 years, design thinkers start to play by the tactics of 1, they would be just as wrong as those who all to plainly do so now are. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

re: Gil's opening post. I fully agree that it is entirely useless to argue with such believers for the purpose of changing their mind. They are devoted to an ideology - materialism - that has in fact been disproved by quantum physics experimentation over the last 75 years (as much as anything is "proved" or "disproved" by science). However, the point of such debate is not to change their mind, but rather to reveal it - over and over and over - so that those who are not yet fanatics for materialism might understand what is going on. Arguments about ID theory do change minds and hearts, even if you can't see it, and even if not those whom you are directly debating. Each well-made argument refines the points, polishes the delivery, softens resistances, develops new lines of reasoning, pushes the conceptual envelope, and shines a light on ideas not even thought of before. William J. Murray

@veilsofmaya, #8: Your analogy about the two is categorically erroneous. Your first engineer brings in the report that you have listed, but your second report is the same erroneous view of ID that has been refuted countless times here, and is refuted in the faq. The pattern and distribution of the air molecules is sufficiently explained by natural forces stochastically. What would be a better analogy of the 2nd report would be the engineer returning both the first report, and the additional information that the airplane was likely intelligently designed because of the amount of functionally specified complex information necessary to fabricate the system. The first engineer report indicates that the origin of the plane is billions of years of undirected, natrually interacting forces. So, the only thing different about the two reports is the explanation of what produced the airplane, not the explanation of how it can fly. The reason that is important is the research heuristic that is taken from that point forward; instead of spending time trying to figure out how natural forces generated the design of the plane, time is instead spent reverse-engineering the plane, analyzing design principles, techniques, and theorizing the purposes of various pieces of equipment in the plane. In other words, instead of spending time trying to figure out a natural, unguided path for the accumulation of all the cockpit gear, seating, instrumentation, placement, etc., and creating an entire, unsupported materialist myth about the magical ability of natural forces and chance to construct such marvels, we can pursue a more productive and scientific heuristic based on design theory. If the plane is best explained by ID, then the correct research heuristic is being ideologically rejected by "consensus" science. It's not that ID researchers fail to provide "how" explanations; they just provided them from a different underlying research methodology that doesn't discriminate according to ideology. If natural processes are the better eplanation, that is the ongoing research heuristic that should be used. If ID is the better explanation, then that is the better investigatory framework. After all, if someone murders your wife, you don't want the forensic investigator spending years of time an thousdands of dollars of taxpayer money trying to explain that bullet through her head via natural causation, do you? William J. Murray

Gil: You dont seem to like materialism. But what has the spiritual/supernatural given us ? Could you cite something ? I mean, real knowledge that is applied in the real world to achieve real results, that we rely on (you know, just like materialistic Science gives us). No more theology, no word games, just a real example that makes a practical difference to our life. Graham

The default logical position should be design in biology, based on what is now known, not Darwin's warm pond hypothesis and the assumption that cells are no more complex than Jell-O. I actually suffered through Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity (in the original French). This is a curse I would not wish on my worst enemy. Monod was a Nobel Laureate in biology, but he was an idiot. His book is less about molecular biology than 20th-century French existential philosophy (Camus, Sartre, and the rest of that pitifully arrogant and hopelessly lost crowd of atheistic philosophers, all of whom wallowed in their personal misery and nihilism, and tried to convince the rest of us that we should follow in their footsteps). Monod's "biological" thesis is best represented by his comment: ...man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance... THIS is what happened to biological "science" in the 20th century, as a result of the blind and unthinking acceptance of Darwin's chance and necessity hypothesis, which conveniently coincided with the materialistic, secular, and nihilistic urge of the age. Real science -- the search for the truth, in both cosmology and biology -- has been corrupted for a century, especially by the academic elite. GilDodgen

mikev6: The problem with scientific consensus, as you've defined it, is that not all scientists will agree on everything. I agree that findings should be repeatable in the lab (depending on the field of science being studied) but, again, that's evidence and not consensus. Also consider that a lot of great scientists were disbelieved by their peers at first. I agree that 'mutually supportive evidence' is necessary for scientific inquiry, but too often human nature stifles the creative thinking process. That is why I'd place evidence well above consensus in determining whether or not I believe in something. Barb

Barb:

Scientific theories live or die by the evidence, not by whether or not a lot of people like the idea.

If you're talking about social consensus, fully agree. Scientific consensus implies (to me) a broader process where other scientists not only agree with your results (i.e. it matches their own) but tie them to their own efforts to form a web of citations and chains of mutually supportive evidence. Without this broader process, a theory is a dead end and doesn't advance our understanding. I'm hard pressed to think of an example of a 'successful' scientific theory that doesn't lead to additional research, but that could just be ignorance on my part. mikev6

kairosfocus:

Evolutionary materialism is on a fatal collision course with the emerging information age, and the roaring evolutionary materialist dinosaurs of today will in 20 years be simply forgotten. The reductios will increasingly be apparent, and the system will collapse under the weight of its obvious censorship and straining to address more and more anomalies.

Sure - I'm not even arguing against this. What happens after this process you describe? Does biology stop? Nobody does research? We stop digging up fossils? Nope - you presumably have a reasonably large group of scientists who accept ID and use it in their research. In other words, you've built consensus; just not with the current crop of scientists. Your current problem is not with consensus in general - it's the difficulty with building consensus with the current group of scientists. Ultimately, you want science to embrace ID. mikev6

Mikev6: "Nevertheless, if ID is science it wants and needs consensus. Without consensus, no scientific idea has any power or influence. Gil’s complaint is that he has trouble getting people to agree with him – that’s a search for consensus." Scientific theories live or die by the evidence, not by whether or not a lot of people like the idea. Barb

Borne: EZ has a point, please go easy on tone. G kairosfocus

ME6: Nope, not even close. Evolutionary materialism is on a fatal collision course with the emerging information age, and the roaring evolutionary materialist dinosaurs of today will in 20 years be simply forgotten. The reductios will increasingly be apparent, and the system will collapse under the weight of its obvious censorship and straining to address more and more anomalies. As the controlling power of the a priori materialism that is driving it becomes more and more evident to the public [and yes, the issue is not science but a crucial mass of public support that keeps the tax subsidies coming for research for college departments and for school level education], support will dry up and at some tipping point it will be over. Most likely there will be one scandal too many, that cannot be covered up, and a big aha moment will sweep the culture. (Similar to the evident impact of Climategate.) That is how dominant and manipulative paradigms die. Just as happened to the Marxists over the past 30 years. Don't forget, Design theory is an information, info age theory. Its strongest supporters are those familiar with the dynamics of information and information systems, who immediately recognise the info system in biology, and that what is in the cell is like a 8.0 or 9.0 to our halting little 0.2 level beta test versions. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

PS: A far closer challenge to getting to DNA in Darwin's still, warm little pond, would be this thought experiment, getting to a flyable microjet by diffusional forces. Ask yourself why we do not routinely have formation of novel life in cans of soup in your friendly local supermarket. kairosfocus

VOM: You leave me shaking my head at how much deeper you are digging into the hole. Indeed, we can only study the stochastic properties of the states of the molecules of he air, but we are able to study averages,and those thermodynamic averages include bulk motion and pressure, including the circulation around the wing that is responsible for lift. The function here rests on the fact that the number of near-average distributions of motions etc is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is empirically reliable to rely on the averages, so wings fly and we can use continuum approximations safely, e.g. pressure, volume, temperature, slipstream speed, etc. But DNA's behaviour as an information store is not like that at all. It is the specific configurations in accord with particular rules of meaning that store information. Almost by definition, these are deeply isolated in the relevant config spaces of all possible strings of the same length. [And we are not even looking at the issue of what would overwhelmingly happen in a still warm pond, before you can get to DNA and other life relevant molecules, much less getting them into a functional organisation.] That is why Mr Gates does not write software by hiring troops of monkeys and having hem pound away at keyboards at random -- whatever rumours may have it. And no, trainloads of bananas and peanuts are NOT on his supply lists. You are simply underscoring the vast difference between bulk average related molecular properties and he very special organisation that stores and uses information in digital form. The reductio is getting tighter and tighter. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Carl:

So you’re no longer going to post because scientists reject arguments from incredulity?

Incredulity seems to be all those rejecting scientists have. ID is an argument based on observations and experience. And all those rejecting scientists have is "any explanation but design!" Joseph

@kairosfocus (#20) You wrote:

Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and in the specific context of the origin of DNA, its code and its associated molecular nanomachines?

Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and specific context of our inability to track predict, compute and control individual air molecules around the surface of an aircraft to result in fight? Surely, this is quite impossible given any intellect agent we observe, is it not? Yet there is a natural process which is quite capable of performing just this very feat on our behalf. veilsofmaya

Borne, Your comments are precisely what Mikev6 (I think it was him) was warning against. You are not going to get anywhere insulting the people you need to think. The "children in adult bodies" expressing "flagrant stupidity" that you refer to are the vast majority (pretty much 100%)of biologists, highly qualified, working in the area and performing experiments, conducting field work, thinking, theorising, teaching. Describing them as you do will not work. And whoever referred up-post to the "explosion in interest around the world" in ID. Nope. Not in the parts of the world I spend time in. That is simply wishful thinking. zeroseven

DATCG: "Question to ellazimm: Could it be that the slicing of large areas of conserved information from the mouse genome do not appear to harm the reproduction of healthy mice due to the fact that as regulators and suppressors, lincRNA(thousands of them) are not called upon by celluar code messengers, unless a particular damange to cells is invoked by the surrounding environmental input?" I don't know! But it's a very good question and I'd be very interested in finding out the answer. If no work has been done in that direction it sounds like an excellent ID research emphasis. I keep hoping to hear about things like this from the Biologic Institute. Let's hope they make an effort to pursue it. ellazimm

"Here we go again, the same old cloddish nonsense rooted comment we’ve seen and dealt with a gazillion times here. Ask yourself Carl, why is no one here surprised at this persistence in flagrant stupidity by yet another Darwinian fundamentalist prig? Yours Carl, is precisely the kind of anserine, gormless BS that Gil is referring to! It does get very tiring dealing with children in adult bodies that have never learned to think beyond the official propaganda they regal in so ravenously." I assume such tirades are against the posting policy here? ellazimm

Carl:

"So you’re no longer going to post because scientists reject arguments from incredulity?"

Sheesh! Here we go again, the same old cloddish nonsense rooted comment we've seen and dealt with a gazillion times here. Ask yourself Carl, why is no one here surprised at this persistence in flagrant stupidity by yet another Darwinian fundamentalist prig? Yours Carl, is precisely the kind of anserine, gormless BS that Gil is referring to! It does get very tiring dealing with children in adult bodies that have never learned to think beyond the official propaganda they regal in so ravenously. Borne

Oops - sorry about the open bold tag in the last post. Makes it look more aggressive than it really is. mikev6

kairosfocus:

Nope, Gil is — admittedly in a way I would not — pointing to a serious question of a countervailing fact to the existing consensus, and how it is being responded to on a priori materialism, with particular reference to the origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information in the context of the living cell:...

I think you're missing my point. Ask yourself - "what would I like ID to look like in 100 years?" Your likely choices are: a) a small group of struggling enthusiasts trying to promote an idea that is not accepted in the main stream, or b) a fundamental theory that is widely accepted and used as the defining structure for all other research. You currently have choice 'a'. The difference between 'a' and 'b' is that you've managed to convince a whole bunch of other people to agree with your theory and start to do their own research on it. This is called consensus. You can rail against it and complain about materialist bias and groupthink, etc. etc., but none of that matters. If you want option 'b' above, you need scientific agreement. ergo, "consensus". Now, you can either work with the scientists you've got, or follow the darker path of replacing the existing set of scientists with a 'better' sort that will agree with you. Maybe you just have to wait until the current set die off. Who knows. Either way, unless you're happy with the way ID is now, you need consensus. mikev6

ilion:

To show that necessity (*) is logically insufficient to account for (at least some of) the observed features of organisms is precisely to “produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet.”

My point here is that this isn't "incontrovertible" - there are many (most?) who will argue your point here. ID proposes something that will re-define everything we know about the Universe. Find something that almost everyone can get behind. mikev6

DATCG:

I understand your caution. But, do you demand the same “rock-solid” evidence of the Blind Theorist hucksters, bullies and worshippers?

I demand more - the stakes are higher. If the ToE is right or wrong, it generally only affects parts of biology. If ID is correct, it means a re-structuring of scientific assumptions that could affect all other disciplines too, not to mention social and religious implications. mikev6

ME6: Nope, Gil is -- admittedly in a way I would not -- pointing to a serious question of a countervailing fact to the existing consensus, and how it is being responded to on a priori materialism, with particular reference to the origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information in the context of the living cell:

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. [plain sarcasm] That’s the consensus of “scientists” in the academy. [certainly that is how design thinkers are routinely portrayed by scientific spokesmen operating on Darwinist premises; cf. Weak Argument Correctives. This is a plain out demonising caricature, sustained now for years int eh face of correction on the merits. In short it is willful slander.] The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology. [mutations, filtered through culling out of inferior performing sub-populations accounts for body plan level bio-diversity, and a move from 100 - 1,000 or so k bits of bio-info in DNA to 10's, 100"s and 1,000's of millions.] Who is thinking logically here? . . .

Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and in the specific context of the origin of DNA, its code and its associated molecular nanomachines? When last did you see serious software created by uncontrolled random noise generation? Why is that? G kairosfocus

@Ilion (#13) You wrote:

OR, we could just laugh at the DarwinDefenders for their implicit act of counseling, via this particular talking-point, that we all ought to be credulous.

Ilion, That's not what I'm suggesting. In fact, I'm suggesting the opposite. ID might be true. But the theory that ID presents clearly stops short in its theory for reason that are obvious and transparent. As such, it's a bad explanation. Should ID decide to provide such an explanation in the future, it could become a good explanation. However, given the implied designers nature, it's unlikely such a explanation will be forth coming. This is by definition. Note: I am suggesting there is such a thing as a bad explanation, and that ID exhibits these traits. I've elaborated on this with my first comment on this thread and elsewhere.

Yet, must not a *real* explanation be true? How can the merely plausible be truly called an explanation?

Imagine you ask me why the sky is appears blue and I reply, "Because 70% of the earth is covered by water, which is blue, and that color is reflected by the atmosphere." Just because my explanation happens to be wrong doesn't mean that it is disqualified from being an "explanation." it's just a bad explanation. I could have not responded at all or claimed that the sky is blue because that's the color a designer wanted it to be. That a designer wanted the sky to be blue in no way explains why we observe the sky as being the specific color blue, rather than some other possible color, such a green. Instead, It merely accounts for the sky being one color rather than another color via the fact that we observe agents choosing some things over other others. Just because there is some "True" state of affairs in reality does not necessarily mean we can actually have knowledge of it. Welcome to the problem of induction and the incompleteness of empiricism. While you personally may believe there is another way around this problem, this falls outside of science and is also absent from the theory of ID. The only reason why I tenably accept darwinism because it actually tries to explain the specific things we observe, which is something ID takes no interest in at all. It might be wrong, but wrong for all the right reasons. ID might be true. But I'm unwilling to assume this is the case with great readiness. In fact, if your a theist, it's likely you are satisfied with sort of "account" in other areas as well. Things are the way they are because that's how God wanted them to be. And since God is all knowing and his nature is the very definition of "good," this sort of account is sufficient for you. However, these things are absent from the formal theory of ID. Nor are they "implied" science. You may implicitly insert this belief into your definition of science, but not everyone shares this view. As such, the fact that ID is the "best explanation" is not conveyed by the theory itself.

veilsofmaya

kairosfocus:

...various stuff about consensus...

Nevertheless, if ID is science it wants and needs consensus. Without consensus, no scientific idea has any power or influence. Gil's complaint is that he has trouble getting people to agree with him - that's a search for consensus. It is certainly permissible to claim that consensus isn't worth anything scientifically, and that ID is blazing new standards for how science is done, etc. etc. Even if you're 100% correct in these statements, you need to get people to agree with you to get things done. On the other hand, if you're satisfied with ID remaining (per Gil) a bunch of "superstitious religious fanatics who want to destroy science and establish a theocracy" then perhaps consensus isn't for you. Small hint, however. If you are trying to build scientific consensus, telling your potential audience that their opinions aren't worth anything and that they're 'doing it wrong' isn't normally the best tactic. But then, there is much to suggest scientists aren't the target audience anyway. mikev6

mikev6, check out the recent paper. It bolsters Design Theory. Yet note that in overturning a unguided prediction of evolution, these scientist throw in evolution terms, as in "evolutionary conserved" regions of the genome. Truth is, they have no way of knowing if "evolutionary conserved" is true. They're simply repeating a mantra now of inferences based upon many biased opinions for the last 150 years. It is possible, these genomic regions(predicted by blind evolutionist to be junk) were commonly designed to remain conserved for the purpose of survival by an intentionally Guided Evolutionary Algorithm. There is no way at this time, either side knows. Yet, only one side is allowed acceptance into the once hallowed halls of "peer-reviewed" science journals. Well, we see how well that worked with "peer-reviewed" global warming science. Where scientist intentionally forced out opponent papers, hid faulty data; indeed, manipulated data and threatened scientific journals not to publish if they allowed their opponents acces to the same journals. That is not consensus science. It is nothing more than being dishonest, deceptive, outright lies, and bullying others into concessions and oppressing of others rights to a respectful dialogue. While it does not suppress the free speech rights of others, it deceptively does so in formerly respected journals of importance. I understand your caution. But, do you demand the same "rock-solid" evidence of the Blind Theorist hucksters, bullies and worshippers? They have major failures now in vestigial organs and "junk" DNA. Randomness, far from being a creator of increasing order, is turning into a large argument against their Blind Theory. DATCG

"If ID can produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet, that could easily be the most important addition to human knowledge to date. It will have impacts far beyond biology, and would represent a more important development than Darwin’s original publication of OOS or the ToE itself." To show that necessity (*) is logically insufficient to account for (at least some of) the observed features of organisms is precisely to “produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet.” (*) One may notice that I have not written the formulation “chance plus necessity” … this is because chance has no causative powers. Ilion

ME6: Consensus? Oh, yes, this . . . ____________ >> 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. [[“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997] >> _________________ A priori question-begging imposition of evolutionary materialism in fact undermines the integrity of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about the world based on observation, experiment, analysis and discussion among the informed. "Consensus" is another word for appeal to collective authority, and that has no greater strength than the unde3rlying facts, reasoning and assumptions. And that is precisely what the ID thinkers have exposed. And that pseudoconsensus based on question begging and appeal to question-begging authority is rpecisely what keeps on cropping up at UD from Darwinist advocates. Time and more than time to fix the mess. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Gil: It is naturally frustrating to hold an opinion at odds with consensus. My only comment is to keep in mind the import of what ID is proposing. If ID can produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet, that could easily be the most important addition to human knowledge to date. It will have impacts far beyond biology, and would represent a more important development than Darwin's original publication of OOS or the ToE itself. So if commenters like myself are cautious, it's because the ramifications are huge. Your evidence has to be rock solid before people will even begin to consider your position. mikev6

VeilsofMaya: “This is clearly absent from the theory, which makes it an account, not an explanation.” Groovamos: “Even as a young guy in my twenties, I began to laugh at the self appointed role of science in “explaining” the universe to the rest of humanity. …” Ekstasis: “I am wondering whether science does both things: “accounts” and “explains”…” It seems to me that when people use the word ‘explain,’ they almost always mean “an accounting that *I* hold to be plausible.” … And, frequently (and most especially with DarwinDefenders) there is a subtext of “and if you don’t agree, they you’re stupid, or ignorant, or wicked.” But, notice that plausibility does not establish truth; and, in truth, it is a well known fact that the plausible may be false, whereas that the implausible may be true. Yet, must not a *real* explanation be true? How can the merely plausible be truly called an explanation? Ilion

It is time to push a wood stake through the heart of that particular darwinist talking point:

scientists reject arguments from incredulity

The heart of scientific methods is critical examination of ... OR, we could just laugh at the DarwinDefenders for their implicit act of counseling, via this particular talking-point, that we all ought to be credulous. Foolish assertions deserve to be mocked, and not infrequently must be mocked. Ilion

From the journal Cell; a new discovery of evolutionist predicted "JunkDNA" being functional yet again: "Recently, more than 1000 large intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) have been reported. These RNAs are evolutionarily conserved in mammalian genomes and thus presumably function in diverse biological processes. Here, we report the identification of lincRNAs that are regulated by p53. One of these lincRNAs (lincRNA-p21) serves as a repressor in p53-dependent transcriptional responses. Inhibition of lincRNA-p21 affects the expression of hundreds of gene targets enriched for genes normally repressed by p53. The observed transcriptional repression by lincRNA-p21 is mediated through the physical association with hnRNP-K. This interaction is required for proper genomic localization of hnRNP-K at repressed genes and regulation of p53 mediates apoptosis. We propose a model whereby transcription factors activate lincRNAs that serve as key repressors by physically associating with repressive complexes and modulate their localization to sets of previously active genes." More evidence that predictions by evolutionist fail based upon Neo-Darwinian principles of vestigial leftovers. I'm growing more confident with each finding that the Design Theorist will continue to gain momentum as more areas of so-called "non-coding" regions are continuously discovered as regulators. Gil, this is another day of celebration for all your efforts and that of all Design Theorist. :) The Cell link below has a short video and graphic associated with it... No More "junkDNA" but fully Functional LincRNA regulators Credit: Cell Regulation Doesn't Just Happen . . . . Question to ellazimm: Could it be that the slicing of large areas of conserved information from the mouse genome do not appear to harm the reproduction of healthy mice due to the fact that as regulators and suppressors, lincRNA(thousands of them) are not called upon by celluar code messengers, unless a particular damange to cells is invoked by the surrounding environmental input? Therefore, simply slicing and dicing out huge chunges of conserved previously suppposed "JunkDNA" by evolutionist cannot possibly test a Design? And it is exactly what I described it to be. A trivial method of ignorance to the full scope of information in the genome? Evolutionist predicted Junk DNA. Their predictions fail again and again. What will PZ and his faithful blind followers of a blind process do? But Design Theorist said, wait, wait, we need to do more research. Do not shut off research into these areas. Unguided Theory fails again and again in predictions yet is still used as the great unified theory of being by militant atheist and Darwinian zealots. Unguided evolutionist are condescending towards Design Theorist all the time, shouting as loud as they can in taunting jeers; "If God did it, that stops science" It appears that Blind Theorist of unguided evolution were the ones that could lead to stopping science in their quick judgement that evolution would lead to JunkDNA. Just as their abject failure in predictions of vestigial organs. If a theory leads to such large failures of logical reasoning by its adherants. Should we not look outside of neo-Darwinian theory? And should not students be informed of the failures of Blind Theory? DATCG

"This is clearly absent from the theory, which makes it an account, not an explanation." I am wondering whether science does both things: "accounts" and "explains". Think of an examples such as the Big Bang. No one in science can expain why the Big Bang, assuming it is truly the starting point, happened vs. not happened. However, gathering and tracking evidence that points to the fact that the Big Bang occured is certainly science. Perhaps another way to look at it is -- with material existence there will always be the pursuit of understanding the initial state or condition. By its nature, however, we will never, through science, understand the why. Is it not possible that the evidence will point to another initial state that is, at some level, inexplicable? That other initial state is the start of biological life. Sure, it breaks our paradigm and mindset about how things work. But it will not be the first time in human history. Ekstasis

veilsofmaya: Until ID provides an underlying premise that explains the specific complexity we observe, it will be discarded. Maybe veilsofmaya will be so kind as to tell us when it will be discarded. And who in particular will be doing the discarding. Kind of funny verbiage considering the explosion of interest worldwide in ID. Even as a young guy in my twenties, I began to laugh at the self appointed role of science in "explaining" the universe to the rest of humanity. Yes scientists can "explain" what they observe. And even the mathematics predicting such. But the idea of scientists "explaining" why or how everything exists in the first place or in the poster's words an "underlying premise" is pretty laughable. And just as entertaining is to query a scientist as to why human engendered mathematical constructs comport so well with observation in many cases. There is no standard answer for this. Unless the poster can "explain" it to us. groovamos

@kairosfocus (#5) You wrote:

The whole internet and he whole computer and publishing industries have stood in direct demonstration of the easily and reliably observed fact that such dFSCI is routinely produced by intelligence; and for good reason it is not observed to be produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity, having to do with the limited search resources relative tot he vastness of config spaces specified by even so short a case as 1,000 bits.

First, your assuming specific outcomes were "desired" by the designer in the first place. Things are they way they ought to be because there is an ultimate ought in the first place. While I can understand why you might hold this view, it's not an assumption make by science. Second, the problem with probabilistic barriers, such as protein folding geometries, is that, while they may be accurate, they do not necessarily not represented the only way a particular outcome can be achieved. Let's take the following analogy…. Assume I'm a entrepreneur who is dissatisfied with the current aircraft available in the market and decides to start my own aeronautics company. Furthermore, let's assume i know nothing about aeronautics, so I put two of my on-staff engineers on the project and ask them to separately determine why airplanes fly. A week later, both present their findings. The first engineer reports that planes fly because of a pressure differential caused by air moving at different speeds over the aircraft's wings. This differential is caused by the fact that the top of the wing has a greater surface area than the bottom, while still maintaining the same length. The resulting pressure is higher on the bottom of the wing and lower on the top, which lifts the aircraft into the air. Varying the speed of the plane and the shape of each individual wing varies the pressure and causes the plane to fly at different altitudes, changes its direction and orientation, etc. Controls in the cockpit allow an individual to vary these factors in a coordinated way to pilot the plane. However, the second engineer turns in a strikingly different report. Aircraft fly because they were designed by an intelligent agent. However, this intelligent is more powerful and intelligent than we are since he directly and willfully manipulates the exact velocity and direction of individual air molecules around the wings of every aircraft. This highly coordinated and directed effort causes the plane to fly through the air. Due to the massive number of possible combinations and interactions that occur during a flight, it's empirically impossible for us to anticipate and calculate exactly which air molecules should move at just the velocity force in just the right direction and at just the right time to cause aircraft to follow any specific flightpaths. Even if we could, we empirically lack the ability to change just the specific air molecules required, while leaving the others unaffected. How the designer does this is something we cannot know for sure. However, empirical evidence tells us the designer must be capable of such a feat since we observe planes flying. Please note that we know an intelligent designer really did design and build the modern day aircraft we observe. This is NOT the point I'm trying to make, nor am I suggesting otherwise. My point is that the second engineer used an accurate probabilistic scenario to exclude a natural process and support the existence of an abstract agent with supposed specific capabilities we have yet to observe. Aircraft designers exploit the natural phenomena described by the first enginnere rather than "design" or "cause" it. While it is true that we currently lack the computational ability to individually track and modify the air molecules around an aircraft wing in a way that causes flight, there is a natural process which makes it unnecessary. Furthermore, this process provides an underlying principle of flight which actually explains the specific outcomes what we observe. For example, if an intelligent designer "causes" an aircraft to fly by directly changing the force and direction of individual air molecules, why do traditional aircraft need to reach a particular rate of speed before they can take off? Why do they stall at low airspeeds? Why not chance the air molecules around the fuselage and and get rid of the wings all together? Why not flying cars, boats or even buildings? Why doesn't the designer use this specific ability in other domains, such as creating heat, drilling, construction, etc.? I could go on, but I think you get my point. In other words, by claiming an agent exists with these abilities, an implied theory is presented about observations that are directly and indirectly related. Apparently, this agent must not be interested in applying his ability elsewhere, otherwise he would. Furthermore, the first engineer not only identifies a cause, but this same cause provides an underlying principal of flight which answers all of these questions. In fact, it explains many details of the entire aeronautics industry, from design, manufacturing, passenger and commercial carriers, the role of pilots and even the kind of training they need. It even provides an explanation for the kind of experience we have as passengers during flight, including why we need to wait for wings to be de-iced in the winter. The second report accounts for airplanes flying via an intelligent agent but it also concludes the agent has specific abilities. It does this by appealing to specific complexities and observed limitations which are factual, yet represent only one possible way the process could occur. However, in doing so, he invalidates not only the underlying principle provided by the first engineer but all of the explanations it provides as well. Suddenly the entire aeronautics industry makes no sense. Furthermore, he provides no explanation to replace it while remaining virtually identical in regards to observations. As such, the second engineer's theory appears to be a convoluted elaboration of the first. In both cases a difference in pressure causes aircraft to fly. But in the case of the second engineer, the designer just so happens to wait until the aircraft is at a particular airspeed before causing such changes. He just so happens to decide to stop making changes if the airplane slows down or if ice forms on the plane's wings. He just so happens decide to agree to send thousands of passengers to the predetermined, specific locations we observe each day, 24 hours a day, world wide, while maintaining each and every private, commercial and military schedule, and so on. These are logical possibilities, but the second engineer offers no explanation as to why these particular outcomes occur rather than some other specific outcomes. That's just what the designer chooses or wanted to do. It's a bad explination. Finally, as the CEO of an aeronautics company, the explanation provided by the second engineer doesn't get me one jot closer to being able to build an aircraft that can actually fly. Should I accept it, I'll spend billions of dollars trying to build elaborate devices that can track an manipulate individual air molecules and super computers that can do the necessary math to run them. Fortunately, there is another theory that accounts for flight while using a good explanation, which I'll tentatively accept in case some other theory with a better explication comes along. veilsofmaya

@kairosfocus (#5) You wrote:

You know or should know [cf the Weak Argument Correctives and ID Definition accessible on this and every UD page] that the design inference is based on empirical investigation of phenomena that are observable, and in light of known and reliable patterns of causation.

Which is an appeal to causation, not an explanation of what we observe. Yes, intelligent agents cause somethings to happen, but not others. But ID doesn't explain why an agent should choose one specific thing we observe over another. This is clearly absent from the theory, which makes it an account, not an explanation. An intelligent agent merely choosing one thing over another could be the cause of anything, including tornados, earthquakes, the formation of stars, the survival of some individuals but not others in a plane or car crashes, etc. All of these events and processes could be influenced on an Infinitesimal scale by an intelligent agent to "design" specific outcomes. Yet analogs to biological ID in other domains are conspicuously absent. Why is this?

Do you know of an observed case where on undirected chance and forces of mechanical necessity, digitally coded, functionally specific complex information and associated execution machines, protocols for data structures, etc etc have come about?

While I could respond here, the exchange will be one that has occurred time and time again. The ability to digest nylon in bacteria, which occurred in less that 70 years isn't new information because information can only be created by intelligent agents by definition, or that this is actually a decrease in information, etc. This is NOT my point. Instead, I'm pointing to the particular form of ID in that it's incomplete for reasons that are obvious and transparent. Despite introducing agency into the mix, ID fails to create an underlying premise that shows why agency in particular is the best explanation for the specific things we observe (in contrast to anything specific). Instead, ID attempts to invalidate Darwinism via probabilistic claims or via specific definitions of information. For example, ID provides no explanation why an intelligent agent who can supposedly search the problem space of 10^300 protein folding geometries would end up intentionally creating an eye with a retina that is backwards rather than forwards (or ended up sideways due to inherited limitations of the designer.) The closest thing to an explanation ID provides for the specific things we observe is the designer is "creative" or "beyond our understanding", etc., which could be said for all of the other processes or events mentioned above. In fact, if you're a theist, you may think there is some designer that intervenes in these situations as well. This appears to be an attempt reformulate the "why do good things happen to some people but not others?" question as a scientific theory on biological complexity. Why do some species survive while others go extinct? Why do some species have specific features but not others? That's just how the designer decided it should be, which is a non-explanation.

So, we have every right on principles of like causes like and induction form reliable pattern of observations, to hold that dFSCI is a credible and credibly relible sign of design.

First, please see above. This could be applied to any outcome with as much of an explanation. Second, you seem to have forgotten the crisis caused when Hume pointed out the problem of induction. We can't know for sure either way. Any theory can make any prediction. We must compare explanations of completing theories and accept those which have the most explanatory power. However, all ID does is explain away Darwinism without providing an explination of its own. Nor is it likely that one will be forthcoming for reasons that are obvious. Of course, this part of my comment will be ignored as usual. Again, you have a right to your own opinions and beliefs. You have the right to perform your own research, should you actually choose to. But claiming science is somehow biased for not accepting ID is disingenuous. veilsofmaya

Carl: It is time to push a wood stake through the heart of that particular darwinist talking point:

scientists reject arguments from incredulity

The heart of scientific methods is critical examination of alternative hypotheses in light of existing and emerging bodies of observational evidence and logical reasoning. Thus, certain claims are "falsified" -- more correctly find themselves deemed implausible in light of the body of evidence and reasoned discussion thereof. At least, in the ideal case, not always approached in reality. That boils down to an issue on criteria for rejection of particular claims. In the case of the inference to design, the basic problem is not: (a) induction from reliable observed patterns [as, reliably dFSCI is observed produced by intelligence], nor (b) projection of present patterns of cause and effect tot he unobserved past as a way to credibly model that past [as the projection of intelligent cause on reliable signs of intelligence does just that], but instead . . . (c) That the design inference puts the prevalent Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism under challenge [and so we see an a priori, worldview level question-begging imposition enforced through TODAY'S MAGISTERIUM IN The HOLY LAB COAT]. Wheel and tun and come again wid somethin betta dan dat . . . GEM of TKI kairosfocus

VOM: You know or should know [cf the Weak Argument Correctives and ID Definition accessible on this and every UD page] that the design inference is based on empirical investigation of phenomena that are observable, and in light of known and reliable patterns of causation. Gil has put the issue in a nutshell. Do you know of an observed case where on undirected chance and forces of mechanical necessity, digitally coded, functionally specific complex information and associated execution machines, protocols for data structures, etc etc have come about? If so, in just which journals, monographs, conference proceedings or trade press books has it been published? [And, remember, genetic algorithms and their kin are precisely the opposite of what proponents often pretend they are. They are intelligently designed constrained searches within islands of known function, seeking to optimise some objective function or performance parameter.] The whole internet and he whole computer and publishing industries have stood in direct demonstration of the easily and reliably observed fact that such dFSCI is routinely produced by intelligence; and for good reason it is not observed to be produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity, having to do with the limited search resources relative tot he vastness of config spaces specified by even so short a case as 1,000 bits. So, we have every right on principles of like causes like and induction form reliable pattern of observations, to hold that dFSCI is a credible and credibly relible sign of design. Without imposing a prioris, apart from refusing to beg the question by imposing a priori materialism as a criterion of science, robbing science of its power to fearlessly pursue the evidence in the direction of truth. GEM of TKI PS: Gil: Semper Fi! kairosfocus

So you're no longer going to post because scientists reject arguments from incredulity? Carl

Gill, It may be that biological life was created by an intelligent agent. You personally may feel there are "good reasons" to believe this is the case. However, the theory presented by ID is defined in a way that makes it a bad explanation of what we observe. This is because ID is intentionally incomplete for reasons which are obvious. It merely accounts for what we observe, rather than explains it, by assigning an intelligent agent as the cause. And in doing so, it invalidates the explanations provided by Darwinism. In other words, ID's explanation is limited to explaining away darwinism. So, yes. You might be right. But this doesn't mean that the actual theory presented by ID is sufficient to reach that conclusion. You reach this conclusion for reasons which are implied and are absent from the theory. Until ID provides an underlying premise that explains the specific complexity we observe, it will be discarded. However, given the implied designer, it seems very unlikely as such an explanation will be forthcoming as it would be impossible by definition. It's a catch 22 situation. On one hand, you want ID to be accepted as science. But on the other hand, you intentionally stop short because of the 'nature' you personally attribute to the designer. Regardless of your intuition or your personal incredulity on the matter. Regardless if what your believe represents the true state of affairs in reality. Being "right" for the "wrong reasons" is still wrong. This is how science works. To claim that science is biased for not accepting an incomplete theory is not "thinking logically." It's disingenuous. veilsofmaya

Gil, you said, "The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology." Did you intend to say "... computer software"? It looks like the latter is the parallel you were aiming for. Your vitriol with the biological "consensus" is shared by many of us who develop software as you do. I have a religious faith as you do, but it is the software engineer in me that finds neo-Darwinism to be ludicrous. bFast

Oh come on Gil. You just have to trust the scientists on that. They know what they are talking about. People like me are too dumb to understand because we are not scientists. Who am I to question the hallowed "consensus"? You should know better than that! Where's your faith? tjm

Ah, Gil. I've followed you on this blog for some time now, and watched as you've grown more frustrated as time goes on. But don't give up; you never know who is lurking and might be swayed by following some patient, thoughtful argument, even if it is with someone who will never change their mind. Let's not grow tired of defending the truth as we see it, in a way that brings credit to ourselves and the whole movement. Semper fi! (A great motto, not just for the USMC) SCheesman