Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Image of Pots and Kettles ….

August 6, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was just reading this fairly-well written article, and came upon one of the last paragraphs.

It’s an interesting take by a, shall we say, “non-scientist”:

“These scientists argue that only ‘rational agents’ could have possessed the ability to design and organise such complex systems.

Whether or not they are right (and I don’t know), their scientific argument about the absence of evidence to support the claim that life spontaneously created itself is being stifled – on the totally perverse grounds that this argument does not conform to the rules of science which require evidence to support a theory.”

You have to like this logic: the scientific community doesn’t want to entertain the idea of ID with its implicit argument that there is no evidence to support RM+NS, since ID is not a scientific theory given that it doesn’t have evidence to support its theory.

Yes, indeed, the “image of pots and kettles”!

Here’s the link.
Arrogance, dogma and why science – not faith – is the new enemy of reason

Comments
If we confine ourselves, initially, to "direct observation," then the only agents relevant for FSCI are humans. So it's not non-arbitrary. I'm willing to grant that organisms and machines both exhibit FSCI. And I'm willing to grant that in all cases that we've observed, agency is required for FSCI. But that is only because we've observed human agents in the process of making machines and 'artificial organisms'. What, then, does this tell us about the origins of 'natural organisms'? It tells us, I think, at most that agency could have been involve, not that it was (or is). Put otherwise: from the fact that "chance" + "necessity" have not been observed to produce FSCI, it does not follow that they could not have. Instead one must inquire into which scenario seems most warranted, on the basis of available evidence and theories. The last thing I want is to be seen as someone who wants to block the path of inquiry. But I also do not think that inquiry can be replaced by a priori considerations about what "chance" or "necessity" o "matter" can or cannot do. So I do not find it unreasonable to pose as a hypothesis for investigation, "was an intelligent being responsible for the origins of the universe and/or life?" I only find it unreasonable to think that the design inference is sufficient to allow us to answer that question in the affirmative. The design inference opens up a route for inquiry, but it does not settle it.Carl Sachs
August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Sachs, The PLAIN reason materialism and Theism are in opposition is because they are indeed in opposition to one another as far as basic claims of reality are concerned. (One claims a spiritual origination of reality the other claims a material origination of reality). Theism has been overwhelming empirically validated as far as the foundation of reality is concerned whereas materialism has been found wanting over and over again. If you want to claim the "Shaman" position that material and spiritual are two sides of the same coin, then you would expect that the empirical validations of the foundation of the universe would have fallen in between to two extreme postulations found for the materialistic and theistic philosophies; but that is not the case! all evidence has backed up the theistic presumptions. Prof. Sachs, science is ultimately evidence driven. Clearly you cannot deny the evidence found in relativity and quantum mechanics, not to mention the big bang and the anthropic principle, overwhelming support theism. If you do deny as such then you are being unreasonable. I believe kairosfocus pointed out as much in his excellent response to your assertion that it is unreasonable to infer an intelligent agent for the stunning complexity we find in DNA. I appreciate your trying to find weaknesses in the ID theory and may the ID theory become stronger for it, Yet there comes a time when such denial of empirically driven evidence becomes unreasonable in the extreme.bornagain77
August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
4] (3) provides at most a suggestion for research. It does not tell us anything about what actually is or is not the case. It offers mere possibility. Of course, any fact-based reasoning does not offer proof beyond rational dispute. However, the process of abduction in a factually well-anchored setting offers sufficient credibility and reliability that its deliverances are routinely treated as knowledge, with the caveat that its conclusions are provisional. But, with suitable safeguards against hasty and unsafe conclusions – e.g. the criminal law's “proof” beyond reasonable doubt, and the civil law's “proof” on the preponderance of evidence, etc., and the scientific and engineering praxis of empirical testing and openness to re-testing -- we are able to routinely function in a world that is less than absolutely certain. So, on the explanatory filter and design inference, we have a broad empirical base to infer to agency, we are looking at a case that is well beyond exhausting credibly available probabilistic resources, and it also instantiates a well-known phenomenon that is directly known to be the product of agency. Why, then, do we see all of a sudden the refusal to accept that this is “good enough for government work”? (Ans: because of the dominant institutional ethos being implicitly challenged, evolutionary materialism.) Thus too, we see the problem with your discussion of 4 and 5: 5] The weakness of (5) is that it depends on what one takes the relevant specified natural process to be. Subsequent discoveries can always require a change in one’s calculations. What I have bolded is of course now trivially known to be true of any significant research programme in science. So, why is what is an acceptable risk in all other fields suddenly a crucial defect in this case? Ans: because of selective hyper-skepticism. This also obtains for the amendment proposed in 20: 6] MG, 20: an additional weakness with premise (5) is the failure to consider the possibility of ID. Even if one assumes that ID is the only alternative to a natural process, it can only reap the benefit of the status of logical complement if it is possible that “the activity of a rational, intelligent mind” could be responsible for organisms The key problem here is of course that this misses the point that DNA is a known case of a specific type of entity as discussed above, one which is of course routinely -- and only -- observed to be the product of agency. That is, a discrete-state, chained, information-storage unit of large capacity. This is not mere analogy, it is identity. So also, we may respond to: 7] MG, 20: you would need some direct evidence (not an inference, because the goal of the argument is to justify that inference as a legitimate methodology) that design or creation of a living organism by an intelligent mind has ever occurred. Notice the substitution of “living organism,” meant to underscore the Humean claim of a weak analogy. But the problem is that we have good reason to trust knowledge by inference on cases of like kind, and so the insistence that because the information system component is in a living organism that should prevail over the observed fact that it is a known digital entity, is again selective hyper-skepticism. Let us reverse the challenge a bit: MG and CS; kindly provide a case where such an entity with a complex functional code of at least 2048 bits capacity [2 kbits] has ever been created by chance and/or necessity, or that it is reasonably feasible to do so. 2^2048 ~ 3.23 * 10^ 616. To illustrate what I am saying, let us imagine that we can take 1 million floppies on PCs using Windows, and spew bit patterns across them at random in a 1024 bit block, say using a Zener diode-driven noise source. And say let us think we can do that once and test the machines every second. In a year we would scan 10^6 x 365.25 x 24 x 3600 ~ 1.32*10^12 codes. At that rate it would take ~ 2.45 *10^604 years to scan the configuration space. So even if there are say 10^500 recognisable and runnable short programs of that length, we would have to wait 10^104 years, i.e far longer than the known universe will last. 8] On the four big bangs Notice the underlying issue: no credible empirically anchored reason [as opposed to questionable epistemology and underlying metaphysics] has been advanced for us to accept that origin of a fine-tuned cosmos, origin of life based on cellular nanotechnologies, body-plan level biodiversification and of the credible mind and conscience has been advanced. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
Prof Sachs: I appreciate your taking time to respond on points in 19 above. I note in further response: 1] CS: should we posit the existence of a rational and intelligent mind, one that guides and directs natural processes, in order to explain what is observed? Or is such an inference unnecessary, superfluous, i.e. ruled out by Occam’s razor? The point of Occam, of course, is that assumptions should not be multiplied WITHOUT NECESSITY. (That is, he is inter alia adverting to the fact that we do not spin our theories out of connexion with observed facts.) And, as from Plato on [The Laws, Bk X] we have on the record, it is well a observed fact that:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance . . .
Indeed, this precisely forms the underlying context for Monod's famous 1970's work on his materialistic view of evolution, “Chance and Necessity.” But, he overlooked a major consideration: in all cases of observed functionally specified, complex information, where we do observe the cause directly, agency is the source. So, relative to quite impressive empirical data it is a well-warranted inference that once the available probabilistic resources are exhausted we have grounds for inferring to agency as cause. Thus, the idea that inference to agency is “unnecessary” and so superfluous, is simply a begging of the question at stake in the teeth of well-known facts. [Indeed, the point is further that agency is not to be confused with “human agency,” as the accident of association is not the same as the essence of a matter.] The implication of this comes out when we see your premise 2 on your view of the ID case: 2] The origin of such information, in the case of artifacts, is best explained in terms of intelligent behavior of the tool-maker. This is quite significantly different from my bolded above: in all cases of observed functionally specified, complex information, where we do observe the cause directly, agency is the source. For, too, we have evidence that agents -- not just agents that happen to be human -- make FSCI. That is, we have no good, non- question- begging, reason to confine agency to humans. We further have no direct observation that chance and necessity only, produce FSCI. Also, we see that on the same analytical grounds of exhaustion of available probabilistic resources that we use to reconcile the classic with the statistical form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or to infer to reject null hypothesis on chance and/or necessity in statistical inference etc etc, that there is an excellent probability theory -related reason for the pattern of our observations. 3] Therefore, it is at least possible that the origin of such information, in the case of organisms, is also best explained in terms of intelligent behavior of the ‘organism-maker.’ The conclusion as you worded it is also poorly stated relative to what design thinkers hold, and in the context of say Hume's attempt to distinguish artifacts and organisms, is loaded. For, the specific phenomenon that is at stake is that in the nanotechnology of the living cell, lies the DNA, a coded digital string of length 500, 000 to 3 – 4 bn [at the low end of the range, 500 k 4-state elements encode from a configuration space of 4^500k ~ 9.9 * 10^301,029, comfortably beyond the range that we can argue that functional states will be sufficiently close that we can island hop from an arbitrary initial point to get to functionality]. This is informational, it is specified in terms of a partly understood code, and it is functional in an information system that algorithmically applies that code to produce the key molecules of life, which in turn function based on their composition as specified through DNA. In short, the DNA molecule is an instance of a now very familiar entity, one much studied in computer science and information theory: a digital storage device, albeit of course it uses 4-state not 2-state elements. So, the Humean distinction artifact/organism, plainly fails. Further to this, there is a problem of the fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism, Cliffordian evidentialism form at work, as seen in: . . .kairosfocus
August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
It is my intention here to criticize the arguments made by IDers at those places where I see difficulties in the arguments. I care about good reasoning and hate bad reasoning. But apart from that I have no intention to speak in my own voice or to defend any set of epistemological or metaphysical claims. I am interested only in being a "gadfly," and I'll leave if my services as skeptic and questioner are not desired. By corollary, the rest of you are free to entertain whatever hypotheses seem most reasonable to you with regards to my philosophical or religious attitudes and commitments. Thus, in response to (21), I would like to say only that I am uncertain as to the basis of the confidence you appear to have in the opposition between "the spiritual" and "the physical." How do you know that humanity is essentially one and not the other, or that the one is the opposite of the other? On what grounds, and with what confidence, can we be sure that one is not an aspect of the other, or that both are not different aspects of something else, or that both are abstractions from a more basic kind of reality? Surely such metaphysical thoughts are neither absent from the history of human speculation nor inconsistent with whatever empirical research has thus far revealed.Carl Sachs
August 10, 2007
August
08
Aug
10
10
2007
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Sachs and Mgarelick, To me it seems that you do not even believe it possible for their to be a spiritual realm in the first place so I submit these "few" evidences as proof that reality is far grander than any materialistic scenario can expect or imagine. Neuro-physiological (brain/body) research is now being performed, using a new scientific tool, trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This tool allows scientists to study the brain non-invasively. TMS can excite or inhibit normal electrical activity in specific parts of the brain, depending on the amount of energy administered by TMS. This tool allows scientists to pinpoint what is happening in different regions of the brain (functional mapping of the brain). TMS is wide-ranging in its usefulness; allowing the study of brain/muscle connections, the five senses, language, the patho-physiology of brain disorders, as well as mood disorders, such as depression. TMS may even prove to be useful for therapy for such brain disorders. TMS also allows the study of how memories are stored. The ability of TMS for inhibiting (turning off) specific portions of the brain is the very ability which reveals things that are very illuminating to the topic we are investigating. Consciousness and the brain are actually separate entities. When the electromagnetic activity of a specific portion of the brain is inhibited by the higher energies of TMS, it impairs the functioning of the particular portion of the body associated with the particular portion of the brain being inhibited. For example; when the visual cortex (a portion of the brain) is inhibited by higher energies of TMS, the person undergoing the procedure will temporarily become blind while it is inhibited. One notable exception to this "becoming impaired rule" is a person's memory. When the elusive "memory" portion of the brain is inhibited, a person will have a vivid flashback of a past part of their life. This very odd "amplification" of a memory indicates this fact; memories are stored in the “spiritual” consciousness independent of the brain. All of the bodies other physical functions which have physical connections in the brain are impaired when their corresponding portion of the brain loses its ability for normal electromagnetic activity. One would very well expect memories to be irretrievable from the brain if they were physically stored. Yet memories are vividly brought forth into consciousness when their corresponding locations in the brain are temporarily inhibited. This indicates that memories are somehow stored on a non-physical basis, separate from the brain in the "spiritual" consciousness. Memory happens to be a crucially integrated part of any thinking consciousness. This is true, whether or not consciousness is physically or spiritually-based. Where memory is actually located is a sure sign of where the consciousness is actually located. It provides a compelling clue as to whether consciousness is physically or spiritually-based. Vivid memory recall, upon inhibition of a portion of brain where memory is being communicated from consciousness, is exactly what one would expect to find if consciousness is ultimately self-sufficient of brain function and spiritually-based. The opposite result, a ening of memories, is what one would expect to find if consciousness is ultimately physically-based. According to this insight, a large portion, if not all, of the one quadrillion synapses that have developed in the brain as we became s, are primarily developed as pathways for information to be transmitted to, and memories to be transmitted from, our consciousness. The synapses of the brain are not, in and of themselves, our primary source for memories. Indeed, decades of extensive research by brilliant, Nobel prize-winning, minds have failed to reveal where memory is stored in the brain. Though Alzheimer’s and other disorders affect the brain’s overall ability to recover memories, this is only an indication that the overall ability of the brain to recover memory from the consciousness has been affected, and does not in any way conclusively establish that memory is actually stored in the brain. In other developments, Dr. Olaf Blanke recently described in the peer-reviewed science journal "Nature" a patient who had "out of body experiences (OBEs)”, when the electrical activity of the gyrus-angularis portion of the brain was inhibited by higher energy TMS. Though some materialists try to twist this into some type of natural explanation for spiritual experiences, by saying the portion of the brain is being stimulated, it is actually a prime example clearly indicating consciousness is independent of the brain; for the portion of the brain is in fact, being inhibited, instead of stimulated ! This patient, Dr. Olaf Blanke described, should be grateful that consciousness is independent of the brain. If consciousness were truly dependent on the brain for its survival, as materialist insist, then the patient would have most likely died; at least while that particular portion of the brain was being inhibited. Obviously, that portion of the brain which was inhibited in the patient, is the very seat of the brain's consciousness. In other compelling evidence, many children who have had hemispherectomies (half their brains removed due to life threatening epileptic conditions) at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, are in high school; and one, a college student, is on the dean’s list. The families of these children can barely believe the transformation; and not so long ago, neurologists and neuro-surgeons found it hard to believe as well. What is surprising for these people is that they are having their overriding materialistic view of brain correlation to consciousness overturned. In other words; since, it is presumed by Materialism that the brain is the primary generator of consciousness; then, it is totally expected for a person having half their brain removed to be severely affected when it comes to memory and personality. This is clearly a contradiction between the Materialistic and Theistic philosophies. According to Materialistic dogma, memory and personality should be affected, just as badly, or at least somewhat as badly, as any of the other parts of the body, by removal of half the brain. Yet, as a team of neuro-surgeons that have done extensive research on the after effects of hemispherectomy at John Hopkins Medical Center comment: "We are awed by the apparent retention of the child’s memory after removal of half of the brain, either half; and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor." Though a patients physical capacities are impaired, just as they were expected to be immediately following surgery; and have to have time to be "rewired" to the consciousness in the brain, the memory and personality of the patient comes out unscathed in the aftermath of such radical surgery. This is exactly the result one would expect, if the consciousness is ultimately independent of brain function and is spiritually-based. This is totally contrary to the results one would expect if the consciousness were actually physically-based, as the materialistic theory had presumed. In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." This is stunning proof of consciousness being independent of brain function. The only child not to have normal or improved intellect is the child who remained in a coma due to complications during surgery. It is also heartening to find that many of the patients regain full use, or almost full use, of their bodies after a varying period of recuperation in which the brain is “rewired” to the consciousness. II Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent (Our Body), is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Yet, more evidence for the independence of consciousness is found in Dr. Pim van Lommels' study of sixty-two of his cardiac patients who had near experiences (NDE’s). NDE's are the phenomena of someone being physically for a short time; yet, when they are revived, they report they were in their spiritual bodies, outside of their physical bodies and taken to another dimension. Dr. Lommel's research found no weakness in the Theistic presumption of a spiritually independent consciousness. He and his colleagues published their research in the peer-reviewed journal (Lancet, Dec. 2001). Not only did their research not find any weaknesses in the Theistic presumption; their findings severely weakened or ruled out all Materialistic presumptions that had been put forth such as anoxia in the brain, release of endomorphines, NMDA receptor blockage or medications given. Their findings also ruled out suspected psychological explanations as well; such as a coping mechanism brought on by the fear of imminent or fore-knowledge of NDE. They even had a patient in the NDE study who identified the exact nurse who took his dentures while he was in cardiac arrest. This is something only someone who was conscious of the operating room, even though he was physically , could have seen the nurse doing (Many NDE report floating above their bodies, observing the operating room from the ceiling, before going to another dimension). In other similar studies, cases in which was extracted at the time of the NDE did not support the anoxia or hypercarbia theories. It is also established that the administered to the patients, such as painkillers, appeared to inhibit and confuse rather than cause the NDE. The combination of all data from recent and retrospective research provides a large amount of evidence, which can no longer be ignored or explained away. The fact that clear, lucid experiences were reported during a time when the brain was proven to be devoid of activity (Aminoff et al., 1988, Clute and Levy 1990, de Vries et al., 1998), does not sit easily with the current scientific belief system of materialism. In another fascinating study (Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, 1997) of thirty-one blind people who had a NDE, twenty-four of the blind people reported that they could see while they were out of their physical bodies. Many of them had been blind since birth. Likewise, many deaf people reported they were able to hear while they were having a NDE. So, in answer to the question: "Is consciousness a physically or spiritually-based phenomena?"; we can, with the assurance of scientific integrity backing us up, reply that consciousness is indeed a spiritual phenomena capable of living independently of the brain, once the brain ceases to function. Dr. Lommel illustrates in his paper that the real purpose of the brain is as a mediator of the physical world to the spiritual consciousness. He compares the brain to such things as a television, radio and cell phone, to illustrate the point. The point he is trying to make clear is this; the brain is not the end point of information. It is "only" a conveyor of information to and from the true end point, our spiritually-based consciousness which is independent of the physical brain and able to live past the of our brains. Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. It is clear from these recent developments, the materialistic philosophy will only severely impede further scientific progress in this very promising area. Instead of scientists investigating how the consciousness actually interacts with the material brain, and making important discoveries of how the spiritual realm actually interacts with the material realm, scientists will be forced into blind goose chases trying to explain how consciousness arises from a purely materialistic basis. The hard evidence makes it clear that the presumptions of Materialism have been proven to be false at both the level of the universe's foundational reality and at the level of consciousness in human beings. Whereas the Theistic presumptions of the universe’s creation from a transcendent Creator, and of the consciousness’s ability to live completely separate from the brain, are both strongly supported by the hard evidences that have been brought forth by recent discoveries in science. Now, having established that Materialism has an extremely shaky foundation to begin with if indeed it can be found to have any foundation at all; let us take a hard look at a one of the more famously documented Near Experiences. The NDE of Pam Reynolds. This is the account of that NDE. A team in Phoenix specializes in an extreme form of neurosurgery called hypothermic cardiac arrest that has been created to allow operation on aneurysms deep in the brain. A 35-year-old woman undertook this surgery. Her eyes were taped shut to prevent them from drying out. They put electrodes in the auditory section of the brainstem and put molded speakers in her ears which played a constant beep, a setup designed to gauge responsiveness in the brainstem. These speakers prevented her from hearing anything in the room besides the beeps. They cooled her body to 60 degrees, which lowered her metabolic rate enough so that the surgeons could operate for a long time deep in the brain. They then rerouted her from a femoral artery into a heart-pump, though they had to switch legs because the first vessel was too small, thereby prolonging the surgery. When the EEG was flat and the brainstem stopped responding, she was by most standard medical criteria . flowed out into the heart-pump and back into the body. Next they shut off the pump and tilted the table up so that all the drained out of her brain. Only then was it safe to open her skull to clip off the aneurysm. The time of anesthetization in this procedure is about 90 minutes./// The woman reported leaving her body and hearing a D-natural buzzing sound. She watched the surgery and was puzzled by what appeared to be an electric toothbrush which one member of the team was using on her head. She also reported hearing the woman doctor say, "These vessels are too small. We can't use them for the pump." At that point, she got distracted, saw the light, went through a tunnel, saw a deceased grandmother and a few other deceased relatives who told her she had to go back. As she was coming out of the surgery, she had a cardiac arrest and they had to shock her twice to get her back. When the procedure was all over, she described to the neurosurgeon everything she saw, including the strange electric toothbrush and the box that it came in with several different attachable heads. It turned out she had accurately described a Midas Rex saw, which is used only for this procedure, and which makes a buzzing sound. So, with this case we have an example of someone who was visually and auditorally isolated, had a flat EEG, and should not have been able to think, and yet she commented that she had never thought so clearly in her life. The paragraph below is a quote of the same event from an anonymous writer in a NDE newsgroup: Such is the case of Pam Reynolds who is quite well known in the NDE community. She was having surgery performed to remove an aneurysm from her brain. Her body was cooled to below 60 degrees F. and all of the was drained from her body. Her EEG and brain stem response showed no activity, the definition of brain in many states. During all of this, she reported rising from her body and seeing the operation performed below her. She also reported contact with "The Light" and many of her deceased relatives in heaven. Remember, she had no brain activity whatsoever. Even hallucinations register brain activity. It is interesting that upon recovering she recounted accurately many details of her operation, including conversations heard and a description of the surgical instruments. It has been postulated by a NDE skeptic, that Pam overheard the sounds in the room and generated a "mental map" of things around her. What the skeptic failed to acknowledge though is that instruments were inserted into Pam's ears that generated clicks to measure brain stem response. Her brain stem response throughout the surgery was inactive. If conversations were heard, her brain stem response should have registered them. According to Pam, she was present, above her body, viewing the whole surgical operation; her consciousness, memory, personality; her whole individuality intact. She proved this with an accurate, detailed description of the instruments, conversation, and procedures used during the surgery. At the same time, science, using scientific monitoring instruments, was proving that her body was . No brain response, no heart response, no response of any kind. Obviously, the brain, nor any other organ of the body, was needed to sustain her life, and this account is just one example of the that exist in NDE literature. I believe this is as conclusive as proof gets. Clear, solid proof that man is a “spiritual” being inhabiting a physical body.bornagain77
August 10, 2007
August
08
Aug
10
10
2007
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Friendly amendment to Carl Sach #19: an additional weakness with premise (5) is the failure to consider the possibility of ID. Even if one assumes that ID is the only alternative to a natural process, it can only reap the benefit of the status of logical complement if it is possible that "the activity of a rational, intelligent mind" could be responsible for organisms. I would argue that in order to assess this possibility, you would need some direct evidence (not an inference, because the goal of the argument is to justify that inference as a legitimate methodology) that design or creation of a living organism by an intelligent mind has ever occurred.mgarelick
August 10, 2007
August
08
Aug
10
10
2007
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
I would slightly dispute the above interpretation of the current state of play. As I see it, the whole contested terrain is one of "inference to the best explanation" or "abduction." That is, what should be posited in order to explain what is observed? In this case, should we posit the existence of a rational and intelligent mind, one that guides and directs natural processes, in order to explain what is observed? Or is such an inference unnecessary, superfluous, i.e. ruled out by Occam's razor? The problem I have with intelligent design, insofar as I understand it, is this. The argument seems to proceed as follows: 1) Organisms and artifacts (i.e. tools, machines) both exhibit some feature ("FSCI," "irreducible complexity," etc.). 2) The origin of such information, in the case of artifacts, is best explained in terms of intelligent behavior of the tool-maker. 3) Therefore, it is at least possible that the origin of such information, in the case of organisms, is also best explained in terms of intelligent behavior of the 'organism-maker.' That pat of the argument look like a valid abductive inference. I don't have any problem with it. However, I do have a problem with attempts to generate substantial metaphysical conclusions from (3). (3) provides at most a suggestion for research. It does not tell us anything about what actually is or is not the case. It offers mere possibility. To generate the desired conclusion, ID arguments require an additional premise: 4) It is impossible that anything other than the activity of a rational, intelligent mind could have caused the kind of information observed in organisms. (In other words: it is possible that p; it is impossible that not-p; therefore p.) And it is here, with premise (4), that I have a disagreement. The root of that disagreement is that the arguments for (4) don't fully establish it. What they show instead is something much weaker than (4). I'll call this (5): 5) For some specified natural process, it can be calculated that it is highly improbable that such a process could generate FSCI, etc. The weakness of (5) is that it depends on what one takes the relevant specified natural process to be. Subsequent discoveries can always require a change in one's calculations. So (5) cannot license the inference to (4), and so there does not seem to be any way to warrant the further inference that only a rational and intelligent mind could have caused the features of organisms that they share with artifacts.Carl Sachs
August 10, 2007
August
08
Aug
10
10
2007
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Prof Sachs:
However, intelligent design theory is coupled together, in most presentations of it, with an explicit denial of the claim that intelligence or rationality or mind (take your pick) could be a mere effect of matter-in-motion. Clearly, if intelligence is itself merely natural, then the dichotomy of intelligent causation vs. natural causation cannot be sustained.
The Spartans had a classic reply to this sort of reasoning, in one word: IF. For: 1] We have excellent reason to infer that on the gamut of the observed cosmos, the functionally specified, complex information that is embedded in the nanotechnology of life, and in the explosion of FSCI required to give rise to the scope of biodivrsity we see, chance + necessity alone are on excellent grounds blatantly causally inadequate. (And, the speculative, after the fact ad hoc proposed quasi-infinite expansion of the cosmos is blatant metaphysics, and without a serious instance of empirical support.) 2] But, we also know independent of any theorising, through much direct experience, that intelligent agents produce such FSCI-bearing systems and structures every day -- even this thread is a case in point. 3] Moreover, we know that in EVERY case of FSCI for which we know the cause directly, that is the case. 4] So, relative to what we do know, on inference to best explanation, the FSCI in the nanotech of life and in the onward diversification required to account for biodiversity at body plan level, such agency is the best explanation. 5] Further to this, agency makes a very good explanation of the observed fine-tuning of the cosmos; and, 6] Unlike evolutionary materialism's cascade from hydrogen to humans, it has no truly serious difficulties accounting for (a) the credibility of mind and (b) the binding nature of morals. 7] Integrating the above themes and issues from a philosophical perspective, a very compelling understanding is that our Cosmos as we experience it is the product of an intelligent agent who intended to implement a cosmos habitable by life such as we enjoy it, and has then proceeded to create and sustain such life. (Some would argue that the insistence by many among the scientific elites and the phil of sci elites on begging the relevant questions by imposing so-called methodological question is motivated by their particular view of the integrative view just now outlined. And, not without evidence.) 8] Finally, I wish to hear of a credible, non-question-begging reason for inferring that "[verbalising, abstractly conceptualising] intelligence is itself merely natural" as opposed to what we see: an artifact of mind. The very minds that have to be credible to even reason to and draw out conclusions of materialism. In short, "IF . . ." has to be substantiated, not begged. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers may wish to look at my always linked through my name, and here for an overview of some of the issues by Dallas Willard of USC. This issue was also put in the Scoville Scale thread of July 26, in response to some of the same challenges.kairosfocus
August 9, 2007
August
08
Aug
9
09
2007
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Well said PaV, Science does deal with evidence. ID does have extensive evidence , Yet IDs evidence is automatically dismissed as invalid since it does not lead to a purely materialistic explanation. Yet as I pointed out in my earlier post leading scientists admit their current theories are insufficient to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy.bornagain77
August 9, 2007
August
08
Aug
9
09
2007
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Jumping on the back of bornagain77's last post, with the hope of getting back to the orginal cast of this thread, here is the state of evolutionary dialogue: IDer to NDEr: "I don't see any evidence showing that RM+NS can lead to macroevolution. Yes, there is such a thing as microevolution, that validates a mechanism such as RM+NS. But where is the evidence for macroevolution?" NDEr to IDer: "Evolution is a fact. There is enormous evidence pointing to evolution in action, such as moths and finch beaks. There is a scientific consensus among all scientists who are doing the actual work in these areas. It's just a matter of time before any questions that haven't already been answered, will be answered." IDer to NDEr: "Well, I just don't see any evidence for RM+NS, except for small, very minor phenotypic changes that occur among species. When it comes to macroevolution, the fossil record shows just the opposite. I'm thinking of the Cambrian Explosion." NDEr to IDer: "Oh, the Cambrian Explosion is no kind of explosion at all. We see a great number of intermediate forms in the Ediacaran, which is just as Darwin expected." IDer to NDEr: "But those intermediate forms arise at a much quicker pace than anything Darwin imagined. And, when you look at the complexity of organisms, how could that have happened by chance? Just look at the DNA code itself: it's a code, just like intelligent beings have created. All the evidence certainly suggests intelligence is responsible for the DNA code. It gives all the evidence of design." NDEr to IDer: "Well, then, who is the Designer? If we don't know who the Designer is, then we can't know anything about the design. You have no proof. And your attempt to talk about a Desinger just proves that ID is no more than creationism. Unless you can come up with evidence for ID, ID is no more than an updated form of creationism; it's certainly not science. Science deals with evidence. If ID doesn't have any evidence, then it isn't a science." In this hypothetical discussion, notice that the IDer begins by asking for evidence for evolution, conceding microevolution; then when the discussion turns to macroevolution, no evidence at all is given by the NDEr, except to confute the Cambrian Explosion, and the NDEr does this using evidence that contradicts Darwin's predictions about the fossil record; finally the NDEr pleads complete ignorance when it comes to a Designer, and, without having presented ANY evidence at all for macroevolution, without having any argument whatsoever to counter the rather obvious inference of intelligence that DNA illicits, simply dismisses ID out of hand with the allegation that: "Science deals with evidence. If ID doesn't have any evidence, then it isn't a science." As they quip: this is rich!PaV
August 9, 2007
August
08
Aug
9
09
2007
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Mgarelick, True science is conducted with no preconceived philosophical bias, You are blinded to the bigger picture of reality if you will only except material explanations. I've sited several studies indicating that consciousness is indeed separate from the brain. Man's technology is at the point to truly investigate this fascinating topic thoroughly, Yet the materialistic dogma that is currently entrenched over our scientific institutions prevent the widescale study that would unleash this knowledge. Science is being doing a vast disservice by materialism. Every since the big bang materialism has only sent scientists down blind alleys as far as cutting edge knowledge is concerned. It truly is sad that you can't see your materialistic bias is blinding you.bornagain77
August 9, 2007
August
08
Aug
9
09
2007
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
bornagain77: Sadly, I'm much too busy to read your entire post carefully, so I hope I'm not missing something fundamental that would render my comment nonsensical. You said:
Many times materialist object to theist by saying “God did it that way is not a scientific answer.” Well I have news for the materialists “God DID do it that way and the scientific answer is to try and figure out how God did it that way!
One of the main reasons why I can't take ID seriously as science is that it seems that almost nobody is involved in trying to "figure out" the application of design. The most obvious explanation of this curious reticence is the Chinese wall between the "scientific" face of ID and religious/philosophical underpinning -- which is, as I see it, of a piece with the dischord of Behe and Gonzalez et al. expecting to be taken seriously by the science academy while Johnson inveighs against naturalism.mgarelick
August 8, 2007
August
08
Aug
8
08
2007
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
mgarelick, All I know mgarlick is that materialism is false. I hope you are not confusing the scientific method with methodological naturalism which is truly only materialism. Let me point out two areas materialism is hampering scientific progress. 1 Transcranial Magnetis Stimulation studies, Hemisphererectomy studies, And scientific after-life studies by Dr. Pim Van Lommel all establish as being separate from consciousness. Yet materialists cannot admit this clear point of evidence for they would give away their whole game if they did. Yet man is in good position technologically to investigate thoroughly how the consciousness interacts with the matter of the brain. Needless to say outstanding scientific breakthroughs are possible in this area yet man is hampered because of the false materialistic philosophy. And now Gravity. Scientists and mathematicians have had to invent “missing dark matter” to account for an “excessive” amount of gravity in the universe to keep the equations of gravity from becoming ineffective. Theism is not committed into inventing such hypothetical matter and is free to expect the force of gravity to arise independent of the matter from a “primary higher dimension” in order to enable life to exist in this universe. Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter. Bruce H. Margon, chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, told the New York Times, "It's a fairly embarrassing situation to admit that we can't find 90 percent of the universe" The philosophy of Materialism has a huge problem, to put it mildly, if it can’t find 95% of the material of this universe it insists is suppose to exist. What's more the problem may be intractable for materialism, because the “matter” had to be “invented” to keep the equations of gravity, that explain gravity (space/time curvature) to a material basis, from becoming ineffective. Yet, there very well may be a way around this problem with the general relativity equations. If scientists and mathematicians were to treat the force of gravity as a primary constituent of the universe and were to treat matter as subordinate to gravity (as Theism postulates), then the equations that explain gravity may very well be able to be reconfigured, or reinterpreted, to reflect this proposed truth found from the Theistic perspective. The Theistic postulation would state that space is curved from a higher dimension to enable matter to exist in the first place, and to have an existence that is conducive for life exist in this universe. In fact, gravity is already found to be conducive (finely-tuned) for life at the level of star formation. That is to say, gravity is found in the anthropic principle (which is a Theistic principle) to be exactly what it needs to be in order to allow the right type of stars to form, for the right duration of time, to allow life to be possible in this universe. Thus, the theistic postulation for gravity has already found preliminary validation. The question that truly needs to be asked, to solve this missing matter mystery, is not the vain materialistic question of “Where is the missing matter in this universe?” but is the Theistic question of “Why is it necessary for this precise amount of gravity to emanate from a higher dimension in order for life to exist in this universe?” It seems a preliminary answer to this question is already found in the anthropic principle once again. If gravity were not at it’s “just right” value in the big bang, a universe conducive to life would not exist. That is to say, gravity is found to act as the counterbalance of the big bang. If gravity were weaker, the big bang would have been “too e” and matter would have been too thinly spread out to allow the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Thus, life in this universe would not have been possible. If gravity were a bit stronger at the big bang, matter would have collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang. Again life, as we know it, would not have been possible. Thus in the anthropic principle, which is actually a naturally occurring postulation of the Theistic philosophy, we already find a preliminary reason for the huge amount of “missing matter’ to exist, whereas the materialistic philosophy can postulate no reason why the matter is missing and is left vainly searching for non-existent matter in this universe to account for the “excessive” gravity that is found in this universe. I believe the amount of “missing matter” can be further refined to the anthropic principle. For instance, the missing matter may be further refined to reflect the fact that the huge amount of missing matter actually allows us the truly fortunate privilege of scanning the universe unimpeded with our telescopes ( “The Privileged Planet” by Guillermo Gonzalez Ph.D.). That is to say, if the huge amount of missing matter actually did exist, the universe would be a lot less “see through” than what it currently is. Our knowledge of the history of the universe would suffer dramatically as a result of this reduced visibility. As well, it is very likely that an answer for why the galaxies rotate at the much greater “unpredicted” value that they do will be found in the anthropic principle instead of the materialistic philosophy. As pointed out earlier, the Theistic postulations in science have already provided many correct predictions with stunning empirical validations. Predictions that materialism not only did not predict but was blatantly incorrect on. Thus, it is only natural to look to the Theistic postulations to answer the many remaining questions we have about the universe. To give further evidence of this “missing matter” problem, all matter is reducible to energy as illustrated by Einstein’s famous equation of e=mc2. Thus it may be plainly said that all matter has been created out of energy. Yet energy in and of itself does not produce the force of gravity (space-time curvature). In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity. According to the anthropic principle, energy actually makes space “expand”, by “exactly the right amount” to allow life to be possible. Put simply, matter is not justified by the overall empirical evidence in science to have a totally equal status with gravity in gravity equations. Theism is free to expect gravity to arise independently of material objects from a higher dimension without ever having to “invent” matter that will, by all current indications of empirical evidence, never be found in the “physical” dimension of this universe but will only be found when taking into consideration the “primary higher dimension” of the Theistic philosophy. The following is a released statement from experts that gives further illustration to this “missing material” problem of the universe. The abstract of the September 1006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force (which, “was established by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee [AAAC] and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel [HEPAP] as a joint sub-committee to advise the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation on future dark energy research”) says: “Dark energy appears to be the nt component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.” The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. As well Light has been proven to be timeless by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang. As such, since the fundamental force of gravity does not arise from energy and also travels at the “timeless” speed of light, it falls to reason gravity must also arise from this other “primary higher timeless” dimension. Many people who do not believe in God say “Just show me God and I will believe!” Yet the foundation of this “material” universe that is found in relativity and quantum mechanics blatantly displays actions that defy our concepts of time and space. Defying time and space is generally regarded by most people to be a miraculous occurrence. It is considered to be a miraculous occurrence because it blatantly defies all materialistic presumptions that have been put forth! Indeed, the foundation of this universe has the fingerprints of God all over it. Many times materialist object to theist by saying “God did it that way is not a scientific answer.” Well I have news for the materialists “God DID do it that way and the scientific answer is to try and figure out how God did it that way! As demonstrated repeatedly by the failed predictions of materialism, the materialistic philosophy is a blatant deception that only impedes further true scientific progress. To remedy the Gravity problem it is necessary to define, as best as we can, this “primary higher dimension” that our universe came from and to shed the last vestiges of materialism that are blinding us to what is right in front of us! Having a proper mathematical foundation for gravity in science may very well enable even more wonderful breakthroughs in science. This problem of missing matter is a blatant gap in man’s knowledge and my assertion is simply that the mathematical remedy for the problems in gravity equations will not be solved until the proper Theistic approach is used in solving them. Colossians 1:17 He was before all else began and it is His power that Holds everything together.bornagain77
August 8, 2007
August
08
Aug
8
08
2007
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
First, I'd like to stress my recognition of the fact that science is itself a dynamic and evolving (if you will) social practice -- and therefore it cannot be rigidly defined. (In other words, I think that Laudan is right to think the "demarcation problem" is a red herring.) So I don't insist that science necessarily be methodologically naturalistic -- not at all -- because I don't think concepts of social practices, such as "science", have necessary or sufficient conditions at all. So it is entirely possible that some future science will abandon methodological naturalism. The only debate ID proponents will get from me is over whether or not we are now at a point where a commitment to methodological naturalism is presently "blocking the path of inquiry" (as Peirce would say). In any event, I only introduced that terminology because someone above asked if ID accepts methodological naturalism, and Dembski, for what it's worth, explicitly denies methodological naturalism. (My books are all packed, otherwise I'd provide a citation.) Second, I'll acknowledge that design inferences by themselves do not lead us out of the natural world (i.e. the world as represented in our best physical theories). However, intelligent design theory is coupled together, in most presentations of it, with an explicit denial of the claim that intelligence or rationality or mind (take your pick) could be a mere effect of matter-in-motion. Clearly, if intelligence is itself merely natural, then the dichotomy of intelligent causation vs. natural causation cannot be sustained.Carl Sachs
August 8, 2007
August
08
Aug
8
08
2007
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Carl, You have admitted in the past that no science conducted under the premise that there is a God and that this God may have intervened at some point and time in the natural world would be any different from science conducted under the premise that there is no God. So why do some make the distinction and eliminate God as a possible explanation. That is what current science does and it is unnecessary. In fact one could argue that the range of hypotheses is greater with the assumption that God exists than without HIm. The specious argument that appealing to God interferes with science never interfered before when most scientists assumed God so why would it now. You know and I know the real reason and it has nothing to do with the quality and purity of science. I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Most here are not used to arguing philosophy of science but are rather people used to dealing with the implication of facts. There are engineers, doctors, computer programers, lawyers here and all are used to arguing the implication of facts since on a practical basis this is what their occupations have been about. ID is an attempt to draw inferences from facts and that is what good science has always been. It does not necessarily take us beyond the natural world but it could. Unfortunately ever since LaPlace made a fool of Newton, scientists have been reluctant to admit God into the cause and effect of the natural world. Hence the frequent evoking of the "God of the Gap" argument by anyone who wants to eliminate the idea that God may have intervened somehow at some point in time. To many it is a religion that God has never intervened and some of these actually believe in Him. Funny contradiction.jerry
August 8, 2007
August
08
Aug
8
08
2007
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Prof Sachs: First, I have commented over at the Scoville thread. Next, I mus take issue with two things, [1] your implied definition of science as being in effect physicalist and methodologically naturalistic, and [2] the implied distorting re-definition of design theory in your:
"Dembski is very clear that he regards ID as rejecting methodological naturalism as well as metaphysical naturalism. It must do this in order to yield scientific knowledge of entities that transcend the natural world . . . . when we make ‘design inferences’ all the time, we are making inferences that transcend, or take us beyond, the natural world."
--> For the first, a good place for us to start in this semi-popular forum is with Dan Peterson's article here. For the point is that Science does not have to be and historically has not normally been understood as being methodologically naturalistic or metaphysically rooted in evolutionary materialism. --> Specifically, it is highly question-begging, historically inaccurate, unphilosophical and unreasonable to try to redefine science as in effect, that which reductionistically explains everything from hydrogen to humans by the cascade of materialistic evolutions, and associated blind forces tracing to physics in the end. --> Instead, let's start with what commonly available highly respected dictionaries pre-ID debates said about science and its methods:
science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
--> These definitions do not beg worldviews questions, and have abundant historical foundation and reflect the common praxis of real world science. --> Now, too, in speaking of "making inferences that transcend, or take us beyond, the natural world" you are dangerously ambiguous. If one wishes, he can speak of mind/agency as beyond the natural world, but the terms you have used are freighted with the unnecessary issue/ confusion/ implication: SUPERNATURAL -- i.e miracle-working -- world. (I hardly need to again underscore the rhetorical, legal and public policy contexts of how frequently ID is misrepresented as an improper injection of the supernatural into science.) --> Let us then go to Dembski's summary of the project of ID: intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence. --> I am sure that you are aware that in every case where we directly observe the origin of entities that are functionally specified as exhibiting/using complex information, they are seen to be artifacts of intelligent agents. That is, CSI is a reliable, empirically well warranted sign of agency. --> And so, the study of signs of intelligence is a reasonable scientific project, indeed, it appears in many guises in day to day science. It is only when the issue that the agents involved in certain notorious cases may be counter to the demands of evolutionary materialism, that there is a controversy on the matter. --> I suggest a fairly simple, step by step solution:
[1] recognise, with Plato and others ever since, that objects that are caused are contingent in the first sense of not being necessary beings [BTW, so much for Mr Dawkins' attempt to dismiss God as more complex than the systems of life, requiring a causal explanation; for if God is, he is a Necessary Being], and [2] that the relevant causal forces trace to one or more of [a] natural regularities, [b] chance, [c] agency. Thence, [3] Where we observe the further degree of contingency expressed through intense potential multiplicity of states/configurations, we may rule out NR as the primary relevant cause as the essential feature is potential variety, e.g the wording of this post. So, [4] Where the configuration is not only complex [in the Dembski UPB sense or substantially equivalent formulations] but also specified independently [especially by being functional in an information processing situation], we may also see that such a state is relatively sparse in the configuration space of possible configs. [E.g. an English language text string of say 200 characters.] Thence, [5] In such a case, we normally infer to agency as the best causal explanation, as it cuts down on the search volume and makes it feasible to occur relative to available probabilistic resources, a major challenging facing a chance-based null hypothesis.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 8, 2007
August
08
Aug
8
08
2007
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
Whereas Dembski is very clear that he regards ID as rejecting methodological naturalism as well as metaphysical naturalism. It must do this in order to yield scientific knowledge of entities that transcend the natural world. I take it, then, that when we make ‘design inferences’ all the time, we are making inferences that transcend, or take us beyond, the natural world.
The examples, or at least some of the examples, I've heard him use, though, tend to be solidly within the natural world. And the phrase "all the time" implies that there is nothing unusual about what he is proposing.mgarelick
August 7, 2007
August
08
Aug
7
07
2007
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
bornagain77 -- I hope you didn't spend too much time composing that answer; there is a lot there, but it is nonresponsive. I didn't ask about the merits of methodological naturalism. Are ID and methodological naturalism inherently incompatible? If so, is it disingenuous to appeal to analogies with forensic science and archeology to support the scientific pedigree of design inference?mgarelick
August 7, 2007
August
08
Aug
7
07
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
In his Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski argues that intelligent design theory requires that one relax the demand for methodological naturalism. One can set up the terms as something like this: metaphysical naturalism holds that everything that exists can be understood in terms of "the natural world," i.e. through some present or future physical theory. methodological naturalism holds that all scientific knowledge is knowledge of "the natural world," i.e. some present or future physical theory. One of the key differences is methodological naturalism leaves open the possibility of non-scientific knowledge of non-natural entities. That is, science yields only knowledge of nature, but there are other epistemological and metaphysical discourses. Methodological naturalism without metaphysical naturalism is critical for "theistic evolution." Whereas Dembski is very clear that he regards ID as rejecting methodological naturalism as well as metaphysical naturalism. It must do this in order to yield scientific knowledge of entities that transcend the natural world. I take it, then, that when we make 'design inferences' all the time, we are making inferences that transcend, or take us beyond, the natural world.Carl Sachs
August 7, 2007
August
08
Aug
7
07
2007
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
mgarelick, And as long as I’m asking — is ID on the same footing as any other scientific investigation or program (as, I think, is implied when Dembski and others say that we make inferences to design all the time), or does it require relaxation of methodological naturalism? When you refer to methodological naturalism, you are really referring to the materialistic philosophy. Yet pure scientific investigation is suppose to have no preconceived philosophical bias prior to investigation. In actuality the track record of methodological naturalism (materialism) is terrible in predictions. Please let me illustrate this problem more clearly for you. There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical (methodological) naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an eternal material basis. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common, Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Nov. 7, 1996, study in Nature). Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. Now I ask you mgarelick, Which prevailing philosophy has been more acurate in it's predictions? and which philosophy has earned the right to be the prevailing hypothesis of science?bornagain77
August 7, 2007
August
08
Aug
7
07
2007
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
mgarelick: "Is it really the argument of ID (or of anyone here) that there is no evidence to support RM+NS?" There's no evidence that it can explain the fossil record.PaV
August 6, 2007
August
08
Aug
6
06
2007
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Is it really the argument of ID (or of anyone here) that there is no evidence to support RM+NS?
No, of course not. What is under contention is the limitations--the "edge"--of these Darwinian mechanisms.Patrick
August 6, 2007
August
08
Aug
6
06
2007
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Is it really the argument of ID (or of anyone here) that there is no evidence to support RM+NS? And as long as I'm asking -- is ID on the same footing as any other scientific investigation or program (as, I think, is implied when Dembski and others say that we make inferences to design all the time), or does it require relaxation of methodological naturalism?mgarelick
August 6, 2007
August
08
Aug
6
06
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Mat I draw Denise O'Leary's attention to an article in today's (6 August) London Daily Telegraph by Dr. James Le Fanu. Le Fanu, a medical doctor, refers to "five cardinal mysteries of the mind" unknowable to science, and suggests these provide "one in the eye for the noisy professor Richard Dawkins and his chums."Ian Turner
August 6, 2007
August
08
Aug
6
06
2007
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
That lady sure has an excellent grip on the situation.bornagain77
August 6, 2007
August
08
Aug
6
06
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply