Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The New York Times runs an “aliens are maybe real” story

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So we hear from Gizmodo:

The New York Times published a story Thursday night about the likelihood that aliens have visited Earth. The main takeaway? Aliens could be real and the U.S. government has been conducting classified briefings in recent years about things left behind by “off-world vehicles.”

So what does the new article have to say about the possibility of little green men—aside from the ones currently in Portland? A well-funded group inside the Office of Naval Intelligence is actively investigating unexplained encounters between members of the military and unidentified flying objects. And while some of the “materials” recovered by U.S. government sources have turned out to have perfectly innocent explanations, some materials are still a total mystery.

Matt Novak, “New York Times Casually Drops Another Story About How Aliens Are Probably Real” at Gizmodo

Here at the New York Times (paywall).

There are many total mysteries out there. We need more to go on than mere mystery to take aliens seriously. One remembers the astronomer who convinced himself recently that space detritus Oumuamua was an extraterrestrial light sail and accused the rest of us of being too dumb to see that.

Like we said, as long as there’s an Out There Out There, they’ll be Out There

See also: Tales of an invented god

Comments
JVL, you obviously believe in something -- complex, digitally coded, alphanumeric, string data structure algorithmic information and associated molecular nanotech (so, language and goal-directed process) -- from nothing; molecular noise. You do so, not because empirical evidence warrants this, but because a domineering lab coat clad ideology demands it as part of its origins narrative. The patent absurdity in the teeth of abundant evidence tells us just where the true balance lies on the merits. Not just regarding an anonymous Internet objector, but about the desperation of the guardians of that ideology as the full weight of the evidence begins to sink home. KFkairosfocus
July 31, 2020
July
07
Jul
31
31
2020
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, What an excellent and interesting post! While you're examining the content of Howard Pattee's analysis, JVL is just taking potshots (and missing the point). As far as ID versus random chance or some innate and undiscovered self-organization capability, I believe we're left only with the pragmatism of whether scientific understanding advances more quickly with one paradigm or the other. In numerous examples from history, ID is clearly superior. Hat's off to you! -QQuerius
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
.
UB: If you do indeed drop the rhetoric, then you’ll be left with the fact that Howard Pattee’s physical analysis of the gene system demonstrates that a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure are all required for the origin of life, JVL" I don’t think he said that.
The mask is finally off. The con man is now out in the open for all to see. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol-matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. Symbols are energy-degenerate structures not determined by laws that act locally as special boundary conditions or constraints on law-based energy-dependent matter in living systems. Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages - Howard Pattee Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code. The Physics of Symbol Systems , Howard Pattee Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life. I find it gratuitous to use the concept of symbol, even metaphorically, in physical systems where no function exists. Symbols do not exist in isolation but are part of a semiotic or linguistic system (Pattee, 1969a). The necessary but not sufficient conditions for biological informational concepts like signs, symbols, memories, instructions, and messages are (1) an object or referent that the information is about, (2) a physical embodiment or vehicle that stands for what the information is about (the object), and (3) an interpreter or agent that separates the referent information from the vehicle’s material structure, and that establishes the stands-for relation. - Epistemic, Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological Information - Howard Pattee This additional self-referent condition for being the subject-part of an epistemic cut I have called semantic (or semiotic) closure (Pattee, 1982, 1995). This is the molecular chicken-egg closure that makes the origin of life problem so difficult. The Physics of Symbol Systems, - Howard Pattee Biosemiotics distinguishes life from inanimate matter by its dependence on material construction controlled by coded symbolic information. This irreducible primitive distinction between matter and symbol is necessary for open-ended evolvability and the origin of life. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, - Howard Pattee This second freedom is the freedom of interpretation of the symbols. This requires an arbitrary code, a condition necessary for a general-purpose language, a concept that I will discuss in Sec.5. The implementation of a code requires a subtle but essential physical condition. The code’s arbitrariness means that the constraint of the coding process must have freedom that is not completely under the control of the dynamics, but at the same time it must depend on the dynamics for execution of the coding rules. This requires that the constraint must have more degrees of freedom in its structural configurations than the laws allow in its energy-based dynamic behavior. (Pattee, 1968, 1972). - Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages - Howard Pattee These are the physical conditions required to implement von Neumann’s logical closure. I have called this semantic closure, but Luis Rocha (2001) has more accurately called it semiotic closure because its realization also includes the syntax and pragmatic physical control processes. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, - Howard Pattee etc. etc. etc. etc. Upright BiPed
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: You keep asking me for evidence to prove something I have never argued for.>/B> You have argued over and over and over again that Dr Pattee's work implies design. I have said I don't think it does and backed that up with statements from him. Then you doubled down. So THEN I've asked you for cases where he has backed up your statements. You are glossing over your long standing stance: i.e. there is design in nature and that Dr Pattee's work shows that to be the case when I don't think you have evidence for that. And that's what I have asked you to show. ONCE AGAIN: Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. That is his personal metaphysical position — and like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet — it may or may not be based on a whole wide variety of non-scientific factors. It is distinct and separate from his extensive scientific documentation of the gene system. This is a proper distinction which you are well aware of. So, support for ID is a metaphysical as opposed to scientific position? Or support for materialism is a metaphysical position? Are they both metaphysical positions? You have already indicated that proper science is the critical issue in evaluating physical evidence, and you have made it clear that a researcher’s personal metaphysical position is irrelevant. So, you have choice between being incoherent and hypocritical, or dropping the rhetoric. Gosh, I'm happy to accept support for ID is not a scientific position. But that's not what yu want clearly. Because you think your position is scientific but mine is not. I think. If you do indeed drop the rhetoric, then you’ll be left with the fact that Howard Pattee’s physical analysis of the gene system demonstrates that a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure are all required for the origin of life, I don't think he said that. AND you're taking back what you said about ID being a metaphysical, non-scientific stance. Or you didn't. I think you're trying to sneak your view through the cracks in the system while still decrying that which you disagree with. Look, there is NO evidence that Dr Pattee thinks his work supports ID. There is evidence that he thinks it, at least partially, doesn't. I can see why you think his work does support ID but I don't think he does. And I think he is best able to judge his own work considering how much time he spent on it and how well his work has stood up to scrutiny. I would say it's probably just best to leave it now except you won't like me having the last word so you'll just have to have another comment.JVL
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
JVL,
Environmental pressures don’t ‘create’ new alles but new alles might give an avantage when the environmental pressures change. Are you really so oblivious to evolutionary theory?
No, I was simply asking what you meant about the source of information that DNA encodes. But it might help your credibility if you spelled "alleles" correctly each time you use it. Apparently, you don't use that term a lot. However, the erroneous spelling might actually prove to your benefit! What started out as "alleles" mutated under your fingers into "alles," the German word for "all," which often bonds with another linguistic allele to form über alles, and after many other variations and a giant sneeze might result in "Deutschland über alles" or something else as you type. Eventually, after millions of years, all these mutations might produce a cogent response that doesn't include an ad hominem attack. ;-) We can only hope! -QQuerius
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
ET: Your ignorance is not an argument. The fact remains that the design inference doesn’t rely on probability arguments Of course it does. The constant refrain is: such and such is too improbable to have arisen via unguided processes. The only reason probability arguments exist is because there isn’t anything else to consider- no evidence and no way to test the claims being made. So, the ID argument isn't based on probability arguments but you have tomake that argument because evolutionary science hasn't disproved your hypothesis? Really? Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. If you and yours had something besides your lies, denials and wishful then probability arguments would be moot. See above. No one one this planet knows how to test the claims of unguided evolution. No one. That is why probability arguments exist. However, as Dr. Donald Johnson wrote, your side doesn’t even deserve a seat at the probability table. Okay. I guess. Whatever that all means. A design requirement for the organisms and their respective environments. So how does that work exactly? Variations in the genetic code arise from design requirements? Please explain why that would be necessary. Why not just introduce new code for new portions?JVL
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
FYI - The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic codeHeartlander
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
. Patronizing? No, as I said, it is a fair question. You keep asking me for evidence to prove something I have never argued for. I have told you this (in the most unambiguous ways possible) on multiple occasions, yet you keep asking for the same thing. It is basically incoherent (i.e. I keep telling you I am a male, and you keep asking me to prove I’m not pregnant). At some point, a person begins to wonder if the other person (for some unknown reason) simply does not grasp what is being said. As an alternative, you could explain in straightforward terms why you keep asking me for proof of something I do not say, but you don’t appear to want to do that either. In the end, I write this all off as the intellectual price you are willing to pay in order to keep asking me a purely rhetorical question, and I leave it up to you to decide if being incoherent is profitable for you. ONCE AGAIN: Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. That is his personal metaphysical position -- and like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet -- it may or may not be based on a whole wide variety of non-scientific factors. It is distinct and separate from his extensive scientific documentation of the gene system. This is a proper distinction which you are well aware of. You have already indicated that proper science is the critical issue in evaluating physical evidence, and you have made it clear that a researcher’s personal metaphysical position is irrelevant. So, you have choice between being incoherent and hypocritical, or dropping the rhetoric. If you do indeed drop the rhetoric, then you’ll be left with the fact that Howard Pattee’s physical analysis of the gene system demonstrates that a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure are all required for the origin of life, just as Von Neumann predicted – i.e. the exact system that Crick, Watson, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, and Nirenberg confirmed by experiment between 1953 and 1966. On this, Howard Pattee and I are in complete agreement.Upright BiPed
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
JVL:
The design inference, as it stands depends on probability arguments.
Your ignorance is not an argument. The fact remains that the design inference doesn’t rely on probability arguments. The only reason probability arguments exist is because there isn’t anything else to consider- no evidence and no way to test the claims being made.
So it’s not ID’s fault that they have to resort to probability arguments, it’s the fault of the people they disagree with?
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. If you and yours had something besides your lies, denials and wishful then probability arguments would be moot. No one one this planet knows how to test the claims of unguided evolution. No one. That is why probability arguments exist. However, as Dr. Donald Johnson wrote, your side doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability table.
Why are there variations in the genetic code then?
A design requirement for the organisms and their respective environments.ET
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Querius: I don’t understand. How are you imagining that information enters into “the system” and what do you mean by “configurations”? Are you talking about environmental “pressures” creating new alleles in an organism in a Lamarckian sense or do you have something else in mind? Configurations are particular collections of genetic materials as they were at the time. Environmental pressures don't 'create' new alles but new alles might give an avantage when the environmental pressures change. Are you really so oblivious to evolutionary theory? You know what it says! It seems you are more interested in catching me out than actuatlly talking about the consensus theory.JVL
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
ET: You posted something about his disagreeing with probability arguments. The design inference doesn’t rely on probability arguments. So you failed to show that he disagrees with the design inference with respect to the genetic code. Probabilities don’t even enter into consideration. Dr Dembski's argument is probability based. Dr Behe's argument is probability based. The design inference, as it stands depends on probability arguments. And Dr Pattee recognised that and said so. The only reason probability arguments exist is because there isn’t anything else to consider- no evidence and no way to test the claims being made. So it's not ID's fault that they have to resort to probability arguments, it's the fault of the people they disagree with? Comical. Who says the system (genetic code) adapted to variations? That’s question-begging. Why are there variations in the genetic code then?JVL
July 30, 2020
July
07
Jul
30
30
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
JVL,
I think the information enters into the system as it is affected and influenced by the environmental pressures. Some configurations respond ‘better’ to the environmental conditions than others.
I don't understand. How are you imagining that information enters into "the system" and what do you mean by "configurations"? Are you talking about environmental "pressures" creating new alleles in an organism in a Lamarckian sense or do you have something else in mind? -QQuerius
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Who says the system (genetic code) adapted to variations? That's question-begging.ET
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
JVL:
This isn’t a dance, it’s science. Can you come up with the goods or not?
Your understanding of science is deficient. And we have presented the goods. You choked.ET
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
JVL:
Yes there is. I presented it. You should try harder to pay attention.
You posted something about his disagreeing with probability arguments. The design inference doesn't rely on probability arguments. So you failed to show that he disagrees with the design inference with respect to the genetic code. Probabilities don't even enter into consideration. The only reason probability arguments exist is because there isn't anything else to consider- no evidence and no way to test the claims being made.ET
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
WJM: Why are you assigning me duplicitous and devious motivations? Because you keep asking me to draw a conclusion based on something that hasn't happened yet. That's a rhetorical ploy. What I’m doing is trying to determine if pursuing this avenue of discussion will even matter in the end. Who cares what you or I think? It's the truth that matters. Come up with the goods or don't. Take your chances as to whether or not I'd concede. I do not believe you'd choose to prove the point based on how I'd respond. You're playing a game. I”m sorry if you found this to be a mischievous exercise on my part. We can discontinue the conversation if you wish ???? No worries. I'm happy to continue as long as the discussion does not depend on how I might or might not respond to a point that might or might not be made. I appreciate your considerations for possible misunderstandings and reasoning flaws but let's just get to it eh. Just do it or don't. If you're right and I deny your results then it will be obvious. If you're right and I accept your results then bully for you. If you're wrong then you have to accept that. This isn't a dance, it's science. Can you come up with the goods or not? In science you don't ask people ahead of time how they'd react if you found something; you march up to the table and lay down your results and invite people to take their best shot at it. If you've got the data and the results then present them. Just do it.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Querius: But I noticed that you haven’t addressed the question about the source of information. This is a very important and relevant question since information is what DNA encodes. I think the information enters into the system as it is affected and influenced by the environmental pressures. Some configurations respond 'better' to the environmental conditions than others.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
JVL: You asked. "Are you sure?" No, I'm not. That was my whole point. I'm not the one that said that "millions of years of evolution" is a "big difference" without knowing whether not it made any difference at all wrt whether or not its presence should be regarded as evidence of ID. I don't know that "millions of years of evolution" represents any significant difference or not in that regard. Yet, you seemed to be confident it was a "big difference." You asked: "We don’t know. I don’t know. Why decide with such limited data?" I didn't decide whether or not millions of years of evolution represented a big difference. You did. Why did you decide this and assert it if you admit you don't know? You said: "Yes, I know, you’re trying to play some clever argumentative game. You want me to bite the bait and then you’ll reel me in." Why are you assigning me duplicitous and devious motivations? It seems to me that the basis for most of the conversation here depends on whether or not this point is even worth pursuing. If "millions of years of evolution," and the potential that semiotic code necessarily predates evolution isn't going to make a difference to you in terms of whether or not you find that semiotic code to be evidence as ID, it's unnecessary to go down that path. What would be the point? Perhaps we can identify some other avenue of exploration that would be fruitful. JVL said: "Can you do it? Yes or no? Stop playing a game, do the work. What fool would concede before they saw the evidence? Not me." Why are you characterizing what I'm doing here as "playing a game?" I'm not asking you to "concede before you see the evidence." What I'm doing is trying to determine if pursuing this avenue of discussion will even matter in the end. It's not my plan to get you to commit to agreeing that if X could be proved, then you'll agree that it is evidence of ID, then present supposed evidence that I claim proves X. I'm not going to present any evidence of anything here, and I'm not going to try to prove anything. That was never my intention. What I'm doing is having a discussion with you. My motivation thus far: I'm trying to determine (1) why you will accept semiotic code as evidence of ID when it appears in one kind of substrate and not another, and (2) if you can support that decision rationally. To this end, I've challenged your view that "millions of years of evolution" represents a "big difference" between the two substrates we find semiotic code on or in. To this end I posed a hypothetical "what if" question that led to a point I think we both can agree on: your objection to the organic substrate semiotic code as evidence of ID doesn't rely on the existence of millions of years of evolution. You agree that semiotic code may or may not be necessary for evolution to even begin. This is something you don't know; so how can it be a "big difference" if you don't know the answer to that question? For all you know, semantic code is necessary for evolution to begin. This isn't an exercise in "gotcha," unless you consider exploring the reasoning behind one's views a "gotcha" process. Personally, if I have flaws in my views or reasoning, I welcome - hell, I seek out civil criticism. I find it enjoyable. I'm not saying you have flaws in your views - even if you did, so what? Everyone does. EVERYONE has cognitive blind spots and biases that affect their reasoning. That doesn't make anyone a bad person or unintelligent; it just makes them human. I"m sorry if you found this to be a mischievous exercise on my part. We can discontinue the conversation if you wish :) No worries.William J Murray
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
JVL,
Well, I think I’ll take his word for it thank you. He’s spent years and years thinking about it and he’s put his reputation on the line with his publications and his very public intervies.
Dr. Vedral has spent years studying and thinking about Quantum Mechanics, not God. He's concluded that information is the true nature of reality. His thoughts on God end with
Well, because something even more complicated created it the way it is” isn’t an explanation. We want a better answer than that. You can argue that science will never get there, that it’s an open-ended enterprise. Maybe this is faith.
Yes, I agree with him that "maybe this is faith." But I noticed that you haven't addressed the question about the source of information. This is a very important and relevant question since information is what DNA encodes. -QQuerius
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
ET: So far there isn’t any evidence that Dr. Pattee disagrees with the design inference Yes there is. I presented it. You should try harder to pay attention.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Querius: However, Dr. Vedral does get tripped up by the origin of God. But space-time did not exist before the origin of the universe, so there’s no “before” when considering the existence of God. Well, I think I'll take his word for it thank you. He's spent years and years thinking about it and he's put his reputation on the line with his publications and his very public intervies. I appreciate that you think that scriptural references are pertinent. I don't think that Dr. Vedral thinks so though. And I"m not sure he'd agree with your interpretation of his work.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
WJM: Whether or not the semiotic code changes over millions of years would not change the point that it may have been necessary before any evolution occurred in order for evolution to begin. Are you sure? Think about it. If a code was necessary, that is the whole system depended upon it being there and defined, then how can the system adapt to variations in that system? And, more importantly, what if the varaitions are holdovers from a previous system? We don't know. I don't know. Why decide with such limited data? Which is why I asked you the question, if someone proved that semiotic code necessarily predates evolution, would you then consider the semiotic code found in biology evidence of intelligent design? If you do not, then I don’t know why you would call millions of years of biological evolution a “big difference” in terms of this discussion. Yes, I know, you're trying to play some clever argumentative game. You want me to bite the bait and then you'll reel me in. If you can prove what you ask then just do it. No games. No posturing. Can you deliver the goods? I didn’t say I could. Even if someone were to try, why would they when you won’t commit to accepting it as evidence if they could. That’s what I’m getting at here. We agree there is semiotic code in biology and in non-biological artifacts. In non-biological artifacts, you agree it is evidence of intelligent design. For some reason, you disagree that it is evidence when it is found in biological entities. The “big difference” you gave was “millions of years of evolution.” I infer (perhaps incorrectly?) that if one could prove that the semiotic code found in biology necessarily predated those millions of years of evolution, you would then agree it is good evidence of intelligent design. Can you do it? Yes or no? Stop playing a game, do the work. What fool would concede before they saw the evidence? Not me.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
JVL:
Hey, I’m not making anything up. I’m telling you stuff anyone can find in Dr Pattee’s own work. He has never, ever endorsed a design interpretation of his work. Ever. You can choose to come to that conclusion and, frankly, I can see how that would be a pretty clear path. But, so far, I have no evidence that Dr Pattee agrees with you.
Seeing that Dr. Pattee has not even tried to collect the 10.1 million dollar prize. But then again he has NEVER endorsed the materialistic interpretation of his own work. Not ever. So far there isn't any evidence that Dr. Pattee disagrees with the design inferenceET
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
JVL:
Except to hypothesise some mysterious designer(s) whom we’ve never seen or heard from and who have left no physical artefacts behind except, of course, what you inferred was designed.
That's is how it goes. All alleged artifacts start out as "some mysterious designer(s) did it". Stonehenge- design was determined and then they started asking the who, how, when and why. If there was any evidence that nature could do it we wouldn't have that issue. All you have is some unknown process did something that we didn't and still do not observe. And what it allegedly did runs counter to everything we know. No one has a viable scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. That is because no one knows how to test the claim that materialistic processes did it. And that is also why the 10+ million dollar bounty for anyone demonstrating nature can produce coed information processing systems will forever remain unclaimed.ET
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: What is wrong with you? I think I might have a rash. Do you want the details? Do you not understand the words being displayed on this page? It is a fair question. So your patronising tone I take to mean: how can you disagree with me? I am clearly right! It that it? Do you understand the words in comment #38. Forget answering the content , just demonstrate to me that you can actually apprehend what is being said to you, please. Yes, I do speak English. Pretty well actually. Sorry I still disagree with you. Do you understand the words in comment #43. Yup, and you still have a problem with someone disagreeeing with you. I do get that.JVL
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
JVL concluded regarding professor Vedral's explanation of the origin of the universe and of God.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of intelligent design nor a death knell for materialism.
But, I'd remind you that the actual question you haven't answered is about the source of the information that's being conserved and is fundamental to existence. Professor Vedral's conclusion does indeed refute materialism. However, Dr. Vedral does get tripped up by the origin of God. But space-time did not exist before the origin of the universe, so there's no "before" when considering the existence of God. Let’s compare Dr. Vedral’s description to the beginning of the Gospel of John in the New Testament:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. – John 1:1 (NASB)
“Word” here is translated from the Greek word logos, which encompasses meanings in English that include a word, a thought, a concept, a plan, reasoning, and logic—all of which represents information. Do I understand how all of this works? No, I sure don't. But, I still work to get a better scientific understanding of what is attainable to us. -QQuerius
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
UPB: To be fair, we all have our cognitive blind spots and biases. I think this is why the principle of charity should be applied and assume good faith. I've run into my own blind spots and biases often enough.William J Murray
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
JVL, After reading your and UB's comments, it seems you've answered my question: "millions of years of evolution" is not a "big difference" in terms of whether or not you see the semiotic code as evidence of intelligent design when it comes to inorganic artifacts vs organic artifacts. So, what then is the difference? From what I've read, the big difference seems to be (in terms of the discussion here) is that Dr. Pattee doesn't consider the presence of pre-evolutionary semiotic code, in fact the necessity of it for evolution to occur, evidence of intelligent design? Is there some other difference? Is it just the fact that the semiotic code is found in biological entities?William J Murray
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
JVL: I asked: "If it can’t be proved one way or another, then how can you reach the decision that it is a “Big” difference, when in fact evolutionary processes could be completely unnecessary in generating the presence of semiotic code, and may in fact require its presence before evolution could begin?" You responded: "Could be. But a living, evolving code could change or get modified over the eons. We do see some variations in the genetic code on earth. How could that happen if it was subject to variation?" You agree that it "could be" that semiotic code necessarily predates organic evolutionary processes. My question was, and I'll rephrase it, until one knows whether or not it necessarily predates evolutionary processes, how can you assert that the "big difference" between organic and inorganic semiotic code is "millions of years of evolutionary processes?" Whether or not the semiotic code changes over millions of years would not change the point that it may have been necessary before any evolution occurred in order for evolution to begin. How can you say "millions of years of organic evolution" is a big difference in assessing whether or not the semiotic code indicates intelligent design, when you don't know whether or not semiotic code was necessary for biological evolution to occur? It seems to me that until you know that, there's no way to assess the importance ("bigness") of millions of years of evolution in making that determination. Which is why I asked you the question, if someone proved that semiotic code necessarily predates evolution, would you then consider the semiotic code found in biology evidence of intelligent design? If you do not, then I don't know why you would call millions of years of biological evolution a "big difference" in terms of this discussion. YOu said: "Like I said, I don’t see how that could be done but if you want to have a go please do by all means." I didn't say I could. Even if someone were to try, why would they when you won't commit to accepting it as evidence if they could. That's what I'm getting at here. We agree there is semiotic code in biology and in non-biological artifacts. In non-biological artifacts, you agree it is evidence of intelligent design. For some reason, you disagree that it is evidence when it is found in biological entities. The "big difference" you gave was "millions of years of evolution." I infer (perhaps incorrectly?) that if one could prove that the semiotic code found in biology necessarily predated those millions of years of evolution, you would then agree it is good evidence of intelligent design.William J Murray
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
. What is wrong with you? Do you not understand the words being displayed on this page? It is a fair question. Do you understand the words in comment #38. Forget answering the content , just demonstrate to me that you can actually apprehend what is being said to you, please. Do you understand the words in comment #43. I’ll check back later.Upright BiPed
July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply