Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thought for the Day

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:

Thus the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are “not moral”? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this “other world”—look, must they not by that same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (Nietzsche’s emphases)

Tip of the hat to Ed Oakes.

Then there is this from Oakes himself:

Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory—without the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.

Comments
StepenB, 62, I was simply pointing out that ID concludes the existence of a designer AFTER the design inference has been made. The designer’s existence (or intelligence) is not an assumption made before the fact. OK, so whether axiomatic, or conclusionary, ID does make at least the following claims about the designer of the original life of the universe: It existed. It had intelligence. It could produce life. It was not alive.Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST
bFast, sorry. The corrected link addresses are below. An excellent review article on the leading theories of psi contains a lot on quantum theories of psi, most importantly Henry Stapp’s, at http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/search3.htm The Roots of Consciousness: Science, Psychokinesis, at http://www.williamjames.com/Science/PK.htm Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions, by leading researcher Helmut Schmidt, at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html Another excellent paper also by Helmut Schmidt, at http://www.esalenctr.org/displ.....p;pgtype=1 Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications, by Dean Radin, at http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/timereversed.pdfmagnan
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST
-----mapou "This may be unimportant but a logical deduction from an established observation is as solid as the observation itself. Inferring intelligent design amounts to inferring the existence of an intelligent designer at one time or another in the past. So, in that sense, the past existence of a designer is a corollary to any design inference. We can’t go much beyond that, though." Yes, I agree. I use that language in response to Q's claim that we are beginning with ontological assumptions. I was simply pointing out that ID concludes the existence of a designer AFTER the design inference has been made. The designer's existence (or intelligence) is not an assumption made before the fact.StephenB
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PST
Magnan, only the fourth of your five links work.bFast
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST
StephenB, (55) It is demonstrable, but you do not accept the demonstration because it conflicts with your materialistic bias. -----Q "No, I don’t know more than how to make an assumption for the specific question of “design. If there is a bias, it is because ID is a science, science deals with the prediction-observation-validation-confirmation chain, and I don’t really know how to validate that your post was designed. So, for me, it is a gut feel, and my gut feel is not science. I also have a gut feel that you are not Eliza or one of her descendents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" My diagnosis is as follows: It all goes back to your unwillingness to accept the fact that all events are a result of law, chance or agency. Since you don’t accept that one point, nothing else works for you. Most of your objections, it seems to me, are derivatives of that one objection. In effect, you are questioning a self-evident principle and holding ID accountable for the intellectual chaos that follows.StephenB
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST
Thanks Magnan, I'll check these out.bFast
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST
bFast (#37), see the following links for information on psi and quantum mechanics. An excellent review article on the leading theories of psi contains a lot on quantum theories of psi, most importantly Henry Stapp's, at http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/search3.htm. The Roots of Consciousness: Science, Psychokinesis, at http://www.williamjames.com/Science/PK.htm. Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions, by leading researcher Helmut Schmidt, at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html. Another excellent paper also by Helmut Schmidt, at http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=80&pgtype=1 Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications, by Dean Radin, at http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/timereversed.pdf.magnan
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST
StephenB wrote: That the designer exists and has intelligence is a logical deduction drawn from a design inference. It is not a claim. This may be unimportant but a logical deduction from an established observation is as solid as the observation itself. Inferring intelligent design amounts to inferring the existence of an intelligent designer at one time or another in the past. So, in that sense, the past existence of a designer is a corollary to any design inference. We can't go much beyond that, though.Mapou
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST
StephenB, (55) It is demonstrable, but you do not accept the demonstration because it conflicts with your materialistic bias. No, I don't know more than how to make an assumption for the specific question of "design". If there is a bias, it is because ID is a science, science deals with the prediction-observation-validation-confirmation chain, and I don't really know how to validate that your post was designed. So, for me, it is a gut feel, and my gut feel is not science. I also have a gut feel that you are not Eliza or one of her descendents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA StephenB An inference is not a claim. ID is a science because it draws inferences from observation and data. An inference is not a claim. True. But when inferences are made, subsequent claims about the observable world will also be made. Those claims about the observable world are either scientific or not. If scientific, they deal with observations and validations. Same for ID scientific claims - they are observable and can be validated, or they are not scientific claims. That is not simply being argumentative - it is a fundamental distinction between a "science" and a "philosophy".Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST
-----Q writes, “ID claims that the designer exists, that it has intelligence, that it can cause observable things to occur, and that its functionality is the best explanation for the origin of life in the universe. Each of those claims are either observable or not. (The claim of “not observable” doesn’t mean “not real” when backed by a dualist philosophy.)” That the designer exists and has intelligence is a logical deduction drawn from a design inference. It is not a claim. StephenB-- "Inferences are inferences. What one does or does not do with them is an entirely separate matter" -----Q: True. And claims are claims. Scientific claims suggest one set of understanding, philosophical claims suggest another. Is ID a science or a philosophy, or some combination of both? An inference is not a claim. ID is a science because it draws inferences from observation and data. StephenB "Do you agree that my last post was designed?" -----Q: "I’ll say yes. But that is a gut feel. Can you explain how to validate whether it was designed? That is, the question of “How to validate if that post was designed” is not the same “Does design exist?” If we are arguing that ID is scientific - the point I’m persuing - that design should be demonstrable with the scientific method, shouldn’t it?" It is demonstrable, but you do not accept the demonstration because it conflicts with your materialistic bias. The evidence is the low probability that these specifically complex arrangements and patterns are coincidences.StephenB
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST
DaveScot, 53, Not quite. No claim is made that the intelligent designers still exist today. Very good point. The tense of the points I made regarding the ID claims of the origin of life in the universe needs to be accordingly corrected. Thanks DaveScotQ
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST
Q ID claims that the designer exists, that it has intelligence, that it can cause observable things to occur, and that its functionality is the best explanation for the origin of life in the universe. Not quite. No claim is made that the intelligent designers still exist today. Of course it follows if the designers are no longer with us then they are hardly capable of making observable things happen anymore. If ID made the claim a solitary living God tinkers with the universe I'd be forced to bow out and come up with an independent version of ID that didn't make the claim.DaveScot
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST
StephenB (49), ID makes no claims about the designer. It only studies the effects of intelligent innovation.– Not quite true that "no" claims are made. ID claims that the designer exists, that it has intelligence, that it can cause observable things to occur, and that its functionality is the best explanation for the origin of life in the universe. Each of those claims are either observable or not. (The claim of "not observable" doesn't mean "not real" when backed by a dualist philosophy.) StephenB Inferences are inferences. What one does or does not do with them is an entirely separate matter True. And claims are claims. Scientific claims suggest one set of understanding, philosophical claims suggest another. Is ID a science or a philosophy, or some combination of both? StephenB Do you agree that my last post was designed? I'll say yes. But that is a gut feel. Can you explain how to validate whether it was designed? That is, the question of "How to validate if that post was designed" is not the same "Does design exist?" If we are arguing that ID is scientific - the point I'm persuing - that design should be demonstrable with the scientific method, shouldn't it? bfast (50) who on earth are you to insist. Q bFast (50) if a UFO came down, and little green men popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth.... I don't dispute, and haven't disputed, the "on earth" part of that argument. I've been addressing the question of the original intelligent life in the universe. ID says that it was too complex to have arisen without an intelligent agent. So, to explore that question about the original life with the scientific process, we would need some material process that has intelligence but not life. Or, we would need a non-material intelligence with properties beyond our ability to observe. Sorry, bFast, but a mantra is a mantra. It is not an axiom, a process, or a conclusion. The claim "There is nothing about biological ID that requires anything immaterial or supernatural”, does seem to require non-material, if ID also claims that intelligence can't arise from chance and regularity. I.e. ID seems to say (and this could be the hole in my thinking) material intelligence requires pre-existing material intelligence before it can come into existance, unless the pre-existing intelligence can be non-material.Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PST
Many, maybe even most, IDers would be dissappointed that the designer proved to be material Well, I am a Christian and there is no doubt in my mind that the designer (God in this case) is material and physical. Certainly, it is not be the same type of matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc...) but it's matter nonetheless. There is corruptible living matter and incorruptible living matter. That does not mean that there is no duality, however. The designer's body is physical but his consciousness is immaterial, i.e., spiritual, just like ours. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as an immaterial intelligence. Consider that the physical matter that we are familiar with is not the only possible form of matter. I don't understand this insistence that the designer that designed life on this planet must be immaterial. We humans are intelligent designers and yet our brains are made of matter. Why must we insist that God's intelligence be immaterial? If this belief is based on Biblical evidence, I haven't seen it. I'm always willing to be educated though.Mapou
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PST
Q:
I do doggedly insist that when we are making claims about the observable universe, that we are practicing some aspects of the scientific method. I also insist that advocates of ID not ignore that ID has fundamental claims about a designer that are beyond the ability of observation to validate. At the same time, these claims, are integral to the premises of ID.
Gone a little full of yourself haven't yea. A#1, who on earth are you to insist. 2B, if a UFO came down, and little green men popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID. (The ID community would say, "I told you so." Many, maybe even most, IDers would be dissappointed that the designer proved to be material, but ID would be vindicated.) Thirdly, please repeat this mantra: "There is nothing about biological ID that requires anything immaterial or supernatural." When you've got that, then you will quit living with a face full of foot.bFast
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST
-----Q: "I also insist that advocates of ID not ignore that ID has fundamental claims about a designer that are beyond the ability of observation to validate." ID makes no claims about the designer. It only studies the effects of intelligent innovation.-- ----"Inferences are the prediction step of the scientific process." Inferences are inferences. What one does or does not do with them is an entirely separate matter. You continue to impose your own subjective definitions on matters whose meaning has already been established. As long as you insist on manipulate the language to harmonize with your materialistic bias, you will remain confused. -----"If making that inference is not followed with experiment and validation, making that inference is not science and contrary to your claim, it is not a scientific inference. It is a logical conclusion of a philosophical argument." It is no such thing. Statistical inference has nothing to do with philosophy. -----"Actually, I’m not rejecting design. I am insisting that if claims are made about tdesign, that the rationale be included." Well, we can settle this matter right now. Do you agree that my last post was designed? Please understand that this is either a yes, no, or I don't know question. Please answer with one of those three responses.StephenB
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST
StephenB, I reread my post above, and my line above Philosophically, I object to claims such as “This is the way it is” under the guise of science, when those claims are beyond the ability of the scientific method to validate. was not meant to suggest that all claims are beyond the ability of the scientific method to validate. I had bad comma usage. I meant to include only those arguments that are beyond the scientific method.Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PST
StephenB, I do doggedly insist that when we are making claims about the observable universe, that we are practicing some aspects of the scientific method. I also insist that advocates of ID not ignore that ID has fundamental claims about a designer that are beyond the ability of observation to validate. At the same time, these claims, are integral to the premises of ID. By being beyond observation - i.e. the scientific method - those claims push elements of ID into the philosophical domain. The claims about the designer of original life in the universe cannot be studied with a purely materialistic philosophical backing. ID, and claims about the designer of original life, must be studied with an inseparable dualistic backing. StephenB, As I recall, you seriously question the fact that the postings on this thread are products of design. Actually, I'm not rejecting design. I am insisting that if claims are made about tdesign, that the rationale be included. And, if the claims are about observations, then they qualify as scientific claims. If the claims can't be supported with the scientific method - i.e. observe, predict, test, validate - then we must acknowledge that some elements of a non-material philosophy must be included in the explanation. You specifically brought up my concerns regarding claims of design. If the rationale for design always boils down to "It is designed because it looks designed", we're either dealing with a circular argument about materialism, or we have a philosophical argument about what the words "looks like design" would mean. Philosophically, I object to claims such as "This is the way it is" under the guise of science, when those claims are beyond the ability of the scientific method to validate. Those claims end up being philosophical - along the lines of "This is the way it logically seems to be." Take your point above: It was an attempt to dramatize the point that scientific inferences can be made from data WITHOUT making philosophical assumptions. Inferences are the prediction step of the scientific process. If making that inference is not followed with experiment and validation, making that inference is not science and contrary to your claim, it is not a scientific inference. It is a logical conclusion of a philosophical argument.Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PST
------Q: "I mean, even you addressed both in the same sentence when you discussed the philosophy of discovering rationality It is NOT NECESSARY TO PRESUPPOSE rationality in the universe in order to DISCOVER RATIONALITY in the universe. Discovering things is one aspect of science." Maybe the determinists are right, after all. I am beginning to think that either I was born to be misunderstood or else you were born to misunderstand. My last paragraph was not a comingling of philosophy and science. It was an attempt to dramatize the point that scientific inferences can be made from data WITHOUT making philosophical assumptions. Naturally, philosophy can interact with science in productive ways. However, part of the intellectual task is knowing when one is using philosophy as a complement to science and when one is not. You assume, no you doggedly insist, that the two cannot be separated long enough even to perform a design inference. I assume that this is why, if I understand some of your previous comments, you cannot bring yourself to acknowedge design even when it is the only reasonable explanation. As I recall, you seriously question the fact that the postings on this thread are products of design. There aren't too many people in the world that would take skepticism that far.StephenB
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PST
StephenB, To say that either materialism or dualsim must be true is a philosophical assertion not a scientific assumption. Yes, you said those were the choices back in 39. I was building on that concept. StephenB Do you realize that you shift back and forth from philosophy to science, demanding from science philosophical answers and demanding from philosophy scientific answers. I'm pretty sure that I'm keeping the science domain and the philosophical domain separate. But, there is fundamental overlap, because both dualism and materialism provide insights into the observable world, as does science. So, it may appear that they are being commingled. I mean, even you addressed both in the same sentence when you discussed the philosophy of discovering rationality It is NOT NECESSARY TO PRESUPPOSE rationality in the universe in order to DISCOVER RATIONALITY in the universe. Discovering things is one aspect of science. The point I'm trying to make (or to reconcile if I've got it wrong) is that ID makes claims about the origin of life that are both material (that an intelligent agent designed life is the best explanation for the origin of life in the universe) while also making philosophical claims (that intelligence is separate from chance and regularity, that non-intelligent agencies can't be the origin of life, and that the intelligent agency existed before life.) Even if my explanation is a bit terse, ID makes both scientific claims and philosophical claims, and the existance of the boundary between those parts of ID should not be ignored.Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST
-----Q "The only rational conclusion between these two choices - materialism or dualism - is that ID seems to depend upon dualism to explain the origins of life, and thus, the original designer must be non-material. Or is there some other means to have an intelligent agent design the original life while being material?" Do you realize that you shift back and forth from philosophy to science, demanding from science philosophical answers and demanding from philosophy scientific answers. To say that either materialism or dualsim must be true is a philosophical assertion not a scientific assumption. Philosophy can certainly illuminate science, but not in the middle of a rigorous scientific investigation that requires a rigorous scientific focus. I do believe that, in order to be perfectly coherent, one must believe in rational minds, a rational universe, and a correspondence between the two. If one doesn't believe that God left clues, then it makes little sense to go looking for clues. That is why, in my judgment, agnosticism is incoherent and self-contradictory. But that is a function of reason's first principles and is in no way a prerequisite for doing intelligent design. It is NOT NECESSARY TO PRESUPPOSE rationality in the universe in order to DISCOVER RATIONALITY in the universe. Indeed, one can begin with an incoherent agnosticism and end with a vital deism. Just ask Anthony Flew. His story completely blows away your premise. If one had to assume rationality to discover rationality, then obviously it WOULD NOT BE A DISCOVERY.StephenB
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PST
Vance, "Frosti, my point was not to argue against ID in my original comment (#1), and I point out there your point that the real “opponent” is philosophical naturalism." I agree. The enemy is natural causes only-- without intelligent causes being allowed. "And, I fully agree that our search for “truth” should extend beyond the reaches of mere methodological naturalism." Things that we can observe, study, test and demonstrate fall into the science category, things that we cannot observe, study, test, demonstrate and repeat (as in an experiment) fall into the metaphysical category. "We should take the results of scientific analysis (which can not, due to its limited methodologies) and not stop there, but move forward with philosophy and theology to seek the ultimate truth."" You are right, scientific analysis has very limited methodologies to seek the origin of events in the deep past. A lot of people have sought philosophy and theology to seek an ultimate truth because they think there is a purpose for themselves within that faith. "But what is essential to keep in mind is that science, in and of itself, can not get there. It is not equipped to deal with anything beyond the natural." This statement is not correct, and quite misleading. Science can detect intelligent causes, if you were in a murder trial as an attorney, then you know the difference between causes that are naturally occuring, versus those that are caused by intelligence. The fact that you are in a murder trial has already concluded that the 'origin of the dead body' was caused by intelligent and natural causes--not just purely natural causes. "There is no means by which it can analyze things which are not natural, so it’s best use is for determining the best *naturalistic* explanation for phenomenon." We can analyze things and find out how those things work, but we cannot find the origin of those things using the same rules. How things work, and the origin of things are two separate concepts. How things work are always the product of natural phenomenon. How something causes to come into existence--the origin of 'said thing' is different. It has two options, naturalistic causes only, and naturalistic causes WITH intelligent causes as well. Materialist scientists in your education system and on your media have confused you into a circular pattern in which you think that that the human and his mind are part of nature, and are therefore only invoking natural causes. This helps in your mind to conclude a purely natural explanation as to the 'origin of a dead body', when in fact the mind from a murderer is working out intelligent causes that can go beyond those that are caused by pure nature. "We Christians, and other theists, will always place a little mental asterisk by that conclusion which says “if it is happening entirely naturally”, but the bottom line is that this is all science can do: provide the best naturalistic explanation." You are excluding intelligent causes. Intelligent causes produce machines and codes. We are the only biologic machine that can add concept onto matter in the form of a code or machine. The only code that man did not create is the genetic code, and the only machines that man is not making is biologic machines copying themselves seemingly endlessly. Sorry you monkey lovers out there, a monkey using a 'tool' is not a machine or code. It's a stick or a stone. Even the bird can beat them and make a nice nest. So don't let the materialists confuse you on that one, the monkey has no way forward with respect to actualizing and producing a legitimate code or machine. This is the materialist who controls large portions of the media and the education system manipulating you into thinking a tool and a machine are the same. Science can detect intelligent causes too, that's the bottom line. Show me some natural forces that can make a machine or code please, then I'll believe you, until then, you are arguing in metaphysics. "We can not say that since the search for ultimate truth goes beyond the natural, then science, which is supposed to the be the search for truth must go beyond the natural as well. That would be nice, but science can not do that. " Wrong. Forensic science deals with the detection of intelligent agency. That's not a natural cause, it is separate and can be distinguished. Forensic science is a good example where they are not looking for natural laws or forces, but comparing their observations to natural causes and intelligent causes, and concluding whether it's an accident or done on purpose. Science can detect purpose. I can tell a car has a purpose to transport you. I can make that logic. "Sure, we could expand the definition of “science” to mean more than it really should, sort of a “search for truth, wherever it can be found”, but that is not what science really is. We need to separate the two concepts and see science for just the limited tool that it is." Expand the definition? I just don't want to exclude intelligent causes when determining the origin of any given event in nature. If you want to exclude intelligent causes as your definition of science, then I would love to see it expanded. "I am an attorney, so figure a courtroom at a murder trial. They bring in the scientists who have very specific tools for answering very specific questions. And they provide the jury with the best explanation of the evidence using their specific tools. That is not the final answer, however. The jury has to take that testimony, that “best explanation from the expert within his expertise”, and then considering all the other evidence, weigh it all together and come to a decision on what the actual truth is. Just as we would not want the scientist in the trial to be the final arbiter of what the “truth” is in the case, we should not expect scientists to be the final arbiter of truth in areas outside of their “natural” bailiwick either. We do not call the jury “scientists” or the entire judicial process, which is a search for truth, “science”. We recognize that the scientific conclusions are just one part of the evidence we bring to bear. And, of course, as with the court case, very often that scientific (naturalistic) answer is SO convincing that we accept it AS truth. But not automatically. We accept that it is the best naturalistic explanation and then, if we are people of faith who have other evidence we bring to bear, we continue our analysis." In a murder trial, you already gave up on purely naturalistic explanations and moved on to 'intelligent causes' as to the origin as to the death of a person's body/s. How can you not see that? The origin had 'intelligent causes' (another person/intelligent agent shot/stabbed/blugeoned someoneelse). The fact that you got to trial suggests that your detectives found all kinds of intelligent agency around the dead body, probably in some cases literally written or 'splattered' on the wall suggested, 'your man did it'. If you were a detective or policeman instead, you would realize the flaw in your logic. Say for example, a police officer was asked to go to the scene of an accident and by doing so finds out a boulder fell down a mountain and smashed into a car with someone in it, and that someone later died. Now, the 'origin of the dead body' in that case was the product of purely natural causes. Perhaps wind, and water erosion of the soil loosening the boulder to fall onto the road crushing that someone. You don't go to trial notice. The witnesses said the rock did it. It's over, pure natural in that case--but in everyone of your cases, intelligent causes were the cause as to the 'origin of the dead body'.RRE
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PST
StephenB (39) On the other hand, there are really only two philosophical possiblities: materialism or dualism. Sure, I'll not argue that. And, materialism is an insufficient tool to support ID's explanation on the origin of life in the universe - that an intelligent agent existed before life. The only rational conclusion between these two choices - materialism or dualism - is that ID seems to depend upon dualism to explain the origins of life, and thus, the original designer must be non-material. Or is there some other means to have an intelligent agent design the original life while being material?Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST
Greetings! ID is material investigation that put the facts first, and some conclutions may or may not lead to non-material. In other words follow the evidence. So until we can measure beyond our universe there is no comment. But after the science we can do other things. ID is science so it does have limitations. It is true scientific investigation is limited to the material universe, but it may lead to non-material conclutions. Unlike Darwinism, ID does not put the theory before the "facts." And in some cases the non-material causes can be measured through material effects. Ultimately science is just one tool for unterstanding our universe.Unlettered and Ordinary
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST
Excuse my repetitious phrase on 39 (just as it posits the presence of God.)StephenB
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PST
Q: I think that you are confusing the science of intelligent design with the philosophy of dualism. Intelligent design, by definition, cannot comment one way or the other about the metaphysical realities that may illuminate the science. On the other hand, there are really only two philosophical possiblities: materialism or dualism. Thus, dualistic mataphysics does posit the presence of God and mind aprirori, just as it posits the presence of God. I will say this, though. Although one can be a good ID scientist and be an agnostic, I don't believe that one can be a good philsopher and be an agnostic. The reason most ID scientists are theists is becasue they are also good philsophers.StephenB
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST
Frosti, my point was not to argue against ID in my original comment (#1), and I point out there your point that the real "opponent" is philosophical naturalism. And, I fully agree that our search for "truth" should extend beyond the reaches of mere methodological naturalism. We should take the results of scientific analysis (which can not, due to its limited methodologies) and not stop there, but move forward with philosophy and theology to seek the ultimate truth. We agree on that entirely. But what is essential to keep in mind is that science, in and of itself, can not get there. It is not equipped to deal with anything beyond the natural. There is no means by which it can analyze things which are not natural, so it’s best use is for determining the best *naturalistic* explanation for phenomenon. We Christians, and other theists, will always place a little mental asterisk by that conclusion which says “if it is happening entirely naturally”, but the bottom line is that this is all science can do: provide the best naturalistic explanation. We can not say that since the search for ultimate truth goes beyond the natural, then science, which is supposed to the be the search for truth must go beyond the natural as well. That would be nice, but science can not do that. Sure, we could expand the definition of “science” to mean more than it really should, sort of a “search for truth, wherever it can be found”, but that is not what science really is. We need to separate the two concepts and see science for just the limited tool that it is. I am an attorney, so figure a courtroom at a murder trial. They bring in the scientists who have very specific tools for answering very specific questions. And they provide the jury with the best explanation of the evidence using their specific tools. That is not the final answer, however. The jury has to take that testimony, that “best explanation from the expert within his expertise”, and then considering all the other evidence, weigh it all together and come to a decision on what the actual truth is. Just as we would not want the scientist in the trial to be the final arbiter of what the “truth” is in the case, we should not expect scientists to be the final arbiter of truth in areas outside of their “natural” bailiwick either. We do not call the jury “scientists” or the entire judicial process, which is a search for truth, “science”. We recognize that the scientific conclusions are just one part of the evidence we bring to bear. And, of course, as with the court case, very often that scientific (naturalistic) answer is SO convincing that we accept it AS truth. But not automatically. We accept that it is the best naturalistic explanation and then, if we are people of faith who have other evidence we bring to bear, we continue our analysis.Vance
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PST
Magnan, I think that parapsychology has a number of valid points. It is interesting that it has been scientifically demonstrated that humans can tell when someone is staring at them. It is interesting that it has been scientifically demonstrated that humans have some ability to determine who is calling or e-mailing. Do you have a site link further discussing human interation with quantum events? I believe I have heard something about this, but would like to know more.bFast
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST
jerry (#24): "The designer of life could be of this universe or not of this universe. ID does not know or speculate. There is no scientific information that is presently available that lets one do more than provide wild speculations." Your post is an excellent summary overall. The evidence of massively greater amounts of specified complex information than can be explained as originating from stochastic processes indicates injection of design information by some intelligent agent(s). The intelligent agent(s) could be material, of this universe, or "supernatural". The process by which this injection of design input took place is constrained by the available evidence of the fossil record and comparative genetics. This evidence can't distinguish between genetic manipulation by physical advanced intelligent beings from elsewhere/elsewhen in the universe (ETs), and genetic manipulation by supernatural agent(s). However, the evidence of parapsychology (psi research) does seem to point more to a supernatural source of this intelligence. I have in mind the evidence that (at least human) minds can directly physically affect external objects, in particular quantum mechanical random events such as with REGs, that (human) minds can directly affect other life forms in particular individual cells and cell cultures, and that as implied by this and much other evidence (at least human) minds apparently are not identical with or purely functions of the physical brain. Surely this evidence must have a significant implication as to the nature of the intelligence behind life.magnan
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST
joseph, aren't your points above (in 34), basically what I was saying? That is, as you concluded, ID argues against materialism (for the reasons you explain), and so argues against purely material explanations for the origin of life. Although in theory subsequent life forms may be the source of yet-another-subsequent life form, doesn't ID suggest that the original life form could not have been cause by a purely material event? Isn't it skirting the problem to suggest that non-material can be exluded from ID's investigation into the origins of life in the universe? bFast (33), fair point about Demski's EF vs ID in general. Mapou (32) I don’t remember reading this anywhere. Somehow I doubt that this is part of the ID hypothesis. Maybe I'm reading it too far then. Does ID suggest that the original life could have occured through purely material intelligent agents? Were there any before there was life? Or, doesn't ID essentially require that for the original life to have come about, there must have been a pre-existing intelligence not bound to material life in order to design that life? I'm not trying to be obtuse on this - it just seems that arguing that ID includes the option that life could have originated through purely material means, or to have not required a non-material intelligent agent, is to demote ID to being a simple mechanistic explanation with regards to the origin of life in the universe. I think it imperative to include that the intelligent agent of the design of the original life in the universe, according to ID, must have been a non-material intelligence.Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply