Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

This is Stunning!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Eric Anderson writes: “Darwinists regularly admit [the physical systems we see in life] look designed and they have to keep reminding themselves that they aren’t designed.”

Elizabeth Liddle writes later in the same thread: “…by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options–this coincides with the Latin etymology of “intelligence,” namely, “to choose between”which is much more precise, but which would in fact include evolutionary processes”

And Upright BiPed asks: “Which evolutionary process has the facility to make a choice between alternate options?”

And Barry sums up: Ms. Liddle forgot to remind herself that she cannot use teleological language in a literal sense. Sometimes I wonder if the entire Darwinist program is built on nothing but linguistic equivocations.

Comments
"Sometimes I wonder if the entire Darwinist program is built on nothing but linguistic equivocations." Only sometimes?Ilion
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
While we are on the subject Dr Liddle, why is it that you refuse to retract false claims that you make about other people?Upright BiPed
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
...and Liddle, don't BS me on the definitons of these terms. You know exactly what I am talking about in each and every one of these terms. You can either produce examples of such emerging patterns, or you cannot. Which is it?Upright BiPed
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Name one Liddle. Tell me where patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated represenations which require protocols in order to have an effect. Just. Name. One.Upright BiPed
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
What are "deeply nested contingencies" and on what are they contingent upon?arkady967
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Lots of disciplines, Upright BiPed. In fact they don't always need to be that deeply nested as long as there are feedback loops. Chaos theory is full of them.Elizabeth Liddle
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Liddle: "I think the fundamental flaw in ID is to ignore the patterns that can arise from deeply nested contingencies and to assume that patterns that do so arise must have been “intentional”. In what discipline of science have we been observing patterns arising from "deeply nested contingencies" which come in the form of dissociated represenattions and require protocols in order to have an effect? I don't want to "ignore" them, so where are they?Upright BiPed
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: "He allowed “choose” (which is a synonym for “select”) to be interpreted non-teleologically. And using it in that sense, evolutionary processes fit the bill . . ." What? Do you mean evolutionary processes look at alternatives and choose/select the one that is going to be more advantageous down the road? Or is it, as Charles D. proposed, that evolutionary processes simply create variations, some of which *happen* to be useful down the road?Eric Anderson
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Actually, Barry, I think the reverse is true! That ID is built on linguistic equivocations! You say I "forgot" to remind myself that I "cannot use teleological language in a literal sense". Dembski specifically ruled out "intention" from his definition. He ruled out "teleology" in other words. He allowed "choose" (which is a synonym for "select") to be interpreted non-teleologically. And using it in that sense, evolutionary processes fit the bill, and his point is correct. But we can equally cast it in clearly non-teleological language if you prefer: Certain patterns can be inferred to be the result of systems of deeply nested contingencies. That's my preferred usage, actually, eschewing teleology. And those patterns, are, I submit, sometimes mistaken for the patterns of intentional design. I think the fundamental flaw in ID is to ignore the patterns that can arise from deeply nested contingencies and to assume that patterns that do so arise must have been "intentional". And I think the mistake arises because intentional design (real teleology if you like) is operates by means of very similar processes - specifically, systems deeply nested contingencies. So my position is that ID proponents have had a key insight, but fallen at the final fence: they rightly point to a kind of pattern that signifies something special, but fail to note that the something special isn't an intentional process but a deeply contingent one. In other words, they, not I, "forget" that teleological language can disguise a definition from which teleology has not only been specifically eschewed, but which works to explain the phenomena without teleology! If Intelligent Design intrinsically means Intentional Design, then the ID task is to demonstrate Intention. Because intentionless process that otherwise have all the features of intelligence and design are perfectly capable of generating complex functional entitles that could not have arisen by "chance".Elizabeth Liddle
August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply