Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Demands of Charity

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Faded Glory finally gets it!  He writes that he agrees that the ID inference is not illogical if it “applies to life we can actually investigate.”  [Is it just me or can anyone else hear the melodious strains of Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus playing in the background?]  Who says these internet debates never make progress?

Not unexpectedly, however, there is a fly in the proverbial ointment.  FG notes that ID is “agnostic” regarding causes that cannot be investigated, and of this he writes, “I think it is a rather unexpected conclusion but I have no quarrel with it.”

This is the most astonishing statement I have heard in a long time.

Why is this unexpected?  ID proponents have been saying all along that ID [qua ID] does not speculate beyond the data.  It does not ask, “What is the ultimate source of design?”  It asks only “Is this particular thing designed?”  As those who have been following this debate know, we have been saying this repeatedly, over and over, constantly, time after time, repetitively, ad nauseam, I think you get the picture.

How is it possible that this could surprise anyone?  I can only speculate, but I think it probably has something to do with the fact that many people assume that ID proponents are inveterate liars when they say they are not trying to prove the existence of God.  Interestingly, this charge comes from both sides of the theological divide.  ID is neither an apologetic nor creationism.  Yet theistic Darwinists deride ID as a failed apologetic (as johnnyb points out here), and atheists say ID is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” (as Nick Matzke said here).

There is a common assumption among the theistic Darwinists and the atheists – that ID proponents are being disingenuous when they say that ID confines itself only to inferences from the observable data and refuses to speculate about what lies beyond the data.  Now it is certainly true that some people will take ID’s conclusions and leap from there to the existence of God, just as it is true that some people will take Darwinism’s conclusions and leap from there to the non-existence of God.  Everyone should agree, however, that it is not a valid scientific criticism of Darwinism to say that it might lead to more atheism.  Therefore, everyone should agree that it is not a valid scientific criticism of ID to say that it might lead to more theism.

One might be excused for assuming that arch-atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins take their atheism first and their science second.  This assumption might lead one to refuse to take Dawkins’ scientific arguments at face value and instead try to discredit his conclusions on the basis of his atheistic motivations rather than because the conclusions fail to account for the data.  And that would be wrong.  Simple charity demands that we assume our opponents are acting in good faith, and this requires us to deal with their arguments at face value.  I am certain this is how they would want to be treated, and I hope that someday they will apply the golden rule and extend the same charity to us, instead of simply assuming we are liars and attacking us on that basis alone.

Comments
Dr Liddle: Re 82 above. It seems you need to make re-acquaintance with this post here (again . . . ), on the subject of how design is to be inferred. Design is only inferred after two defaults have been considered on a per aspect basis: necessity [as in how a crystal is made] and chance [as in how a matrix of crystals like granite is formed in a random pattern]. And that has been on the table since Orgel first identified the issue of specified complexity in 1973. Let me clip Orgel:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.]
So, something is plainly quite wrong if, in the teeth of repeated highlighting and correction of the error, you keep going back to it. Let me therefore clip and correct the offensive remarks in 82 above, in hopes that this will now never recur. Please understand that at this point I feel quite annoyed at having to go over this ground yet again:
My beef is not against inferring design; a --> the evidence points elsewhere! it’s against inferring intentional design b --> Design is by any reasonable definition purposeful choice based configuration of materials and components towards a goal; design is thus always intentional. from the pattern exhibited by an object alone c --> this is little more than a denial of the significance of empirically reliable empirically well tested signs that point to design, such as CSI, IC and FSCO/I. d --> Can you give a reliable empirical counter-instance where in our observation such signs appear in things we OBSERVE to have arisen by chance and/or mechanical necessity? e --> Nope, or such would be triumphantly trumpeted in headlines and all over the Internet. There are literally billions of cases in point for the reliability of these signs. f --> So, the application of the explanatory filter as already linked on above, to asses per aspect on necessity, then chance then choice, is well warranted, especially in origins science contexts where we must infer to a plausible account of the past on patterns we observe in the present, precisely because we were not there. and refusing to investigate what other processes, g --> I am sorry, this is willfully false at minimum by negligence of plain duties of care to accuracy and fairness, as you KNOW the structure of the design filter. You KNOW the first default is blind mechanical necessity, and that it is rejected on seeing high contingency. h --> You further KNOW that the second default for high contingency is chance, and that i --> it is only rejected if the search resources [solar system scale or cosmos scale] to hit on an event E from a separately describable zone T in a large set of configs W, are overwhelmingly inadequate to make the inference to chance plausible. (How many times have you been pointed to the Abel paper here?) including non-intentional “design” process are also candidates. j --> this is little more than an attempt to question-beggingly relabel chance and/or necessity as design processes. And refusing also to consider the importance of priors: k --> This is again willfully false, as you know or full well should know that the whole project of design inference is based on knowledge of necessary and sufficient causal factors, contingency of being, the reality of necessity, chance factors and design in the observed world, and the identified, empirically tested and found reliable characteristics of necessity, chance and design l --> What is NOT surrendered to is the attempt to confine the world to only material possibilities, i.e the worldview level question is not begged. Instead, as you know or should know, and empirical investigation is undertaken and inference is made on best explanation. m --> This sets a pretty serious context for your recent refusal to acknowledge the force that would be given by evidence of design if we were to find a 196 ASCII character copyright notice coded into a genome. we know that material, embodied, brain-possessing designers can exist; positing a material, embodied, brain-possessing designer may well be the best inference n --> And, how was it, pray, tell me that we recognised that design was a reality, and that it leads to specific and characteristic, reliable signs? o --> But the Lewontinian agenda emerges. For the problem here is plainoy that per a priori commitment, only materialism-friendly inferences are to be made. if you’ve ruled out non-intentional design (crystalisatioin, rm+ns, etc), p --> And, what does the explanatory filter process do again, or even the equation that is rooted in it: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold? and even if you haven’t. q --> Until necessity and chance are reasonably ruled out, design is not to be inferred But as we have no evidence at all for immaterial, non-embodied, non-brain-possessing designers, r --> This declaration is an inadvertent admission of closed mined a priori imposition of materialism. s --> For, once we step up to the cosmological design inference issue, there is abundant reason to see observationally based evidence of mind beyond the material cosmos, indeed, to see mind as necessary being beyond the cosmos. t --> The "no evidence" rhetorical assertion as you just made is a diagnostic declaration of dismissal on selective hyperskepticism, not an index of actual absence of evidence. Worse, it is usually a sign of the fallacy of the closed mind at work as well, and where the relvant evidence has been easily accesible -- as it has been -- it is a sign of willful distortion, a violation of duties of care to be fair and accurate. I do not raise these issues lightly, and I ask you to reflect soberly on them. positing one as the likely origin of living things, u --> As was pointed out to you earlier this morning, from TMLO on, ID does not infer to a non-embodied designer to explain design in teh case of origin of life. As I have per4snally repeatedly said to you, the evidence established to reasonable warrant that tweredun, but does not give us the further identification whodunit. And I have repeatedly said that a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter's would be a SUFFICIENT cause for the inferred design on FSCI in cell based life. despite the fact that we have a perfectly good candidate (rm+ns) is hugely unwarranted, v --> RM + NS cannot explain OOL, as there is no reproduction to differentially select, and, the challenge to move to islands of function for novel body plans [just think about protein folds if you need some warrant for the identification of such a topology in the config space] further blocks differential reproductive success until such an island is reached. Notice as well that he fossil record is of gaps, stasis, and sudden appearances, with disappearance or continuation to the modern world, so the observations support this point too. and the least you could do to support it is show some curiosity as to the nature of the designer – which we can infer, in fact, from the data w --> Where the evidence does allow such onward investigation, the origin of a fine tuned cosmos set up to facilitate C-chemistry cell based life, it is pursued. As you know or should know.
This is sad, and sadly revealing. Please, do better than this. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Drs Liddle and Torley: I have done a monolith optically flat surface information content calc here in the Humpty thread, at 27. It does not rely on frequentist themes or the like, but does rely on engineering/scientific knowledge of what an optical flat requires, through it is actually a bit loose. there is a reason why such things are very expensive. Bottomline, is that a monolith would be easily recognisable as designed, and the "simple" flat surfaces are not so simple to get, once you are dealing with something polycrystalline. Do you remember the days before float glass, and the wavy surfaces of glass sheets? Do you know how hard it is to machine or mill a truly flat surface? An object made to high precision based on flat surfaces forming a prism, that is not monocrystalline [like a huge piece of quartz or the like], would be an instant giveaway case of design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Thank you vjtorley. I look forward to your response to my #82 as well. I will now address your post on the Humpty Dumpty thread. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle and FadedGlory In response to your query about finding a monolith and inferring design, please see these two posts of mine: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-to-complex-specified-information/ (In this post, I calculated the CSI of a scanner as an astronomically large number - much larger than the 500-it cutoff point - and concluded that if some astronauts came across the monolith they would e justified in inferring design, even if they had only a basic knowledge of lunar geological processes and no knowledge of the monolith's history.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-little-green-men-and-csi-lite/ (This was a follow-up post tying together the various kinds of cases - from fine-tuning to Mt. Rushmore to bacterial flagella - in which we infer design, and why we are justified in doing so.) If I came across an interstellar source of the first 100 primes, then yes, I certainly would infer that it was produced by someone with a capacity for abstract thought, language and problem solving (I'm not sure about emotional intelligence). Elizabeth, you raise a number pf good questions about the designer in #82. I believe they're soluble, and will respond to them when I get some more free time. Hope that helps.vjtorley
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Grunty:
More than 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct.
I suppose you know this from that oh so spotty and unreliable fossil record? Do you know how many non-extinct species exist on this planet right now?Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Mung you state: 'But the numbers and the series are in the plants. And the same numbers and the same series are in different plants at that.' Okie Dokie mung, show how the same spiral Fibonacci number that shows up in galaxies, explaining Dark matter while your at it so as to explain why some galaxies are spiral, show how this number was also programmed by purely material processes to produce such a spiral in different plants.bornagain77
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Mung (96), "This is false." No, it's actually an underestimate. More than 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. So if you consider species to have been designed then their extinction is their ultimate failure.Grunty
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
90% of designs ultimately fail.
This is false.Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Doesn’t care about things hurting other things
As if in Darwinism caring is good and hurting other things is bad. What a joke. And if humans care and think hurting other things is bad, I guess that means humans did not evolve by a Darwinian process. And what is this claim even doing in a scientific theory?Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Fibonacci Numbers are a transcendent mathematical structure that is found imposed ONTO our material reality.
But the numbers and the series are in the plants. And the same numbers and the same series are in different plants at that.Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
I’d be curious to know if our opponents could articulate what evidence they would accept as evidence for a designing intelligence, apart from humans and other earth-bound life forms.
Heck, I'd be curious to know if they think anything at all is designed and how they could tell if it was. I love asking that question. The typical response is silence. Yet the interesting thing is, they assert that their mechanism can mimic intelligent design. Yet they refuse to say how they know that.Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
My beef is not against inferring design; it’s against inferring intentional design from the pattern exhibited by an object alone and refusing to investigate what other processes, including non-intentional “design” process are also candidates.
And that's an intellectually dishonest view of ID and CSI and IC. And you should be ashamed to even put it forth as an accurate representation of ID. You should know better.Mung
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Selective hyperskepticism (Cf here on when it crosses the threshold.)kairosfocus
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Ah! So the issue is selective hyperskepticism, which is to say, intellectual dishonesty.Ilion
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
H'mm: Hasn't Venter been doing something along those lines? In any case, unfortunately, we have already seen that FOR DR LIDDLE, A 196 ASCII CHARACTER COPYRIGHT NOTICE PLACED IN A GENOME WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF DESIGN OF THE ORGANISM BEARING IT. Game over. The issue (in that light) is not evidence, but imposed preconceptions. That is what has to be faced and addressed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
EL: "We know that monolith designers are possible because we are monolith designers ourselves. So it seems like a reasonable inference." So, it seems, the Darwinistic argument goes like this: BECAUSE we know that some humans have designed/built monoliths, THEREFORE when we encounter an previously unknown monolith it is probably a reasonable inference that some intelligence designed the monolith. HOWEVER, if it were not known that some humans have designed/built monoliths, THEN it would not be a reasonable interence about some newly discovered monolith that it was designed by an intelligence; RATHER, we would be forced to conclude that "it just happened." Apparently, should the day ever come that humans are known to "design living organisms", THEN we might be allowed to see the biological design that's right in front of our noses. Still, this all does seem a bit opposite the (ahem) argument Darwinists have been making ever since Darwin, which goes like this -- since we know that human beings have engaged in selective breeding of organisms, and thereby produce specialized breeds of a species, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the UIND (un-intelligent non-design) engages in breeding selection, and thereby produces novel species characteristics.Ilion
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
FG at 81: Novice here. If the question or comment is stupid I apologize. You wrote: ...by not constraining its capabilities and powers in any way whatsoever, the probability for intelligent design as a possible explanation becomes 1! Unless you know for sure what the ‘natural’ pathway is (in which case there wouldn’t be a problem to resolve, of course), unconstrained ID will always win out in the probabilistic beauty contest. The question after all is not ‘did it happen this way or that way’, the question is ‘could it have happened this way or that way’." That could be re written as follows: by not constraining its capabilities and powers in any way whatsoever, the probability for nature/evolution as a possible explanation becomes 1! Unless you know for sure what the ‘intelligently designed’ pathway is (in which case there wouldn’t be a problem to resolve, of course), unconstrained nature/evolution will always win out in the probabilistic beauty contest. The question after all is not ‘did it happen this way or that way’, the question is ‘could it have happened this way or that way’. Aren't metaphysics at work anway?lpadron
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies: ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Here is the interactive website (with link to the math) related to the preceding video; Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/ The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ ================= Further notes: If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY 23 Minutes In Hell - Bill Wiese- video http://www.vimeo.com/16641462 Erasing Hell by Francis Chan - We can't afford to get this wrong - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVTSYLr8bornagain77
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
As to this comment: “Indeed, the only way you can make it fit anything remotely God-like (a God worthy of worship anyway) is by doing Dembski’s sin-backwards-in-time-trick, which is a retrofit to crown all retrofits!” Which is a comment referencing Dr. Dembski’s book on Theodicy, ‘The End Of Christianity’, (excerpted portions here:) http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Actually, this ‘retrofit’ of Dr. Dembski’s, as far as logic, and reality, are concerned, is not a contrived ‘retrofit’ at all. It is a very straightforward interpretation of morality as to the dramatic consequences of sin in that the effects of sin on reality i.e. that the effects of sin go far beyond the material realm and reach directly into the timeless, ‘eternal’, realm,,, for the ‘effects of sin’ do indeed have timeless, and thus ‘eternal’ consequences! Perhaps the atheist will say ‘but we have no ‘scientific evidence’ of a reality that reflects this ‘eternal, or timeless, realm that is ‘above’ this material realm’ that could have such dramatic ‘retrofit’ effect, but the atheist would be severely mistaken in that presumption: notes: Reflections on the ‘infinite transcendent information’ framework, as well as on the ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ frameworks: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity – Time Dilation and Length Contraction – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2. Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ ,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned. Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments; Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or destruction’. Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe i.e. Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang.bornagain77
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
As to this comment: “Indeed, the only way you can make it fit anything remotely God-like (a God worthy of worship anyway) is by doing Dembski’s sin-backwards-in-time-trick, which is a retrofit to crown all retrofits!” Which is a comment referencing Dr. Dembski's book on Theodicy, 'The End Of Christianity', (excerpted portions here:) http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Actually, this 'retrofit' of Dr. Dembski's, as far as logic, and reality, are concerned, is not a contrived 'retrofit' at all. It is a very straightforward interpretation of morality as to the dramatic consequences of sin in that the effects of sin on reality i.e. that the effects of sin go far beyond the material realm and reach directly into the timeless, 'eternal', realm,,, for the 'effects of sin' do indeed have timeless, and thus 'eternal' consequences! Perhaps the atheist will say 'but we have no 'scientific evidence' of a reality that reflects this 'eternal, or timeless, realm that is 'above' this material realm' that could have such dramatic 'retrofit' effect, but the atheist would be severely mistaken in that presumption: notes: Reflections on the 'infinite transcendent information' framework, as well as on the 'eternal' and 'temporal' frameworks: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2. Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ ,,,Yet, even though light has this 'eternal' attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned. Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation It is also that we have two different qualities of 'eternality of time' revealed by our time dialation experiments; Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation (i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). --- But of particular interest to the 'eternal framework' found for General Relativity at black holes;... It is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the 'eternality of time' at black holes can rightly be called 'eternalities of decay'. --- Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe i.e. Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies: 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences 'Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything - past, present, future - exists simultaneously.' - Kimberly Clark Sharp - NDE Experiencer 'There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.' - John Star - NDE Experiencer It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Here is the interactive website (with link to the math) related to the preceding video; Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/ The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/bornagain77
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
"Indeed, the only way you can make it fit anything remotely God-like (a God worthy of worship anyway) is by doing Dembski’s sin-backwards-in-time-trick, which is a retrofit to crown all retrofits!" ==== Yes I've often wondered why there is a denial of any connection to a God(especially biblical) when the facts are clear that members of Christendom are behind the Intelligent Design movement. I believe they have all the same EXACT problems and issues that Evolutionists have regarding the PROOF of actual mechanics used to result in any arrival of any living past or present organism.Eocene
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
And faded_Glory at 81 puts it better.Elizabeth Liddle
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
uoflcard: You missed the part where I noted that the monolith does not appear to self-replicate. Look, I have no problem, as I've said, with the idea of inferring design. I'd even be prepared to infer an invisible designer if it seemed warranted. But each candidate designed entity offers a different set of clues from which we can derive different hypotheses which we can then test. That's the way science works. You don't do science by saying: hey, this thing looks designed, therefore it must have been designed. And then stop. That monolith could maybe have turned out to be a crystal - that's a testable hypothesis. And it isn't very complex (CSI would come up with a false negative). In fact one way we regularly distinguish artefacts from "natural" objects in earth is by their crudity ("is it real? Oh, no, it's just plastic."). What I would actually do, given an interesting object of unknown provenance is try to figure out what kinds of processes would tend to give rise to that sort of object. Those processes could well include the processes by which intelligent agents design things. Or they could include the processes by which non-intentional filtering systems with feedback loops produce patterns (rm+ns; crystalisation; weather systems, etc). And I'd consider each in turn, derive testable hypotheses and test them against new data. My beef is not against inferring design; it's against inferring intentional design from the pattern exhibited by an object alone and refusing to investigate what other processes, including non-intentional "design" process are also candidates. And refusing also to consider the importance of priors: we know that material, embodied, brain-possessing designers can exist; positing a material, embodied, brain-possessing designer may well be the best inference if you've ruled out non-intentional design (crystalisatioin, rm+ns, etc), and even if you haven't. But as we have no evidence at all for immaterial, non-embodied, non-brain-possessing designers, positing one as the likely origin of living things, despite the fact that we have a perfectly good candidate (rm+ns) is hugely unwarranted, and the least you could do to support it is show some curiosity as to the nature of the designer - which we can infer, in fact, from the data: Slow Can retrofit Uses inheritance Does not transfer solutions from one lineage to another. Can't forward model Doesn't care about things hurting other things 90% of designs ultimately fail. Now, leaving aside the obvious observation that this description fits rn_ns to a t, if it's a description of an intentional intelligent designer it's the description of a not-very intelligent, if nonetheless doggedly persistent and diligent, designer, and certainly not a very benign one. Indeed, the only way you can make it fit anything remotely God-like (a God worthy of worship anyway) is by doing Dembski's sin-backwards-in-time-trick, which is a retrofit to crown all retrofits! And, of course, would be assuming the consequent. Is evidenced primarily by phenomena for which no other proposed mechanism seems plausible Intervenes to pElizabeth Liddle
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
uoflcard, I am happy to explain (again) why I think the design inference is risky if it is made in the absence of data, or at least models, on the nature of the designer (or the design process) for observations where we can't accept the trivial solution that they are designed by people. In such cases I believe there is a particlarly lethal danger of false positives, and a scientifically much more rigorous approach would be to keep options open and work with multiple competing models and hypotheses. It goes back again to the point that making an inference is, or should be imo at least, an informed choice between competing probabilities. I doubt if there is anything in the world that could not at least in prnciple be explained in various ways, if one puts one's mind to it. The more unusual the observation, and the less we know about its origin, the more freedom there is to postulate alternative explanations. In such cases, reasoning by analog with other, known, phenomena to reach firm conclusions is insufficiently rigorous and very prone to false positives, in my view. To estimate probabilities you need models. If an observation is so unusual that we can't think of any models to explain it, we should declare it 'unknown' and work to get more data or try to think about it in different ways that may perhaps give us enough insights to build models after all. It doesn't do any good to pronounce the truth of any particular explanation if we haven't actually made the informed choice between various possible solutions, based on our estimate of their relative probabilities. Sure, there will be many cases where it is instantly obvious to everybody which way the probabilities swing. The classic example of Stonehenge, for instance. We understand enough about geology and human history to make a swift, probably even subconscious choice between the stones being man-made or having somehow originated in situ. Stonehenge is trivial, a non-issue. Unless, of course, one estimates the probabiity that the stones were emplaced by aliens even higher than that they were emplaced by people. I am sure nobody here thinks this, but there are people who do, and this neatly illustrates that there are always other options to consider and weigh alongside our own personal favourite. Things are by no means that clear cut in biology. This is a problem for both sides, because estimating the probabilities of 'natural' (I hate that word) explanations can't be done to the fullest. At the same time, estimating probabilities for ID is even more difficult UNLESS we have some handle on the designer. That handle doesn't have to be hard data, but it must at least be a model with some definition, even if it is sketchy. Now here is the heart of the problem: by not having any data, by not making any assumptions or models on the designer or design process, by not constraining its capabilities and powers in any way whatsoever, the probability for intelligent design as a possible explanation becomes 1! Unless you know for sure what the 'natural' pathway is (in which case there wouldn't be a problem to resolve, of course), unconstrained ID will always win out in the probabilistic beauty contest. The question after all is not 'did it happen this way or that way', the question is 'could it have happened this way or that way'. If one works with totally unconstrained ID, the answer to that question is always 'Yes, it could be ID'. This makes ID indistinguishable from invoking an omnipotent deity, and therefore indistinguishable from metaphysics. I hasten to say, surely not by intent, but even so, in effect it is. ------- Right. In addition to this problem I find a several other issues with the ID inference. As I said in vjtorley's quiz, ID suffers from insufficient rigour in its terminology and definitions. The sidebar definition of Intelligence is particularly useless when it comes to unknown and unspecified designers. It is simply laughable to suggest that when we find an interstellar radiosource emitting series of prime numbers, we can conclude that the originator of the signal has the ability for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving - all that without ever investigating it or knowing anything at all about it, except from the fact that it has the ability to send out such signals. Gentlemen, if we do that we are not doing science. It is difficult enough to establish such properties when we actually have a study object available to us to investigate, let alone when it is lightyears away and we have never observed it! ----------- I am sure you will disagree with much I have said here, but these are my honestly held views and I think they are perfectly reasonable. The basic issue is that, in my view, science should progress by offering, comparing and eliminating competing models, and not by jumping to conclusions based just on analogs. False positives will abound. fGfaded_Glory
August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
These rebuttals remind me of the ridiculousness that was referenced here a few days ago from the Evolving Thoughts commentator, who was reviewing James Shapiro's book Evolution: A View From the 21st Century. He said this about human engineers:
Engineers do not accomplish defined functional goals. Instead they employ the results of prior experience on the presumption that what worked in the past will work now (and that includes the choice of goals themselves).
Anyone who denies that engineers do not accomplish defined functional goals have absolutely given up on reality. I'm not saying that people here are making that claim, but I have reached similar levels of incredulity reading comments in this thread as I did reading that bit of nonsense.uoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Elizabeth (30)
We know that monolith designers are possible because we are monolith designers ourselves. So it seems like a reasonable inference.
We are also rotary motor designers, so is it not a reasonable inference that a bacterial flagellum designer is possible since those are essentially rotary motors?uoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
I am flabbergasted by the reasoning that, until we hypothesize about the designer, we cannot infer design. Elizabeth and faded_Glory, you have not offered a single reasonable argument for why this should be the case, and I consider myself very open-minded and have even defended you, Liz, on this site before. Where does it end? So if someone hypothesizes a designer identity or at least the design methods...well where did THOSE come from?? We didn't need a hypothesis for how a Big Bang could occur in order to infer that there was a Big Bang. faded, you dodged my hypothetical in your comment #52 for no good reason:
Also, lt’s not get carried away with all these outlandish fictional examples. After all, if someone can invoke the stars moving in the sky to spell out a message, I don’t see why I can’t invoke spiders emitting prime number signals lol. So let’s get back to the earlier part of the discussion: inference is basically a weighting of probabilities.
Yes, it is an outlandish and fictional scenario, but it is catastrophic to your claim that we must know/hypothesize ANYTHING about the designer or the design methods. If that ridiculous scenario were to happen, we would not have a clue about designer identity or design methods, yet no sane person would conclude "not designed" or even "possibly not designed". I know the scenario is ridiculous, but it clearly demonstrates the falsity of your claims. We already have a hypothesis for the explanation of CSI and/or complex, integrated functionality: intelligence. We have a plethora of evidence that intelligence can produce these phenomena, and a vacuum of evidence that anything else can, even after a decades (centuries?) trying to find this other source(s).uoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Eric (10), I'd like to recognize your comment, for it is a wrecking ball of reason.
True, there is some weighing of probabilities of other possible explanations (which there always has to be), but there is an important presumptive side to the design inference. Namely, our repeated and uniform experience that, for example, complex, integrated, functional systems come *only* from a process of planning, coordination and design. We see such systems designed regularly; we never see them come about by chance and necessity. The *only* reason anyone is even arguing about whether the physical systems we see in life are designed (Darwinists regularly admit they look designed and they have to keep reminding themselves that they aren’t designed) is because either (i) folks have a philosophical objection to them being designed, or (ii) they imagine that some unknown, unspecified, as-yet-undiscovered, natural process in the distant past is an exception to our repeated and uniform experience and can somehow create the illusion something was designed even though it wasn’t actually designed. If we want to talk about weighing probabilities, it isn’t even close. Unless, of course, we have that nastly little philosophical hangup . .
Bravo. I would love for Elizabeth and faded_Glory to respond by explaining how they do not fall in either category (i) or (ii) of your comment. I'd also like to add a third category, which is that: (iii) they have confirmed a natural process that creates such systems and have yet to share the discovery with us. faded_Glory, I am not the slightest bit impressed by your comment #18, which is supposed to be your answer to Eric:
I think you are assuming your conclusion. If ID is incorrect, we are actually looking at complex, integrated, functional systems that have come about without ID all the time – every time we look at biological complexity!
Then prove that ID is incorrect and SHOW US these supposed natural mechanisms creating these systems! That is the entire point! Until a better explanation can be provided, we should favor the current best explanation. So in this case... PHENOMENA: Complex, integrated, functional systems in biology KNOWN CAUSES OF SUCH PHENOMENA IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE: 1.) Intelligent design 2.) N/A What is the best explanation here?uoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Livingstone, I don't know if I agree with that assessment. ID is does not reject the possibility of common descent and/or evolution. It simply rejects that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are responsible for the origination of all (or even much of anything, if you ask most of us) that is found in biology.uoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
bornagain, you beat me to the Fibonacci-in-nature=these-things-arise-naturally rebuttal. Its presence in nature is not emergent, it is imposed. And it is also perfect for many of its applications. In case anyone missed the post on the home page of this site a few weeks ago, here is a must-see 3-1/2 minute video (computer animation) on the subject from Cristobal Vila. Remarkable stuff Nature by Numbers Movieuoflcard
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply