The Unsolved Murder

_{March 11, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In a private forum a question was recently posed:

At what point the police should stop investigating an unsolved murder and close the case, declaring that God must have simply wanted the victim dead? It is the same point at which it is appropriate to tell scientists to stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it”.

My reply

Dear XXXX,

Well, in practice they stop investigating when the evidence goes cold (the trail of evidence stops in an inconclusive state).

In the investigation into the origin and diversification of life the trail of evidence hasn’t gone cold. The trail begins with ancient scientist/philosophers looking at macroscopic features of life like the camera eye and saying it looks like it was designed. Opposing this was the assertion that the appearance of design is an illusion. Bringing us up to the current day the illusion of design hasn’t gone away. No matter how much further detail (evidence) we get the illusion of design persists. At the molecular level the illusion of design is even stronger than at the macroscopic level. Darwin’s simple blobs of protoplasm was emphatically wrong. What we see in the finest level of detail is even more complex machinery than a camera eye, increasingly more difficult to explain as an accident of law and chance.

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident? The answer is they don’t. Unlike evolutionists, when police are confronted with an “illusion of design” that doesn’t go away in light of all the available evidence they continue calling it a murder (death by design) with an appended qualifier – unsolved murder. Too bad evolutionists aren’t more like police investigators and less like story tellers with delusions of grandeur.

Comments?

Addendum 3/13/08: Assistant Professor of Religion James McGrath feels that criticisms of my response are being censored. To put that mistaken notion to rest here is a link to his response and an invitation to participate directly here if he so desires so long as he follows our rules of decorum found on the side panel under moderation rules.

Comments

-----Gerry: "I just wish you’d distinguish better in your remarks between temporary, earthly theocracies and the unique and permanent theocracy to which we refer when we pray, “Thy Kingdom come…” That theocracy can hardly be said to “provide unity at the expense of diversity and cultural development”! And frankly, that’s the only government that really interests me." -----Gerry: If you can persuade Obama, Hillary, and John to put aside their lust for power long enough put the Savior of the world on his kingly throne, then I will certainly sign on to the program. What could be better that a sinless, omnipotent, omniscient God/man as the sole administrator of justice and the perfect arbiter in all matters of concern, temporal and eternal. In the meantime, I encourage you to work for the best possible government that can be formulated around sinful men. I don’t think we should wait for the return of Jesus Christ to work for a well ordered society based on Christian principles.StephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Daniel, (80) What StephenB is saying is obvious to the vast majority of us on this blog. Let's see if we can make it obvious to you. Supposing that your next-door neighbor wins the lottery. No big surprise, right? Someone has to win sometimes, and there are millions of players. Now suppose that she wins it again the next week. Don't you begin to wonder? And if she wins it the third week in a row, don't you become virtually certain that something fishy is going on? 500 bits of information is the information needed to win the lottery (6 balls numbered 1-50) 17 times in a row plus change. If your neighbor won the lottery 17 times in a row, wouldn't you be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that this was not due to chance? That's what the 500 bits of information mean.Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

-----Daniel King: "Please bear in mind that I was responding to what I thought was a major theme of the thread; the obviousness of the appearance of design in biology and the reality of such appearances. -----What you are telling me is not obvious. Don’t you agree?" I am sorry. I guess I must have muddied the waters even further by introducing the subjective/objective element. Yes, I think the design is obvious if it rises to the level of specified complexity. A well-written paragraph, for example, can appear on a page only if the writer conceives it, edits it, and forms it into a finished product. The design of the paragraph may not rise to the level of art, but if it has a sufficient number of words, as I believe this one does, it exibits specified complexity, meaning that it is extremely complex in a meaninful or purposeful way. If both conditions are present, it is almost certain that it did not occur by chance. It is so obvious to you, that you don't even stop to think about it. Don't you agree?StephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

The signal from Contact: 110111011111011111110111111111110111111111111101111111111111111101111111 111111111111011111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111011111 111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111 111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1. Node 1 of the EF: Law No law is known. 2. Node 2 of the EF: Complexity 1126 bits, far exceeding 500 informational bits. 3. Node 3 of the EF: Specification This sequence is pattern for the prime numbers from 2 to 101, where a given prime number is represented by the corresponding number of 1's and the individual prime numbers are separated by pauses (i.e., 0’s). Thus, Design is inferred. Dembski wrote on this topic around 10 years ago.Patrick_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Patrick (70): "You’re creating yet another strawman. Show us exactly how the explanatory filter would result in false positives on a regular basis for SETI." Actually I don't think I am creating a strawman, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. But it's not for me to show how the explanatory filter results in false positives on a regular basis - rather, it's for the proponents of the filter to show that it's valid. Whilst I've searched for such a demonstration I haven't found it yet. In any case, I don't have any idea how I could use the explanatory filter in real life, and I'm curious to know how. Can I ask you to show me, perhaps using a hypothetical example? I mentioned the film "Contact" earlier, and the signal consisting of the prime numbers up to 100: suppose we received such a signal in real life - how would the explanatory filter be used on such a complex specified signal to detect design?Clarence_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB and DaveScott, (76, 75)) Thanks for your answers to Daniel. I agree wholeheartedly. Daniel, (73) Let me clarify something. You apparently agree that it is a good idea to trust appearances if a car is moving in your direction. That's an emergency. But there are many non-emergency situations where we (and I think you) trust appearances as well. Most of us, when we walk up to a chair, don't inspect it to make sure that it won't collapse, then gingerly test it with more and more of our weight before finally sitting down. Most of us, when walking down a path, don't kick into a large rock if we come to it, even though the appearance could be deceiving and it could be made out of styrofoam and kind of fun to kick. The one time we don't trust appearances is when we have other reasons not to. On April 1 it just might be a good idea to carefully inspect the chair, then gingerly test it with more and more of one's weight, before sitting down. The problem is that you have been told that it is April 1 for the appearance of design for so long that you no longer trust the appearances at all, and indeed have a hard time even seeing them. In which case you have misunderstood your mother; appearances can be deceiving, but usually aren't. Prima facie evidence is evidence, even if it is not proof. Duncan, (74) Your complaint is an interesting one. Perhaps it will help if you read The Edge of Evolution by Behe. His purpose is specifically to delineate where evidence for non-design leaves off and evidence for design starts. That implies that those events that happen in one are are not evidence for design, whereas other events are evidence for design. Your objection "that ANYTHING can be construed to be evidence of design." thus falls apart. Perhaps that will answer your question, “If some things are evidence of design, what things (if any) are evidence of the ABSENCE of design, and what distinguishes the first category from the second?”Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB (76),
The possibility of deception is always with us. However, I submit to you that as the information increases in complexity and specificity, the probability that we are experiencing an illusion decreases. So much so, that by the time we reach an information level of 500 bits, we are in pretty safe territory to perceive AND detect design. In other words, not all appearances of design are equally compelling and convincing.
I apologize for being unable to understand what you are saying. I believe that you know what it takes to perceive design (more than 500 bits). But it's all Greek to me. Please bear in mind that I was responding to what I thought was a major theme of the thread; the obviousness of the appearance of design in biology and the reality of such appearances. What you are telling me is not obvious. Don't you agree?Daniel King_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB - You say, "Give me a good Christian King, who happens to be a saint, and we might be able to do business... [but] even if we get one, his successor will probably be a tyrant." How about Jesus Christ the Righteous, then, who, living forever, will have no successor? But I presume you know that, and long for the day when, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." I just wish you'd distinguish better in your remarks between temporary, earthly theocracies and the unique and permanent theocracy to which we refer when we pray, "Thy Kingdom come..." That theocracy can hardly be said to "provide unity at the expense of diversity and cultural development"! And frankly, that's the only government that really interests me. Until we are fully delivered from this "present evil world", Gal 1:4, the whole of which "lies in wickedness", 1 John 5:19, I agree that whatever form of government provides the most freedom and diversity with the least threat to harmony and stability is fine with me. Clearly, governing the wicked is a different problem than governing the just.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

DaveScot (75)
Complex machines with motorized carriers, tracks they run on, energy production machinery, waste removal machinery, a machine that produces exacting 3 dimensional protein parts with sensors and repellers all over their surfaces so they fit specifically with other proteins or other molecules, all this stuff specified by coded instructions contained in what is essentially computer paper tape format, and THAT doesn’t have the appearance of design to you? This has no less appearance of design than a United States space shuttle, its launch and support facilities, and all the subcontractors and their facilities.
Sorry, but you're making an analogy. Yes, I can see some similarities, just as I can see similarities between maps and cities. But I (respectfully) reserve the right to distinguish between the map and the terrain.Daniel King_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

-----Daniel Kind: "Although maybe it’s not my nature, but my nurture. One of my dear departed mother’s favorite sayings was “Appearances can be deceiving,” and my dear departed father put it this way: “Never judge a book by its cover.” I’ve never been able to interpret experience without filtering it in those ways." The possibility of deception is always with us. However, I submit to you that as the information increases in complexity and specificity, the probability that we are experiencing an illusion decreases. So much so, that by the time we reach an information level of 500 bits, we are in pretty safe territory to perceive AND detect design. In other words, not all appearances of design are equally compelling and convincing. The real question for me is this: Does the subjective intuition that something is designed (call it SDI for Subjective Design Intuition) increase proportionally as the objective information increases in complexity and specificity (call it OIQ for Objective Information Quotient. I think that it increases correspondingly but I am not sure that increases proportionally. For example, if you observe sand castles at the beach, your level of certainty about design will increase in proportion to the precision of the castle’s design. But if the OIQ of sand castle [A] surpasses the OIQ of sand castle [B] by say, a factor of 1 times 10^50, the corresponding increase if SDI may be only 1000 to 1. In other words, the increase in mathematical certainty, as measured in terms of specified complexity, may far exceed the increased confidence that design is present. In both cases, however, the subjective and objective design inference is real, albeit with greater and lesser degrees of certainly. If the sand castle is fashioned exactly as your house, on the other hand, you will have no trouble at all inferring design, I don’t care who says otherwise. Indeed, except for a prior commitment to Darwinism, everyone would feel exactly the same way about a DNA molecule.StephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Daniel Complex machines with motorized carriers, tracks they run on, energy production machinery, waste removal machinery, a machine that produces exacting 3 dimensional protein parts with sensors and repellers all over their surfaces so they fit specifically with other proteins or other molecules, all this stuff specified by coded instructions contained in what is essentially computer paper tape format, and THAT doesn't have the appearance of design to you? This has no less appearance of design than a United States space shuttle, its launch and support facilities, and all the subcontractors and their facilities. I highly recommend you read Mike Gene's "The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues" wherein a couple hundred pages are devoted to the appearance of design and engineering in the living cell. He even does PubMed searches for computer and engineering lingo that appears in papers discussing some aspect of life and more than that he does it for years in the past so you can see how as more has been discovered about the inner workings of cells the engineering terminology used to describe them has increased in the literature. If one doesn't at least see the appearance of design there's really no other place to start. Even scientists who don't give ID the time of day can't talk about the inner workings of cells without littering their peer reviewed papers with engineering terminology. DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

PaulGiem (72) Thanks for your response. I’m glad we can agree that the appearance of design does not prove design. The problem I find with your position is that ANYTHING can be construed to be evidence of design. Something is incredibly complex and contains huge amounts of information – must have been designed that way. Something is rather simple – must have been designed that way. The Earth is the only planet that can sustain life – must have designed for it. Or, if every planet sustained life – must have ……. well, you get the idea, I’m sure. Perhaps I can ask you the flip side of the same question, namely: - “If some things are evidence of design, what things (if any) are evidence of the ABSENCE of design, and what distinguishes the first category from the second?”duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem (72)
I suspect it is your nurture. Did your mother train you so well that you never believe appearances? If you see what appears to be a car heading towards you, do you not at least sometimes step out of the way (or decide not to step into the way) based on the appearance before you actually get hit?
Thank you. My mother would say that you have misquoted her. She said, "Appearances can be deceiving." She might also note that your example is inapt, since it refers to an emergency situation, whereas construing a design inference is something that can be taken at leisure.
...ignoring the appearance of design in nature, or denying that prima facie evidence is evidence. If you can’t see that, I quit. Horses, water, and such.
Yes, I am blind to something that's obvious to you. I'm sorry that you find that frustrating. I find it interesting.Daniel King_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

duncan, (65)
I find your remark “The appearance of design is evidence of design” to be utterly bewildering.
I can understand your saying that the appearance of design does not prove design. But I find it utterly bewildering that you cannot even concede that the appearance of design is evidence of design. To take our analogy again, if the police find a body with a knife in its back, is it not reasonable to suspect foul play, even if they may later change their minds and decide that what looked like murder really wasn't? The only way that one would not suspect foul play with a knife in the back is if one were sure that there was nobody that could possibly have killed the person. I suspect that's what's going on here. You're so sure that there can be no real design in nature, that you are looking at evidence of design and immediately discounting it, to the point where you don't understand why anyone else should pay attention. Daniel King, (67) I suspect it is your nurture. Did your mother train you so well that you never believe appearances? If you see what appears to be a car heading towards you, do you not at least sometimes step out of the way (or decide not to step into the way) based on the appearance before you actually get hit? For many, this may seem to be beating a dead horse. But it is important. The charge is constantly leveled at ID that there is no positive evidence for it. The reason for this argument is so that design will look like the negation of a positive theory, evolution, and ID proponents mere obstructionists since they do not have a theory, or at least no evidence for that theory. Such an argument is sophisticated but sophist. It depends on the ignoring the appearance of design in nature, or denying that prima facie evidence is evidence. If you can't see that, I quit. Horses, water, and such.Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Gerry, (62) I think we are in substantial agreement. If quantum mechanics does not have a reasonably foreseeable mechanism, then the activity of the mind doesn't either. WHile the brain is so complex that it is hard to reasonably establish that there is no such mechanism, in quantum mechanics the particles under study are simple enough so that one can be much more confident in excluding a mechanism. So it is probably the safer bet to say that minds are not reducible to physics without residual. It is what I personally believe. But that belief is at present based partly on faith, not on reasonable demonstration.Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

clarence, You're creating yet another strawman. Show us exactly how the explanatory filter would result in false positives on a regular basis for SETI. Not to mention, you're treating ID as if it's static. Now I'm not aware of any false positives (of course, Darwinists assert that ALL the EF produces in regards to biology IS false positives). Now if there is a real world example of a false positive it would be explainable in the terms of an unknown Law. If you had bothered to read ID literature then you'd know that if an unknown Law is discovered then ID would adjust to it. Let’s say we found a 2001-style monolith on the moon and all the planets. Design would likely be inferred. But suppose later on we discover an unknown process (a Law) that is observed to create these monoliths in space. ID theory would be revised to take this Law into account. Similarly, formalized design detection in regards to biology is open to falsification based upon new observations. It's possible there is an unknown Law operating upon biology. If evidence of this unknown Law were found, ID theory would need to be revised. The limits of this Law would be analyzed. For example, this Law may only operate under limited circumstances and be capable of producing limited forms of complex specified information. Now this is only in regards to self-replicating life; obviously a separate unknown Law or event would need to be found for OOL. But if positive evidence is uncovered that these Laws are capable of operating uniformly then the entire ID scientific program in regards to biology is kaput. This is what I said in the recent Altenberg Sixteen thread:
In regards to the modern synthesis I think that ID successfully refutes it. But even if ID is rejected at the outset or is not included in considering the evidence it should now be obvious that the modern synthesis is an inadequate model of biological reality. So now the real question is whether ID holds true in regards to the “evolving holistic synthesis”. I don’t think anyone could say for certain at this point; it’s too early. It’s a different question with a potentially different answer. ... Back in #56 what I was trying to say was that BOTH ID and the “evolving holistic synthesis” could turn out to be true. (I’m about to get in trouble with everyone… ;) ) In order to function, the “evolving holistic synthesis” requires OOL, which is its own separate question. Dembski’s recent work shows that in order to find the targets in search space active information is required. Besides “directed front-loading” (what I’m calling Behe’s and Mike Gene’s hypothesis in order to differentiate it from other variants) there is the potential that ID only holds true in regards to the OOL. The front-loaded active information is the design of the system (modular components, plasticity in the language conventions, etc), which allows the “evolving holistic synthesis” to function without there being a directly embedded plan.
Essentially the "evolving holistic synthesis" has the potential of becoming the "unknown Law" that refutes ID. Will it? I don't think anyone can say at this time. We're still trying to figure out what makes a fly a fly and a horse a horse at the moment! I like this quote by Behe: “I think a lot of folks get confused because they think that all events have to be assigned en masse to either the category of chance or to that of design. I disagree. We live in a universe containing both real chance and real design. Chance events do happen (and can be useful historical markers of common descent), but they don’t explain the background elegance and functional complexity of nature. That required design.” Personally I think some ID proponents set the bar too low, which sets up the ID movement for a possible easy embarrassment. I think we should expect to find some valid examples of Darwinian mechanisms that go beyond our expectations.Patrick_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

---Gerry: "I don’t normally find myself at odds with your analysis, but I have to take exception to your phrase, “the unpleasant prospect of a theocracy.” Gerry: In my judgment, a well-ordered society will reflect, in some way, two aspects of God’s existence. [A] God is both transcendent and immanent, and [B] God is three persons united in one nature. The original founding of the United States came very close to this formula. [A] God’s “transcendence” was expressed as “Natures God” (Divine lawgiver superseding the authority of state) and his “immanence” was expressed as “The laws of nature” (human conscience as the standard for self-government. [B] God as Trinity, which reflects the principle of Unity (one God) and Diversity (three persons) was expressed in the principle “E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one). Everything good we have accomplished comes from these two truths. Of course, we have long since abandoned that principle, but it was good while it lasted. (We were solving our social problems little by little). Now the beauty of this principle, when faithfully applied, is that it provides for expansive freedom, natural development of the culture (all cultures do and should have distinct personalities), and a reasonable integration of economics and politics. It is based on Christian principles, but it is not a theocracy. A theocracy, it seems to me, provides unity at the expense of diversity and cultural development; anarchy provides diversity at the expense of unity and stability. Now if you are going to have a theocracy, obviously a Christian theocracy is the way to go. Give me a good Christian King, who happens to be a saint, and we might be able to do business. In fact, that would be the best deal of all. However, we can’t count on that. Even if we get one, his successor will probably be a tyrant. So, we need separation of powers. Consider, for example, the frightful prospect of an Islamic theocracy. Since Islam accepts God’s transcendence but rejects God’s immanence, it disavows the “inherent dignity” of the human person. Since it rejects the Trinity, it cannot accommodate diversity, and forces everyone to be the same. As a result, Islam places artificial constraints on a culture and does not allow it to breathe, let alone to grow and develop, still less to find its own personality. It cannot deal with change, because change itself is a threat. At the other extreme, we have atheistic regimes, and we all know what that will bring. In my judgment, then, we should insist on Christian principles as the foundation for a well-ordered society. After that, you can have a monarchy, republic, representative democracy, aristocracy or whatever you want.StephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Patrick (59), that is the problem with ID as it currently stands. Taking the pulsar example, if the pulsar followers had applied step 1 they would have concluded that design had been detected. The trouble is that as soon as they moved to step 2 they would have realised that the conclusion in step 1 was wrong. What actually happened in the pulsar example is similar, but subtly different. There, the researchers weren't looking for design, they just happened to think they had found it. The big trouble with detecting design in the steps you propose is that you would institutionalise that kind of error. It would constantly lead to false positives at step 1, which would then unwind as soon as work is done under step 2. In the SETI field, for instance, it would be anarchy. There would constantly be announcements about communications from aliens being received, only to be retracted a day or two later once the cause was known. That's one of the practical problems with ID.Clarence_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem,
I hope that in (51) you are conceding that there is an appearance of design in biology If not, further discussion will have to wait until you can admit what Dawkins and Smipson and many others have admitted.
Please forgive a personal intrusion, but this interesting discussion struck a chord with me because I appear to be another one of those mutants who has never seen the appearance of design in biology. Although maybe it's not my nature, but my nurture. One of my dear departed mother's favorite sayings was "Appearances can be deceiving," and my dear departed father put it this way: "Never judge a book by its cover." I've never been able to interpret experience without filtering it in those ways.Daniel King_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem (62) - I'm afraid I wasn't quite clear in my last post (43). I'm no longer asking if our meeting here is providential or not -- I accept your response to that. I'm asking whether the distinction between "usual" and "unusual" events has any meaning when a human is wilfully involved in the transaction (me writing this post, for example). I contend that all such events are "unusual" in the sense that there is a supernatural force at work (specifically, the will of the participant). Such events are ubiquitous, to be sure, but not "usual" in the sense you've defined -- they cannot be fully analyzed via the scientific method alone. The splashing of a wave on the shore, on the other hand, is -- in my view -- a "usual" occurrence that, while far beyond our current abilities, may one day be fully understood via scientific methods.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

PaulGiem (61) I certainly acknowledge the appearance of design, although it would be inaccurate to label this a concession or an admission. Pattern and functionality produce an appearance of design – this isn’t the issue. What (if anything) can be extrapolated from it is the issue. I find your remark “The appearance of design is evidence of design” to be utterly bewildering. I presume you’re using the word ‘appearance’ to mean ‘semblance’ (as in ‘he appeared calm’), rather than ‘arrival’ (as in ‘he appeared from behind the door’)? As the saying goes, ‘appearances can be deceptive’. I’d be surprised if an adult could function successfully on any sophisticated level in life generally if s/he operated on the assumtion that appearances always reflected reality, let alone transfer this attitude to scientific endeavour to useful effect.duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

StephenB says, "I hold that there is a hierarchy and that theology is the ruling science. Is that your point?" Yes.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

DaveScot asks, "What empirical evidence is there of a single designer or deity?" I think this is where you go wrong. You're demanding a certain kind of evidence for God rather than accepting the obvious conclusion from the various evidences he has provided. Sufficient evidence is available, else God could not assert that men are "without excuse", Romans 1:20. And the authoritative answer to the rich man's request that someone be sent back from beyond the grave to testify to his brothers was, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead", Luke 16:31. You say in another post that "The appearance of design is obvious and widely acknowledged." I agree. Then you say, "Whether the appearance is an illusion or not is where the argument ensues." I disagree. That is where the nonsense ensues. Gil, flying in his hang glider, sees design in the nearby hawk; Dawkins, even if he ventured into such a rare atmosphere, would not. But there's nothing Gil can do to make him see it -- blindness isn't cured by argument. May the One True God open your eyes.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Gerry, It is "usual" for people to be on the internet these days. In my book, "usual" does not exclude God's activity. I have a long discussion in my book that argues that God is directly involved in quantum mechanics, which is definitely "usual". The book of Esther implicitly argues that God's hand can be seen in events that do not violate the known laws of physics but are "unusual". I have had similar events in my own life and believe that God can indeed guide even when no laws of physics are broken. But whether our meeting on the internet is one of them is reasonably open to question. As I said before, I hope to find out someday. In the meantime, I am certain that God had a hand in it. It is just that I don't know how "usual" it is.Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Duncan, I hope that in (51) you are conceding that there is an appearance of design in biology If not, further discussion will have to wait until you can admit what Dawkins and Smipson and many others have admitted. The nest step in the logical chain should also be obvious. The appearance of design is evidence of design. To use the example in this thread, if one comes across a body with a knife in its back, the first hypothesis to be considered is murder. It is possible that a knife fell from an airplane when someone lost a grip on it, or that someone fell backwards into a knife, or that someone had a heart attack and was stabbed post-mortem. But the police would be stupid to say, "The appearance of murder is no evidence of murder." Remember the original question. You asserted that there was no "ACTIVE" evidence of ID (28). If you mean that there is no proof, I can agree with you. But there is no proof in science in that sense anyway. If you mean that you can trump the evidence for design, I will grant that this is a possibility, although I don't see the persuasive case that you apparently would if you said this. But if you mean that there is no active evidence for design, then, given the above, you lost me. I'll repeat. I don't understand how, short of being obtuse, one can say that there is no positive evidence for design.Paul Giem_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Clarence Of course investigation won't stop at the reception of a candidate signal but I bet the bubbly will flow when one is received. It may be a premature celebration but there will be a celebration nonetheless. But if the receivers of the signal had followed ID principles, and decided not to do any further investigation because we couldn’t know about the designer, would we ever have realised that the signal came from a natural object? This rests on a strawman ID. No ID proponent claims (or at least most of us don't claim) that investigation should stop when a design inference is made. The problem is one of evidence - where do you start looking for a designer once you've made a reasonable design inference based upon characteristics of the purportedly designed object? SETI faces the same problem. In the design of life we can reasonably presume that the designer had means (which for all I can determine is some advanced but wholly material expertise in biochemistry) and opportunity (which for all I can determine is a causal but wholly material presence in the present, the past, or both). That narrows the field somewhat but the field is still quite large in both time and space. I'd say it's the chance & neccessity pundits who are the ones throwing up their hands in defeat with what I variously call "Darwin of Gaps" or "Chance of the Gaps" arguments. When they can't pin down any precise causes they simply assign the cause to time and chance with utter disregard for how small the chance may be. They are guilty of assuming the result - they assume that everything happened by law and chance and so no matter how improbable that must have been the way it happened. They do this because they replace methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Science is, or should be, based on methodology rather than philosophical dogma. ID on the other hand allows both chance and design to be considered as explanations, does not discount exceedingly small probabilities, and does nothing to discourage further investigation into either possibility. It's the discounting of small probabiliities that bothers me. Statistical mechanics underlies most of our understanding of how matter and energy behave in predictable ways. We would be lost and helpless in predicting anything without consideration of statistical probabilities. DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

But if the receivers of the signal had followed ID principles, and decided not to do any further investigation because we couldn’t know about the designer, would we ever have realised that the signal came from a natural object?
ID principles? Try reading comment #27. The scope of core ID methods are currently limited to step 1, but that does not preclude other methods. For example, ID-compatible hypotheses are concerned with step 2 (what is the mechanism, or how does the actor act).Patrick_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

DaveScot (50), you wrote: "Or take the case of the scientific SETI program. They are primarily looking for a narrow band signal that has no conceivable natural source. They need no independent knowledge of who designed the transmitter." Initially, that's correct - they are looking for CANDIDATE signals, using those criteria, as possibly originating from ETs. But if they find such signals, the scientists don't just declare victory and crack open the bubbly - there then begins a whole host of work to find out more about the source of the signal, and importantly who or what might have caused its transmission. That will include speculation about the nature of the "designer". And contrary to what many IDists think, a SETI signal CAN be used to at least come up with hypotheses about the nature of the ETs. I think the plot of the movie "Contact" has been mentioned in previous threads - well, in that movie there was a prime example (literally). The SETI signal received was based on the prime numbers up to 100 - that in itself would allow us to hypothesise that the transmitting civilisation used a base 10 (or base 100) numerical system. There is another warning, from real life, for those in ID who think we can just detect a designed signal and leave it there. When the first signal from a pulsar was detected, in 1968, it was thought to be so regular (and on such a short cycle) that it had to be artificial rather than natural - hence it was at first thought to be an alien signal. But it wasn't - further investigation revealed it came from a new type of astronomical object. But if the receivers of the signal had followed ID principles, and decided not to do any further investigation because we couldn't know about the designer, would we ever have realised that the signal came from a natural object?Clarence_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

-----Gerry: "Anyway, my message to the world is simply this: God and His works are all there is — let’s stop trying to find some corner where He isn’t welcome or necessary." Yes, I am on board with that point entirely. -----Gerry: "It is only when one unreasonably and unnaturally — not to mention impractically — confines theology to “the Study of God BUT NOT His Works” that theology and other studies can be separated enough to entertain unions and intersections." Gerry: Let me think about this one for a while. Actually, I do contend that Theology illuminates philosophy, which in turn, illumninates science. So, I hold that there is a hierarchy and that theology is the ruling science. Is that your point? As I reflect on this hierarchy it occurs to me that my union, intersection analogy is misplaced to the point where I may abandon it. I consider different paradigms to solve different problems, but I also insist that my paradigms harmonize with one another. Coherency is a big deal with me as I know it is with youStephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

DaveScot (53) I don’t think there’s anything in your post that anyone could disagree with (even Dawkins). But as we all know, Darwinists consider that the presence of patterns and functionality (the appearance of design) don’t indicate design. We appear to be re-stating the problem.duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply