The Unsolved Murder

_{Dave S.
March 11, 2008

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

tribune7 (54) Actually, my original dilemma (28) concerns detecting the ABSENCE of design – the ‘knife in the back’ problemduncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

Duncan, are you saying design is undeterminable?tribune7_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PST}

Duncan The appearance of design is obvious and widely acknowledged. Whether the appearance is an illusion or not is where the argument ensues. Illusions usually disappear on more detailed examinations. The appearance of design pointed out by ancient scientist/philosophers were based on macroscopic observations of living things and order in the larger universe. Despite much more detailed observations we have today like the fine tuning of physical constants (order in the universe) and nanometer scale organic machinery (order in living things) which no one knew about before the 20th century the appearance of design has not only not disappeard but instead has become more compelling in appearance. Biological ID doesn't require a supernatural entity, by the way. I've asked time and time again what aspects of designing and constructing organic life on earth require violating any known laws of physics. Nothing about life that requires anything supernatural has been offered in response. Cosmological ID on the other hand, which points to design of the physical laws and constants which govern the universe, does seem to require a designing entity that exists outside the observable universe. I'm not convinced of even that much as we haven't observed enough of the universe yet to know what lurks in the mysterious "dark matter" and "dark energy" which ostensibly comprise some 95% of the stuff that makes up the universe. The science of physics is still incomplete. DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PST}

DaveScot (50) To me, the examples you give present the same issue that I’ve been referring to. The design inference in ‘2001’ and SETI are all based on the presumption of a materialistic designer. If adequate access to the monolith / source of the signal could be had then some knowledge of the designer would be obtained (this is the whole point of SETI – we’re not interested in the signal, but its source).duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PST}

DaveScot (48) Sorry – are you saying that design is obvious, or the appearance of design? Your first sentence refers to what I said (which is about design, not the appearance of design), but your second is about the appearance of design. I don’t mean to be pedantic, but the distinction is the issue – which I do understand, dare I say (and so, clearly, do you). It’s just the answer that’s not obvious to me.duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

To other(s): There are those who believe that independent knowledge of a designer is requisite for making a design inference. While it's certainly helpful to have independent knowledge of a designer it's not a requirement. For an example look at the plot of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" where a large monolith made of a strange material to exacting dimensions with modulated radio signals coming from it is found buried on the dark side of the moon. There is no independent knowledge of a designer but no doubt about it being a designed object. 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. This is crux of the argument. We have some very sophisticated machinery in living things that may or may not have a natural source. A natural mechanism has been proposed (chance and neccessity) as an explanation but there is no compelling demonstration that the proposed mechanism is adequate and plenty of critical analyses from various angles that the mechanism is not adequate. In other words there are no clear unarguable proofs or disproofs of the adequacy of chance & neccessity to drive the origin and diversification of organic life.DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PST}

Patrick "A dead body with a knife in its back" was symbolic for a clear instance of murder.DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PST}

Duncan Design may be obvious to you, but it’s not obvious to me. If it isn't obvious then you need to study more. Virtually everyone who is well enough informed about the machinery of life agree there's an appearance of design. The argument boils down to whether the appearance is an illusion or whether it really is consciously designed.DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PST}

Gerry What empirical evidence is there of a single designer or deity? Not all theists are monotheists. For instance good and evil can be explained by two equal deities with cross purposes. The dichotomy you continue to offer about everything either is or isn't "study of God and His works" is a false dichotomy unless one subscribes to a single deity who created the entire universe. On the topic of welcoming, or not, a theocracy that would seem to hinge on whose theocracy you're talking about. I doubt you'd welcome a Wiccan theocracy, a Hindu theocracy, a Jewish theocracy, an Islamic theocracy, a Catholic theocracy, a Morman theocracy, or really any theocracy other than the one you personally hold. The separation of church and state exists so that none of these can become state religions whose doctrines carry the force of law and so that none of these can be used to create a favored class of citizens. DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PST}

Paul Giem (29) Thanks for your answer. I have asked the question I asked (28) a number of times on UD and I’m afraid I’ve never had a satisfactory answer. It is a significant issue (for me at least) and I continue to struggle with it. Obviously, I’m quite happy to accept I don’t understand everything and I must say I was quite excited when you said you were familiar with the question and had a convincing answer. I’m afraid I have to tell you I was disappointed. Design may be obvious to you, but it’s not obvious to me. Apart from that, it’s such an intellectually unsatisfactory answer. Apart from that there are many sensible and persuasive refutations of the argument from design. Apart from that, the word ‘appearance’ has a meaning (semblance, outward impression) and it is absurd and disingenuous of you to suggest that when Dawkins, etc, talk of the appearance of design they are admitting to actual design – they clearly aren’t (obviously, even!). As I understand it, the whole point of the ID movement was to move on and away from ‘it’s obvious’. I am genuinely grateful for your reply, but I’m unconvinced.duncan_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PST}

StephenB - Regarding #39. You speak of the possible union, separation, or intersection of theology and science, with intersection being the (temporal?) ideal. I don't like to disagree with man such as yourself, but I nevertheless contend that if we define theology as "the Study of God and His works", all of the lesser sciences become -- by this very definition -- subsets of theology; and talk of unions, separations, and intersections becomes non-sequitur. 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 Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PST}

StephenB - As with many of your former posts, I've copied #41 to my files for future reference. Another excellent summary. Thanks.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PST}

Paul Giem (40) - You rightly say that this conversation is not "breaking" any laws of physics. But can those laws (and all the others) be manipulated to cause a certain effect -- consistent with their design -- by the "supernatural" powers of men, angels, and/or God? I know my physical brain and body are involved in the writing of this post -- but I strongly suspect that they are not alone in originating it. "I" am. And if I lost my hands and eyes, I'm quite sure that "I" would still remain. And if my whole body ceased to function, I believe that "I" would still exist -- somewhere. So, do we put the writing of this post in the "usual" or the "unusual" category? I admit that many of the features of this event are commonplace, but I nevertheless think there's a radical difference in kind (and not just a difference in degree) between this event and other, equally unpredictable events like, say, a wave breaking on the seashore.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PST}

StephenB - 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." As a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth, an ambassador for Christ whose citizenship is in heaven, I currently live under a theocracy -- and I long for the day when it will be more fully implemented "on earth as it is in heaven". That's the prayer, right? But I suppose you meant something more like "the unpleasant prospect of a [false] theocracy [mediated by reprobates]", in which case I would tend to agree. 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.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PST}

-----Eric B: "In order to make science healthy, it must be set free from ideological prejudice so that it may follow the evidence where and as far as it leads. If we fault the materialists for imposing materialist preconditions, we must be careful not to fall into the same error in a different direction." The term ideological prejudice is a loaded term. Obviously, no one should allow prejudice to enter the domain of science. On the other hand, science cannot separate itself radically from either theology or philosophy. Imagine, if you will, trying to do science without submitting to the higher philosophical principle of the excluded middle. Further, science rests on the theological truth that God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Take away any one of these three pieces of the puzzle, and the whole rational enterprise collapses. Even atheists assume this to be true, albeit unconsciously, otherwise they could not even complete an “if/then” proposition. On the one hand, theological dualism and philosophy are the intellectual parents to science. We should not fail to acknowledge that fact simply because secularists may misunderstand and brand us as religious fanatics. It is a great mistake to deny truth in order to seem reasonable to unreasonable people. On the other hand, the ideology of materialism is the parent of confusion, skepticism, and secularism. It doesn’t promote logic, it militates against it. So, it does not qualify as a reasonable counterpart to theism, nor does it rate equal consideration as something to be given equal time. Extremism is always to be avoided, of course. Under the circumstances, however, if we are going to err on one side or the other, we should err on the side of religion.StephenB_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PST}

Gerry (36) I don't have enough information to tell whether this conversation is "usual" or "unusual". It is "usual" in the sense that no laws of physics are being broken. But it could very well be "unusual" in the sense that our meeting was not random, and that God guided us together for this purpose. Someday, I plan to find out. :)Paul Giem_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PST}

Gerry: Eric B: I don’t think that your differing views are irreconcilable. It seems to me that there are three possible ways of approaching the problem, and the first two are bad, while the third way is good: [A] At one extreme, we have the UNION of theology and science. [B] At the other extreme, we have a radical SEPARATION of theology and science. [C] In the middle, we have the INTERSECTION of theology and science. If there is too much [A] science loses its integrity and becomes indistinguishable from philosophy and theology. If there is too much [B] science is reduced to methodological naturalism and isolated from the wisdom of the higher sciences. With the [C] alternative, we are free to speak of methodology without being bound by it. If you would ask me where to draw the line, I could not tell you. In my judgment, the solution is to simply be aware that there is a “golden mean,” and to find it whenever possible. Sir Isaac Newton, it would seem, came very close to the ideal. His notebook is filled with theological references, yet he clearly understood the rigors of isolating variables, conducting experiments, and yes, making inferences to the best explanation. In other words I am saying that we should temper openness with rigor. I am going to venture a risky analogy here. Consider the notion of separation of Church and State. If we allow the UNION of Church and State, we must face the unpleasant prospect of a theocracy. If we call for a RADICAL SEPARATION of Church and State, we must deal with the problem of rampant secularism. On the other hand, if we form an “INTERSECTION” of Church and State, we find the ideal form of government. We render to Ceasar and to God, but we also allow the two to interact at some level. It seems that, in religion and science, as well as religion and government, the golden mean is the way to go.StephenB_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PST}

Gerry Rzeppa at 33 "3. We frequently produce things out-of-sequence. The basement floor may be poured after the roof is built." Construction sequence is a very strong ID argument. Please clarify your "out-of-sequence". Better to say that where this is possible we may construct with some differing sequences. There may be only one sequence for some assembly systems.DLH_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST}

ericB - You make your case with skill and grace. But I still question whether any pursuit can exist for long without some kind of ideological underpinning. When we deny God His rightful place in anything, we leave a vacuum which something less desirable will inevitably fill. Science began under God, but later was moved into "neutral" territory, where it quickly became "the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird". Consider also the warning in Luke 11: "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first." There are sins of omission too, y'know...Gerry Rzeppa_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PST}

Paul Giem - Yes, I agree that my fifth point is the weakest and that your counter-example (about fireworks) is a good one. But I think that class of creative effort is extraordinary and other examples of the same thing also fall into the "recreation" or "re-creation" category. I need to think about that some more. You didn't say whether this converstation is a "ususal" or "unusual" thing...Gerry Rzeppa_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PST}

Gerry Rzeppa: "I agree that “you can only go so far [with] a scientific proposition,” and, like you, “I am not bothered by the fact that science cannot take us as far as we should consider going.” I never expected to find God in an equation or a test tube. "But I am bothered by the notion, so strongly implicit on this very forum, that we either can’t or shouldn’t — and certainly have no explicit duty to — go further until we find a way for “science” to take us there." There is a time and a place for everything under heaven. Perhaps you've noticed something I have not, but I haven't had the impression that people on this forum are generally against personally going further than science can go. What I would say and agree with is that, for the most part, this is not the most suitable forum for that larger purpose. That is because the focus here is to see what can be done to cure science of its unnecessary and unjustified ideological blindness toward design inferences. This blindness is selective, since it only applies whenever the designer could possibly be God, regardless of how strong the evidence is. (Be sure to see Expelled when it comes out!) The aim here is the health of science as an empirical enterprise driven by the evidence, not by a presumptive allegiance to a materialist prejudice. Gerry Rzeppa: "I propose the opposite. I say: 1. We should begin with the notion that Theology — the Study of God and His works — is the proper subject of man’s investigative abilities, and simply declare our intent to pursue that end using all the other -ologies and lesser sciences as our means." In order to make science healthy, it must be set free from ideological prejudice so that it may follow the evidence where and as far as it leads. If we fault the materialists for imposing materialist preconditions, we must be careful not to fall into the same error in a different direction. None of this excludes someone from going beyond science, taking the limited fruits of science (with all its equation and test tubes and -ologies) and integrating them into a larger picture for a greater purpose. Theology was once more widely considered the queen of the sciences for its role in integrating diverse knowledge into a unified, coherent, and meaningful whole. It is just that such an undertaking moves beyond the focus of this forum and of scientific ID in general, which has the more modest aim of removing ideological prejudice from science's examination of the evidence it can access.ericB_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PST}

Gerry, I agree with you mostly. I would only point out that we sometimes spend weeks or months planning something that will last only minutes, such as a fireworks display. So the most one can say about your number 5 is that the planning, construction, and use of something are not necessarily commensurate with each other in terms of time.Paul Giem_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PST}

Paul Giem (30) - I agree with what you've said above. I don't however, think is always easy to distinguish between "the usual (science)" and "the unusual (miracles)". Providence vs. coincidence is a case in point. Is this very conversation, for example, part of the "usual" -- a result of purely natural causes and nothing else? or was something "unusual" involved in bringing it about? I didn't have to check this thread, on this site, at this time, for messages, as far as I know... A related issue concerns origins. Everything I know about intelligent design from first hand observation and experience with the only intelligent designers I know - humans -- leads me to the following insights: 1. We typically create in discrete stages, the latter building on the former but distinctly separate in both process and result. Laying a foundation for, and framing a house, are not the same thing. 2. We allow ourselves considerable lattitude in the process of creation. We don't require that a house be suitable for occupation during construction, and our scaffolding is not part of the finished structure. 3. We frequently produce things out-of-sequence. The basement floor may be poured after the roof is built. 4. We often produce things where the appearance of age is misleading. A weather vane may be 100 years older than the roof that supports it. 5. We fully expect the construction process to be significantly shorter than the term of useful service of the thing produced. We don't spend centuries building a lean-to for a weekend camping trip. Given the above, it seems likely to me that there is an historical point beyond which (going back) the predictable and uniform operations that we observe today cannot be assumed. So again, distinguishing the "usual" from the "unusual" may be more difficult than we think.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PST}

Thanks, Atom. And thanks for the plug.Paul Giem_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PST}

Paul G wrote:
One other point; If God were not reliable like this, miracles would lose their meaning. Moses would not have known that the burning bush was special if other bushes were not consumed when they burned. The resurrection of Jesus would not mean anything if all, or half, or even 5%, of people who died were resurrected. Without the usual, the unusual does not stand out. This is one more reason for distinguishing between the usual (science) and the unusual (miracles); not to deny that God works in both, but to understand what to expect, and to be ready to recognize when God is sending us a special message.
Good point. I finished reading you book, Scientific Theology, last week. It was very good, though the chapter on Radiometric dating was a bit long and didn't seem to flow as well as the other chapters. I appreciate your approach to theology, though. Similar to mine. (Make a model, make predictions based on that model, see if it explains and predicts better and more elegantly than existing models, etc).Atom_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

Gerry Rzeppa, (20) I would agree with you on the involvement of God either none of the time or all of the time, and like you I would opt for all of the time, with one refinement. From the evidence, God runs His universe according to laws that are comprehensible by humans in the vast majority of instances. In fact, that insight is why science developed in Europe rather than in China or India or Peru. Some of those laws can be manipulated by humans at will. Therefore it is worth training to be a physician or engineer, and even, with the proper emphasis, training to be a physicist, a biologist, or a geologist. God expects us to manipulate our environment for the good of those around us and ourselves. In fact, He demands it; "He that will not work, neither let him eat." And the manipulation is enhanced if we understand what we are doing. The point is, belief that God is ultimately in control of nature is not a good reason to deny science, or our own responsibility, or even to say that everything that happens in "nature" happens in the way God wants it to happen. God does give His creatures freedom to at least temporarily defy His will. One other point; If God were not reliable like this, miracles would lose their meaning. Moses would not have known that the burning bush was special if other bushes were not consumed when they burned. The resurrection of Jesus would not mean anything if all, or half, or even 5%, of people who died were resurrected. Without the usual, the unusual does not stand out. This is one more reason for distinguishing between the usual (science) and the unusual (miracles); not to deny that God works in both, but to understand what to expect, and to be ready to recognize when God is sending us a special message.Paul Giem_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PST}

duncan, (28) This objection comes up periodically, usually raised by someone who doesn't understand the argument. The design inference is composed of two parts; a negative, and a positive. The negative is the one usually argued about, and that is why if people haven't heard the whole argument, they often think it is the whole argument. It is true that random processes, even when augmented by natural selection, are fundamentally incapable of consistently overcoming problems of specified complex information and irreducible complexity. That's the negative argument, and it's a good one. But you're right, that won't get us to ID as the best inference by itself. However, there is a positive side, that, in their more honest moments, all sides admit. For exammple, Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Or George Gaylord Simpson: "A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature." These are what the lawyers would call admissions against interest. In fact, read Dawkins around that quote (from The Blind Watchmaker); he waxes positively rhapsodic about the appearance of design in nature. The notion that there is no positive evidence for design is either asinine or the wildest spin imaginable. The problem is not that there is no evidence for design. The problem is that the evidence is being discounted, then ignored, sometimes deliberately so. As Frances Crick said, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved." I can just see a biologist lying exhausted at his desk, saying slowly, "Must. Not. See. Design." In the light of day, I'd really like to know how people can tell themselves that the argument for design is a purely negative one.Paul Giem_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

Isn't this really a question about the explanatory filter? DaveScot's answer re: the body with the knife in the back is dependent upon a presumption of materialism. Saying 'in practice they (the police) stop investigating when the evidence goes cold' is rather restricted when there would be no evidence of a non-materialist cause - only the effect. I do think it’s a real problem for ID. As I see it, it goes like this: - 1. The design inference is based on the ABSENCE of any satisfactory evidence of a cause other than ID (e.g. specified complex information, irreducible complexity, etc.). It is not based on any ACTIVE evidence for ID (hence it’s an ‘inference’). 2. If there’s no active evidence, how do we know for certain that ID isn’t the cause of something, even in those cases where a materialistic explanation could be perfectly persuasive?duncan_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PST}

The only negative to the counter-example by Dave is that it does not specify the surrounding details. Design detection does not take place in a vacuum. A knife in the back is the potentially designed object, but we have surrounding evidence. What if the dead body is found in a kitchen with a series of knives laying dangerously close to a counter's edge and the person was apparently working on plumbing underneath this counter? Of course, what if the murderer/designer arranged the scene to be apparently "natural"; that would be a false negative, an acknowledged weakness of design detection methods. Now in general I don't believe we require knowledge of the nature of the Designer. I believe the process to be: 1. Determine design in an object. In this case, murder or accident. The explanatory filter is used. Knives can fall from the sky from an airplane, but even that's accidental manslaughter with a Designer involved. 2. Determine the mechanism for design. Momentum of a knife. Whether it be by limb or throwing or cannon we might not know immediately. But if tossed by a cannon we'd probably find evidence of that on the knife itself (never mind neighbors hearing it). 3. Develop designer detection methods based upon the available evidence. A knife in the back by itself does not specify the exact category of the Designer. All we know so far about the Designer is that it had a means of locomotion and that it had the ability to grasp a knife or use it by some other mechanism. We have to look to other evidence to assign a further category. For all we know a trained monkey or elephant did the act via the mechanism of the knife*. So now we can use other sources of evidence to eliminate, since an elephant would obviously leave signs of its passing. *Of course, you could then view the (presumably) trained animal as a mechanism for the (presumably) human Designer of the murder. 4. Once a generalized designation or category for the Designer is developed, then attempt to find characteristics or information pertaining to the specific Designer. Given prior experience of murder by knives, although we might not have evidence for an exact categorization, the most reasonable inference is that the designer is human. But let's assume we do find evidence. At the very least we might expect to narrow down the options by finding such evidence as partial human fingerprints, but we might not be capable of finding the specific human.Patrick_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

Upright BiPed:
p.noyola: “If investigators didn’t have knowledge of the basics of human behaviour and motivation (let alone this theoretical human’s ability to slip in and out of a supernatural realm, reverse time, duplicate themselves, walk through walls, etc.) they wouldn’t be able to make certain assumptions (i.e. profiling would go right out the window).” I understand your point, but honestly, this kind of up-in-your-head obfuscation that I get in every discussdion I have with neo-Darwinists. The guy has a knife in his back (for crying out loud) lets just start there… Perhaps you were being sarcastic.
A little sarcastic, yup, but the target is as much the current ID story as much as the objuscation of the Darwinists. For what I believe to be reasons of limiting the argument and making it easier to get general scientific acceptance, the ID powers-that-be constantly say "it's about detecting design" and specifically say "it says absolutely nothing about the designer". So, if it's all about detecting design and nothing about the designer it's therefore the equivalent of saying "it about detecting is was a murder without any assumptions on the nature of the murderer". I feel this paints us into a corner. If we saying nothing of the murderer, including whether the murderer is human, alien, supernatural or non-material or whatever, the comparison becomes weak as the example discussed seems to imply the murderer is human. If we claim that the murderer could be non-human, even in the example, how could we imagine a situation where it must be intentional murder even though there are no assumptions on the murderer. Here's a potential and extreme example (my apologies, I'm no sicko, but I think this illustrates it): Imagine a hospital room containing a comatose quadraplegic with amputated arms and legs on life support (again, extreme case to make a clear point). The doctors and police come into the room as see this patient has been stabbed. There. *That's* murder with no assumption on the nature of the murderer. We know for sure this was intentionally done by an intentional agent, don't we? So, how do we know?p.noyola_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply