What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

#221 Stephenb I will risk responding to your comments although, as you know, I have found your rather ascerbic style a bit more than I can take in the past. I would like to address every single point you make - but that would too long a comment (it is still too long but I am too tired to make it shorter). So I will select a few highlights. stephenb: A widely held belief is not synonymous with a self evident truth, which, upon reflection, ends in absurdity. My point is that we cannot easily tell a widely held belief from a self-evident truth. Nice job of rewriting the clear rule in your own vague language and then declaring the rewrite to be vague. A cause is simply something that brings something else about. That means nothing can come into existence unless some kind of cause makes it happen. I was trying to rewrite it to make it clear. Happy to accept your version but I don't see that it is any clearer. The second statement simply does not follow from the first. The first statement is of the form: (A) An X is simply something that does Y to Z. the second is of the form: (B) Y cannot happen to Z unless X Statements of form B do not follow from statements of form A. me: when even the meaning of “cause” is open to many interpretations,” stephenb: No, it isn’t. Just look up the word in the dictionary. Actually my dictionary offers two or three definitions but that is hardly the point. The dictionary definitions are no less ambiguous than the word "cause". The meaning of "cause" is a long running dispute - just read the article in the Stanford Encyclopediea of Philosophy. me: "Isn’t it reasonable to say that we know a bit about birth of the universe and outside of that we know nothing and may never know?” Stephenb: No. Kant’s notion that we cannot know anything about the real world refutes itself. In order to make that dubious claim, Kant would have had to know something about the real world. But I am not saying we cannot know anything about the real world. I am only saying we don't know anything about anything other than the universe. Correct. You are committed to hyperskepticism You can call it what you like. I call it recognising the limitations of what we know. In any case it seems to be a rational position.markf_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, Kairosfocus doesn't believe contradictory things by believing in an uncaused cause. He believes that those things that begin to exist, have a cause. If the uncaused cause did not ever begin to exist, then it does not have to have a cause. You may not believe that there is an uncaused cause, but the above statement is not self-contradictory. BTW the best debaters learn from their opponents. Just a random thought.Collin_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
The tree structure of descent was drawn by Darwin around 1838 and continues to be the the core of evolution. And despite your protestation regarding bananas and animals, the majority of researchers, including Behe, see the tree structure.
Indeed, it is most certainly despite my protestations of the same great grandfather father between oysters and banana trees that researchers see the tree structure.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

---markf: "The trouble about this is what we thought was necessarily true may turn out not to be – uncertainty goes very deep. 200 years ago many people thought that it was necessarily true that:" A widely held belief is not synonymous with a self evident truth, which, upon reflection, ends in absurdity. ---"The sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" The laws of spherical geometry are different from the laws of plane geometry. That fact does not, in any way, change the unchangeable laws inherent in each realm. ---"Nothing can be in two places at once" [a widely held view] Here your instincts are correct. History shows that certain mystic/saints have bilocated. A good example would be Padre Pio. None of this has anything to do with the law of non-contradiction. ---"Time is the same for everything material in the universe" Here we have another widely held view that has nothing to do with first principles. --"All of these are now either known to be false under certain conditions." Obviously, that statement is incorrect. ---"These are all crisply defined statements. If you then go on to rather vaguer statements such as: ---"If something is uncaused it cannot have a beginning." Nice job of rewriting the clear rule in your own vague language and then declaring the rewrite to be vague. A cause is simply something that brings something else about. That means nothing can come into existence unless some kind of cause makes it happen. ---"If something has no beginning it must be immaterial." Yes, that is clearly a logical requirement. It has not, as you indicate, been shown to be false and the reason for that is very simple: reason's rules inform evidence; evidence does not inform reason's rules. ---"If the first cause is immaterial it must be God." Well, not exactly. The first cause must, from a logical standpoint, be immaterial, eternal, self existent, necessary, one, and personal. Most people, however, would recognize that being as the Judeo/Christian God. ---"when even the meaning of “cause” is open to many interpretations," No, it isn't. Just look up the word in the dictionary. ["The producer of an effect, result, or consequence. b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result."] There are, indeed, many kinds of causes, but the meaning of the word is clear. ---"much less “immaterial” and “God” – then you really are making some rather bold committments/assumptions." They are not "bold assumptions," rather they are necessary conclusions based on the "bold" assumption that existence is real. ---"Isn’t it reasonable to say that we know a bit about birth of the universe and outside of that we know nothing and may never know?" No. Kant's notion that we cannot know anything about the real world refutes itself. In order to make that dubious claim, Kant would have had to know something about the real world. ---"That would be my intellectual committment with respect to first causes." Correct. You are committed to hyperskepticism.StephenB_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

PPS: Notice, in so holding that the classic theistic frame of thought for doing science is reasonable -- as opposed to irrational [as say Lewontin imagines], I am emphatically not asserting, assuming or implying that the design theory framework proves theism. Reasonableness as used above means that one has an epistemic and logical right to operate on that basis, whether or not others may operate on a different basis, and whether or not hey are inclined to view yours as reasonable.kairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

PS: MF of course manages to neatly sidestep the corrective on cause that I presented yesterday, at no 164.kairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Besides, this is after-the-fact reasoning, and nothing would stand to falsify it by this criterion of comparison, for it’s all encompassing, and includes all similarities and all differences.
The tree structure of descent was drawn by Darwin around 1838 and continues to be the the core of evolution. And despite your protestation regarding bananas and animals, the majority of researchers, including Behe, see the tree structure. The fact that there is no relevant evidence against the tree structure does not mean that, in principal, there could not be. We know that things designed by humans do not follow this pattern. Within a few decades of the discovery of DNA we have entire industries devoted to splicing genes between disparate organisms. One has to wonder why the original designer didn't think of this, or having thought of it, chose to make life appear to be related by descent. I hope you also understand that molecular biologists, like Behe, do not argue against descent with modification. At most, they argue about the size of specific modifications, and the cause of the modifications.Petrushka_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

F/N: MF, unfortunately, neatly omits the case of say warranted, credible truth no 1, following Josiah Royce and Elton Trueblood who underscored the significance of Royce's work: WCT 1: Error exists. 1 --> We intuitively understand (and accept) this, on all too abundant experience. 2 --> But the truth is not simply a fact of experience. 3 --> To show this, let us set up our Modus Tollens Reductio ad Absurdum -- the same foundational technique that is so crucial to modern mathematics. 4 --> If we try to deny WCT 1, something very interesting happens:
P2: "It is false that error exists"
5 --> This becomes an example of error, on either view of the truth value of P2: (a) if P2 is suggested to be to be true, WCT1 would be an error, confirming WCT1. And of course (b) if P2 is suggested as false, it is an example of WCT1. 6 --> But P2 is either true or false, as it asserts a state of affairs. [Cf here Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b] 7 --> WCT1 is UNDENIABLY TRUE, and it is by this also a self-evident truth, as once you understand what it is about (including what happens when you try to deny it, it MUST be true.) 8 --> Some implications and consequences:
a: truth exists [i.e. the set of true propositions is non-empty], as that which refers accurately to reality and that which we may err about. b: warranted credible truth exists, to the point of certaintly on pain of reduction to absurdity c: i.e. by definition, certain knowledge exists, though also this is a peculiarly humbling case that shows how we may be in error about what we think we know. d: so also, provisional knowledge exists, as that which is warranted and credibly true but potentially prone to error. (Scientific truths and truths of fact -- even morally certain [practically certain] ones -- fall into this class.) e: through the power of modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum, we may warrant particular truths to the degree of certainty on pain of absurdity, i.e. radical relativism and denial of objective or even absolute truth are overturned. f: So also we see that there are some truths that can be known beyond rational doubt, but also some that can only be provisionally known, i.e. worldviews of finite, fallible creatures such as ourselves are of mixed character at best. g:since also mathematical truths are subject to the Godel incompleteness constraints, mathematical claims are subject to error (i.e. MF gave a loaded example or two there]
9 --> Already, we see a considerable body of warranted, credible truths that allow us to build a philosophical toolkit to test alternative worldviews on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, through comparative difficulties. (Cf my discussion of a cluster of such WCT's -- first principles of right reason if you will, here.) 10 --> In short, MF's objection is unfortunately distractive and strawmanish [just as unfortunately happened yesterday]rather than constructive. _________________ CONCLUSION: We thus have every epistemic right to collect a cluster of warranted credible truths [including the core laws of logic], and to use a philosophical toolkit to build a worldview on first principles of right reason. And, on principles of reasonable faith that freely uses morally certain but not absolutely certain truths as major life commitments, and that provisionally uses lesser knowledger claims such as in science and mathematics, given that every worldview will face the challenges of WCT no 1. Of course, I hold that (contrary to much ill-informed and ill-cultured neo-Atheist rhetoric) the Judaeo-Christian theistic worldview [in any one of several forms] is just such a reasonable faith and frame for life and science. Similarly, for good reason, I hold that the design theory paradigm is a reasonable one for doing science in C21; even as the evolutionary materialist one reduces ever more and more to absurdity in many, many ways. Some, sadly, all too visible in the thread above. And so I hold that it is quite reasonable to practice science in the frame of seeing it as thinking God's creative and sustaining providential thoughts after him. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

CY: Actually, there is a Wiki on ID, and IDEA Center has a fairly extensive FAQ - cum- primer. ISCID has a bit of a smallish encyclopedia. The UD Weak Argument Corrective and Glossary are first steps down that line too. (Maybe UD will provide some links?) What I (and some others) have put forward with the IOSE proof of concept beta using blog technology actually has an even more beta test Wiki personality, on TikiWiki software [one key lesson: there is no really effective WYSIWYG for Wiki production (and the markup system is only slightly less messy than doing raw full bore manual html markup coding), which tends to put Wiki control in the hands of a Geek class . . . explains a lot about the biases and agendas at Wikipedia], and will have a Moodle educational content management system framework, DV. But Wikis and blogs etc in a sense are too passive for what we need now. We are dealing with the ideological captivity and corruption of a major cluster of institutions in our civilisation, through decades of effort of a determined minority, which now sits in what they imagine is comfortable control. We need a "push" focus: an educational endeavour that brings first of all consciousness of what has been done to us and where it will end if unchecked, then also a critical survey of origins science and its societal significance to a snowballing movement of concerned citizens. A survey that can be brought to people in communities and community based organisations on a participative basis, with relatively little need for heavy duty curriculum preparations and investments. Something that can equip and organise concerned members of the public, high school level students, College students and educators to think and act and lead for themselves instead of just passively swallowing the laced Koolaid as instructed and intimidated. [1979 or so again . . . (NB: "Rev" Jimmy Jones turned out to be a manipulative "charismatic" Marxist who set up a police state "utopia" in a commune in Guyana and tried to bequeath his assets after the mass suicide to the USSR . . . )] Think about, say:
Phase I: a "standard kit" based community based seminar that starts with a period of web and multimedia resource reading and preliminary exercises, at gneral/HS level and at College/Reference/Educators level. Maybe, for a month or so of prep work using Moodle or the like as a web course technological base. [Moodle is of course open source.] b: Phase II: As a part of that prep work, students prepare poster presentation projects and slide shows, with practical and research exercises as appropriate. c: Phase III: A one week seminar [or a compressed version] brings the people together for fairly high level quality presentations and maybe teleconferences with experts, and discussion sessions, for Science-fair level presentations and student level peer review feedback [with facilitators kicking it up a notch or two], and also across the week a declaration and call for action is organised. Phase IVa: During the evenings, there is a festival of public videos and books etc on origins science topics [e.g. Privileged Planet, Darwin's Dilemma, etc], with panels for further discussion (and perhaps a teleconference event). Student project posters are on display, with the students on hand. Phase IVb: Also, on the weekend, there is a one day seminar that features a compressed version of the week [say, using the intro and summary as a launchpad], with featured presentations from participants, and leading up to a declaration, call to action and mobilisation of onward action committees for community level action as appropriate and agreed. Phase V: participants complete projects which are assessed and receive certificates of participation. Phase VI: In parallel, members of the organising committee for the community based course and select members of action teams are developed as trainers and organisers, who may then propagate the seminar onward.
See what I mean about a snowballing potential? Then, think about the emergence of a net centric alternative education system. In the second wave, that sort of community based movement needs to be the leading edge of a wedge of truth movement that begins to transform the cost structures, accessibility and content of alternative education -- finishing what the homeschooling and related movements have begun to do. I think this is actually beginning to gel in a currently unorganised, networked sort of way. But a more structured and focussed effort is coming. GEM of TKI PS: CY, please use the contact link through my handle, KF, in the left hand column to contact me.kairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

#202 tgpeeler If I understand you, asking for intellectual committment amounts to asking people what they assume to be necessarily true? The trouble about this is what we thought was necessarily true may turn out not to be - uncertainty goes very deep. 200 years ago many people thought that it was necessarily true that: The sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 degrees Nothing can be in two places at once Time is the same for everything material in the universe All of these are now either known to be false under certain conditions. These are all crisply defined statements. If you then go on to rather vaguer statements such as: If something is uncaused it cannot have a beginning. If something has no beginning it must be immaterial. If the first cause is immaterial it must be God when even the meaning of "cause" is open to many interpretations, much less "immaterial" and "God" - then you really are making some rather bold committments/assumptions. Isn't it reasonable to say that we know a bit about birth of the universe and outside of that we know nothing and may never know? That would be my intellectual committment with respect to first causes.markf_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

You're right, Clive. Evolution is the true "god-of-the-gaps" argument. It explains everything. Evolution explains my religious beliefs, and if I should change them, it explains that too. It explains why my cat purrs, and why it doesn't. My cat and I are very happy to have that information. I don't think we could survive without it. It explains why humans have two arms, and it even explains why, when they don't. Again, I think the humans who don't have two arms are quite happy to have that information for the sake of their survival. It explains why giraffes have long necks, while at the same time it explains why the trees that giraffes require for food are so tall, although I'm not sure if it's the tallness of the trees or the length of the neck, which came first, but no matter. Heck, it even explains why other creatures who may gather their food from the same tall trees, do not have long necks, but such information is happily accepted for the sake of survival. I have a lot of questions still. It's a good thing I'll have evolution around when I need to answer them. It's a survival thing, you know.CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
I’m aware that we recognize design in archeological objects, because we can compare them to objects known to be made by humans.
What is Stonehenge and what purpose does it serve and to what known objects do we compare it that were made by humans?
The quantity of information is irrelevant. Evolution accumulates information via its learning algorithm. The rate of accumulation can be computed by noting the differences between closely related species.
Noting the differences and noting the similarities? Evolution accounts for everything doesn't it? If animals are similar, it proves evolution, if they are different, it proves evolution. Besides, this is after-the-fact reasoning, and nothing would stand to falsify it by this criterion of comparison, for it's all encompassing, and includes all similarities and all differences. Both can be explained by the same mechanism. Everything can be explained by that mechanism, which leaves it utterly vacuous. Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

KF, Another observation is that this back-and-forth (at least the current round) over first principles seems to have begun on the 600+post thread concerning Meyer's argument for why ID is science. You pretty much nailed this by connecting failed philosophical premises to the current debacle we call science. Nobody is an independent thinker; thus, these counter-ID arguments are coming from somewhere. Petrushka and others are not the source. They are simply manifestations of the overall symptoms, which stem from the source (or sources).CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

GEM, amen.tgpeeler_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

KF, I realize that what you're proposing is more far-reaching than simply how ID is presented, but my idea is merely a beginning strategy for an online counter-attack against "irrationalism." Also, another thought came to mind, and I don't know if this will go over well, or even if it's such a good idea, but I think that the Discovery Institute should consider dispensing with the Center for Science and Culture, and allow them to go their separate way as a purely scientific enterprise - a separate think tank, and not connected to the DI's ideological framework. This might allow ID to gain more credibility among those who don't necessarily share the ideology of the DI, but otherwise might be more sympathetic to ID as science. We've criticized Science Blogs here for not discussing science in favor of dispensing ideology. I think the DI is too ideological to be the authoritative source for all things ID; even if I may agree with much of the ideology.CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

KF, I think it might be a good idea and investment for all of the current prominent ID proponents to collaborate on a Wiki-based site that presents all the basic arguments for ID, such that when "intelligent design" is googled, such a Wiki is the first thing a researcher finds. Such a Wiki could feature all of the positive arguments for ID, the arguments against, as well as some sort of "Weak Arguments Directive," such as what we have at UD. It's actually interesting and quite ironic that Wikipedia offers the software for such a Wiki site, which requires a server to download it to. Sadly, if you currently google "intelligent design," the first thing that appears is Wikipedia's biased article. What's really going on is that the powers that be see fit that Wikipedia should be the current authoritative resource on pretty much anything contained therein. We can change that. Now there are such authoritative Wikis for various subjects, and they are often at the top of google's list as opposed to Wikipedia articles themselves. If a war is fought, surely this ought to be one of the first battles. I think the ID movement needs to use as many internet tools as possible to get the word out. Currently we're depending on published books and a few blogs. The internet is much more useful than that sort of approach. Such a Wiki site should be completely independent of the current authoritative organizations surrounding ID, although their fellows should contribute.CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Folks: A thought for the night, on foundations of knowledge and reason. Also, on where all this points over the next generation. For, the tide has now decisively turned:
There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures. Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224 [Shakespeare, cf video here.]
For, we are at kairos. How do we proceed? I: First, the foundations of our thinking must be set to rights: Now, in one of my online briefing notes, I have discussed the matter of foundational warranted credible truths, in the context of self-evidence, here, which builds on the reasonable faith worldview core principle here. The point of self evidence has been captured by that hostile witness, Wiki:
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. [How successfully, Wiki? Do they not find themselves descending into absurdity, whether or no they admit it, e.g. on non-contradiction or causality?] For most others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one’s belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident . . . . A self-evident proposition cannot be denied without knowing that one contradicts oneself (provided one actually understands the proposition). An analytic proposition cannot be denied without a contradiction, but one may fail to know that there is a contradiction because it may be a contradiction that can be found only by a long and abstruse line of logical or mathematical reasoning. Most analytic propositions are very far from self-evident. Similarly, a self-evident proposition need not be analytic: my knowledge that I am conscious is self-evident but not analytic . . . . For those who admit the existence [i.e. reality] of abstract concepts, the class of non-analytic self-evident truths can be regarded as truths of the understanding–truths revealing connections between the meanings of ideas.
The key phrase there is “truths of the understanding.” For, starting from the certainty of our existence as minded, enconscienced creatures in a physically and morally coherent, intelligible world — one can deny such only on pain of reduction to utter self-referential incoherence and absurdity! — we are led to see that certain ideas evidently refer to clustered realities that we can understand in light of our experience of the world, and once we understand them clearly, they are seen to be true and deniable only on pain of indulging in incoherence of an order that we know or should know. Observe here carefully: we come to understand the force of SETs through our experience of the world as intelligent creatures, but the warrant for the SETs is not our experience as such but the consequence of attempted denial: absurdity that is known or should be known. (We CAN deny the force of such an absurdity, but only on pain of showing ourselves utterly irrational. Resemblance to events in this blog's comment threads over days, weeks and months past is NOT coincidental.) The distinction just made is subtle, but important. II: Second, we must understand how this speaks to science: Now too, self evidence allows us to rapidly build up a fund of warranted credible truths that can be used in worldviews level comparative difficulties analysis; which -- as was mentioned in Section a here under the cite from Lakatos on scientific research programmes -- also relate to the hard cores of scientific paradigms. At the heart of a given scientific research programme is a core that often embeds worldview-level commitments and views about the right way to do science. That core is protected by a flexible armour-belt of auxiliary plausible conjectures that help it "solve" problems that seem to be significant to practitioners in the paradigm. But equally, the auxiliary framework typically deflects the impact of points where the theory is not working so well just now, perhaps even "solving" problems by after-the-fact explaining away on auxiliary hypotheses. (NB: This also means that "falsifiability" is not a particularly good criterion for testing whether or not a given research programme is or is not "scientific," and -- since, for instance, a formerly degenerative paradigm can sometimes have a breakthrough success and suddenly take back the lead -- it also should give us pause before imposing overly hard and fast rules on what is or is not "science.") If a research programme becomes ever more characterised by after-the-fact defensive deflection of problems, however, it is plainly deteriorating. Progressive paradigms, instead, consistently anticipate and correctly predict new and otherwise unexpected observations; even though at any given time, there probably will always be unresolved points where the body of observed facts and the theory do not currently line up. Moreover, at no point can such progressiveness and success actually prove the truth of the theory, whether in its auxiliary conjectures or in its core commitments. This, on pain of affirming the consequent if we try to infer from explained or predicted observations to the claimed truthfulness of a given theory. In the end, theories and paradigms live and die by comparative difficulties analysis across alternatives. That is why worldview level ideological censorship such as is being imposed by the Lewontinian a priori materialist magisterium, is so heinous. And, that is why those caught up in the web of that intellectual crime are so ruthlessly desperate in defense of the indefensible. That, too, is why the evolutionary materialist cause is doomed. And so . . . III: It is 1979 II, folks. The 1950's, 60's and 70's are over, and the 1980's are ahead. By the time we finish the 1990's, evolutionary materialism will be as dead as Marxism now is. Oh, it may lie in a shallow and noisily stirring grave -- cf today's Chavezes and the like [some as close as your friendly local College campus or government offices] -- but the cause is dead and the punch is gone. And not only in origins science. (Look at what is happening with climate science in the aftermath of the climategate revelations. (E.g. here.) The real question in my mind is how hard a blow the basic credibility of science as a whole is going to take. If there is a desperate clinging to the indefensible for too long, the blow is going to be a very heavy one. So, ATBC habituees and other assorted objectors and ideologues, a bit of advice: take a long, sober look at what you are doing to science and science education by ideologising them. Then, think about what is going to happen when people have to increasingly turn their backs on the corrupted ideologised, tax-subsidised school systems and build independent alternatives, first as standalone courses similar to the one now in beta test on origins science, but then eventually integrated into a new wave of cost-effective web based schools that partner with existing local centres to create a new education paradigm. IV: A New paradigm for education on origins science (and for many other spheres) . . . Just think of the implications of the $75 OLPC concept tablet or the $35 Indian Gov't tablet multiplied by online libraries of ebooks and other learning resources. I have my eye on thinks like Kaltura [participative video creation], Blender [multimedia production -- thanks Apollos] and Big Blue Button [educational teleconferencing] plus things like what blogs and wikis can do when put to education uses. All, fuelled by network economics [once the network is there, it costs essentially nothing to add one more node or participant . . . as in cell phones], DSL and similar broadband technologies and wireless networks, with open source technologies becoming a powerful, unstoppable wave. Your zealously guarded materialist monopoly on education is dead, dead dead. And with it, the agit-prop power of dominance of the media, which will only further utterly discredit itself if it keeps on spewing the party-line when a growing tidal wave of people can see right through it and know that the easily accessible truth is being suppressed. Then, think about how this new education and information paradigm will sweep not only the North but the South. Actually, the strongest initial base, I suspect, will be in the South -- locked into the Southern reformation envisioned by Jenkins and others. in 30 - 50 years, there will be a new world order. (My bet; China wins, but China that is going through the same sort of transformation that changed Rome across the 200s. I call it, Prester John II.) V: Now, why am I openly saying such things? Because, the trends are now unstoppable. As a net-centric trend, this is inherently subversive of all power hierarchies and hidden cabals that seek to dominate and control from the formerly strategic centres of power. Including the hitherto ultimate power of materialist veto by the ideologised court system. (As a harbinger, notice how Judge "ACLU Copycat" Jones has in the end only discredited himself and the education system he and those who told him how to rule sought to monopolise.) Indeed, this public statement is in effect a call to arms. The time to act is now, the place to act is here, and the people to act are us. Time to break the chains of mental slavery, "for none but ourselves -- with God's help -- can free our minds." [Adapted, Marcus Garvey and as popularised by Bob Marley.] Time to wake up, rise up and act decisively to set ourselves free of a new tyranny, one of the mind! So . . . ATBC, NCSE etc, a little announcement: "Check . . . mate within 20 years." __________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Vivid, thanks.tgpeeler_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

RE 202 tgpeeler great post!! Vividvividbleau_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

RE 198 markf "Why should anyone commit themself to some belief if they are actually uncertain?" Thats not the question tgpeeler asked. Basically what he is asking is on what basis do you ascribe the validity of your question. Vividvividbleau_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

It appears that the design inference, in your mind, boils down to astonishment, not complex specified information and comparison to known designed objects.
I'm aware that we recognize design in archeological objects, because we can compare them to objects known to be made by humans. I was unaware that we had living things known to be made by a known designer having known capabilities and methods of operation. Of course if we had good witness to living things being designed by an entity as opposed to evolution, we could make the Stonehenge-like comparison. The quantity of information is irrelevant. Evolution accumulates information via its learning algorithm. The rate of accumulation can be computed by noting the differences between closely related species.Petrushka_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

and what C_Y_ said.tgpeeler_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

markf @ 196 Hi markf. No problem. What Petrushka manifests is a lack of understanding of first principles. For example, without explicitly accepting the first principles of logic neither you or I could communicate. We assume existence, identity, non-contradiction, and causality, else rational thought is not possible. We begin with what we cannot deny. If someone wants to complain that's not good enough. Too bad. That's as good as it gets. It's called the problem of being "not God." I admit that there are times when certainty is not achievable. Those times are, as far as I can tell, all related to the material world. In other words, induction. Unless we can see every electron in the universe we can't 100% for certain say that it's impossible that there might be one electron somewhere that's behaving in a un-electron way. We could say there is a 99.999999% (add all the zeros you want) probability that we won't see one acting oddly but it's not logically impossible that it won't. In matters of the abstract, on the other hand, certainty is possible. If 50 is less than 100 and 25 is less than 50 then 25 is less than 100. Or more generally, if b < c and a < b, then a < c. You can take that to the bank, so to speak. (Although that analogy might not carry the weight that it once did, sad to say.) So at times it may be intellectually honest to admit to uncertainty but at other times it is a cop-out. Anyone with a passing familiarity with logic or math knows this. If 5 + x = 10 then x = 5. It's the same thing with logic. If the first cause must be different from all other causes, and it must because all other causes are themselves caused, then the first cause MUST BE uncaused. It has to be. It cannot not be. For if it is caused, then it can't BE FIRST. Do you see that? To say uncaused is another way to say infinite. That is, always existing. No beginning, no ending. So that tells us something else about the first cause. We now know it's also immaterial. Why? If it were material, we could count it. If we can count it, it's not infinite. But it is infinite. So it must also be immaterial. An intellectual commitment to first principles is not being arbitrary, it's being rational. It's starting with what is FIRST. Being, identity, and non-contradiction. Nothing can be and not be what it is. Right? Do you see that? And nothing can have identity that does not exist. Do you see that? So being and identity are just different sides of the same coin, so to speak. And non-contradiction says what we ALL know to be true. Nothing can be and not be at the same time and in the same way. What's so hard about that? Let me answer my own question. Anyone with a brain can see that this leads to God. Some people, for whatever reason, don't like that so they MUST reject first principles. This is why, quite frankly, it's so maddening to discuss things with the materialists/atheists. They CLAIM to be the rational ones but they are the irrational ones. They reject reason and claim to stand upon it. It would be funny were it not so tragic. I hope this helps.tgpeeler_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

markf, I think you would benefit by going through the posts here once more very carefully. Everyone commits to certain ways of thinking weather they believe they are making such commitments or not. Even "non-conformists" commit (or in this case conform) to non-conformity. They're not fooling anybody. Agreed? Well, this back-and-forth with Petrushka has been going on in several threads. I'm not certain when it started, but it's still on-going. And in these discussions, we've learned a certain thing or two about Petruchka that is relevant to the non-conformist analogy above. He commits to a certain way of thinking while believing that he's made no commitments. In this attitude, he criticizes those who have made a commitment to a particular way of thinking, as if he has not done so. If you take an honest look at Petrushka's posts, no matter where your particular commitments lie, I think you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. The particular way of thinking he is criticizing is based on the principles of logic, which are the basis for clear thinking in the first place. Petrushka would not be able to criticize or argue without appealing to those very same principles, who's application he criticizes in others. There's a word for this sort of attitude, but I'd rather not say it here. I think you can figure out what it is.CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
It’s fairly easy to look at a structure and imagine that something worked deliberately to create it, but that is no different from a lottery winner imagining that some destiny lurks behind his winning.
No different? Really? You honestly think that design detection is on the level of fate or providential intervening into one's life for their own good? So when I see Stonehenge, for instance, it is the same as assuming that whoever built it is the same sort of being that lurks behind me winning a lottery ticket? I agree that respective astonishment is not a good guide to causation, that's why no one uses astonishment as a respective guide to causation. It appears that the design inference, in your mind, boils down to astonishment, not complex specified information and comparison to known designed objects. This is, of course, not ID. You seem to be making an argument against something else. I appreciate these glimpses into how you see things, it clarifies a lot.Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

---San Antonio Rose: "You tell him, guy. I, for one, know I didn’t evolve from any lower life form like a monkey." Bless your heart SAR, but that is not the point I was making. In this one example, the issue is one of logical priorities [attributes do not come from "experience"] rather than any criticism of evolutionary science. Still, I thank you for playing.StephenB_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

#193 tgpeeler Please forgive an intrusion but I seem to remember your challenge to make intellectual committments and it interested me at the time. I didn't think it was rude. I just didn't understand the point. Why should anyone commit themself to some belief if they are actually uncertain? It is perhaps one of the distinguishing features of atheism that confronted with a fundamental conundrum the atheist says "I don't know" or "I am not sure" rather than committing himself or herself.markf_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Which is it?
There's no discrepancy. DNA sequences are replicated with occasional errors. Offspring are never very far from their parents. DNA can be mixed, as in sexual reproduction, so offspring can share characteristics of more than one parent. This has nothing to do with incremental change. Microbes are much more promiscuous than multi-celled organisms. They can acquire genes via several methods of transfer. There's even a known instance in which sea slugs have acquired genes from algae by eating them. None of this has anything to do with incremental change of DNA sequences. In the case of the flagellum, the assertion was first made that removing any genetic piece at all would render the complex structure inoperative and worthless. Since that original assertion, many subsets of flagellar components have been found in other microbes. The original claim that the pieces by themselves contribute nothing to fitness is simply false. The claim of mainstream biology -- that the bits and pieces comprising complex structures have selectable functions without the whole structure existing is both reasonable and observed. In the case of microbes, it is not necessary for such subsets to evolve in a single species, since microbes exchange DNA. Perhaps just as important is the fact that there is no necessity for flagella in the E.coli version to evolve at all. There are plenty of critters getting along just fine with lesser means of motility, or none at all. It's fairly easy to look at a structure and imagine that something worked deliberately to create it, but that is no different from a lottery winner imagining that some destiny lurks behind his winning. Respective astonishment is not a particularly good guide to causation.Petrushka_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

I have a couple of questions for you. First of all, upon what basis do you ascribe truth to anything? Is it experience only?
I think in order to pursue this dialog we would first have to establish some common ground, and I doubt if that's possible. I made a mistake thinking I could retain my composure in this kind of debate. My mistake, and I'm paying the price in moderation.Petrushka_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
The simple fact is that complex structures are made of bits and pieces that are severable, and which are used in subsets for other purposes.
Compare that to this statement you made:
There are no designs in biology mirroring the kinds of engineering that humans do, in which parts are brought together from distant branches of the tree. You can see this in industrial design, in which an invention in home entertainment will show up in automobile entertainment. You can see it in genetic engineering, where animal genes are spliced into plants or bacteria. Evolution can’t do that.
Which is it?Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2010
August
08
Aug
11
11
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply