Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

Comments
Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer. Zachriel: No scientific evidence.
Do you accept that there is other evidence?
That’s a difference between science and ID.
ID doesn't claim to be parallel with science. It's a project within science like ... evolution.
Science continues to advance, and we can show you the results, even as you reject its findings.
You can't show evolutionary findings on origin of life because evolutionary theory is limited to living organisms. It's a discipline that works within boundaries. ID has boundaries also, as I explained.
More important, conclusions in science are always tentative, so even if you “conclude” design, it is tentative, and the search for evidence continues.
That's fine, but the ID argument doesn't become something else, just as evolution does not become a theory of planetary movement. It's limited to biology, ID is limited to evidence of design.
If someone say they’re not sure about the design inference, one way to strengthen the case is to show evidence of how the design was implemented,
If someone is not sure about evolution, one thing you could show is evidence of a multiverse or abiogenesis as causes - but that extends beyond what evolution can show.
If you can’t (or won’t!), then it means your case is weakened.
Is the case for evolution weakened because you can't show abiogenesis?
We’re interested in the scientific findings.
You affirm that "X does not exist". Now you want to know the qualities of X. ID's argument is in opposition to your premise. If you accept that that "X does exist" then you move to different arguments and a different kind of study. Can you accept that if a designer exists that it could change your understanding of the origin, nature and development of things?Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Joe #90
Jerad, Your questions just show how desperate you are. All I am doing is turning your questions against you.
By not answering them? How does that work exactly? It's not just my questions either is it? You're gaining quite a reputation for not answering questions. It's hard to figure out what you think happened in the distant past when you won't answer questions. Let's try this one again: why do you think the designer created all those trilobites if they were just going to eventually go extinct?
And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?
I didn't say what Casey Luskin or Dr Steven Meyer or Dr Jonathan Wells or Dr Ann Gauger or any of the other luminaries at the Discovery Institute say was evidence. But they discuss evidence and ID's interpretation of it AND some of the work being done. I would think you would find that interesting. I find it interesting. That's why I listen to the ID: the Future podcast. I frequently ask you what kind of research is being done and you never know. Perhaps if you listened to the podcast or read the blog Evolution News and Views (I think that's right . . . hmm . . . ) you might be a bit more clued into what is happening.Jerad
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, you said: "Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study." So when Zachriel asked you: "Great! So what have you discovered about the designer? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?", he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies 'the designer'. And please don't copy Joe and say that that only comes after determining intelligent design. You IDers claim that you have already determined intelligent design, long ago, so "Follow-up discussions" about what has been discovered by that other alleged "field of study" shouldn't be a problem for you.Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer. No scientific evidence. Silver Asiatic: Once you conclude that a designer exists, the ID argument is concluded and we could discuss other things. That's a difference between science and ID. Science continues to advance, and we can show you the results, even as you reject its findings. More important, conclusions in science are always tentative, so even if you "conclude" design, it is tentative, and the search for evidence continues. If someone say they're not sure about the design inference, one way to strengthen the case is to show evidence of how the design was implemented, and evidence of the designer. If you can't (or won't!), then it means your case is weakened. Silver Asiatic: You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist. We're interested in the scientific findings. If you were to say the designer has a penchant for beetles, that would be something at least. The idea is that all scientific findings lean on one another. Biology relies on chemistry. Evolution relies on geology which relies on physics. Astronomy relies on physics. When fields conflict, it often leads to new insights. For instance, when physics said the Earth was only a few tens-of-millions of years old, but evolutionary theory insisted on hundreds-of-millions, the conflict remained unresolved until the discovery of radioactivity, which resolved the conundrum, and resulted in a new form of geological dating. It's this interlocking of scholarship that gives science its great power. If you claim something is an artifact, then there is necessarily a causal chain to the art and the artisan. Finding evidence of this chain of causation strengthens the case for design. Silver Asiatic: You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist. Yes! Yes! That's how science works. You propose a hypothesis, then deduce the entailments. If you can't do this, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
sockie:
I thought you claim that ID is science?
It is as it has all the entailments of science. OTOH your position has nothing but mouthy losers like yourself. “Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?”
See, you are a creationist.
So a "creationist" is someone who states the facts? OK. ID doesn’t speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine.”
Ah, so you admit that ID isn’t scientific and does no research.
Only a desperate and deluded loser who come to that conclusion. “But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you.”
My questions really scare you, and evolutionary theory is well supported.
Your questions prove that you are clueless and you couldn't link to this alleged evolutionary theory nor its alleged support if your life depended on it. You are a bluffing fool and a liar. Nice jobJoe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Zachriel
No, we think it’s silly pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer. I'll be glad to continue to discuss the ID inference with you. Once you conclude that a designer exists, the ID argument is concluded and we could discuss other things. But you're obviously not at the point where you can go further with the argument. You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Joe barked: "That is what science is for, duh." I thought you claim that ID is science? And what about your basement science lab that puts other science labs to shame? Why aren't you using your state of the art science lab and skills to find ID answers? "Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?" See, you are a creationist. I asked: "And will you please point me to where “ID” speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not?" Joe barked: "ID doesn’t speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine." Ah, so you admit that ID isn't scientific and does no research. "But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you." My questions really scare you, and evolutionary theory is well supported. Do you need a hug, Joe?Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
No, we think it’s silly pseudo-scientific nonsense.
You don't seem to know what science is so your opinion is meaningless.
And once having reached the conclusion, it is supposed to lead to an age of great discovery, unlike those evolutionists who still use leeches.
It will and evolutionists don't seem to be doing anything wrt unguided evolution.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: I didn’t realize that you accepted the ID inference. No, we think it's silly pseudo-scientific nonsense. But apparently the ID community disagrees. And once having reached the conclusion, it is supposed to lead to an age of great discovery, unlike those evolutionists who still use leeches. Silver Asiatic: Once I get an idea about your convictions here, I’ll be glad to go further. Great! So what specific empirical facts about the designer have been discovered? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the mega-dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents? http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Ant_bully_Stomp.jpgZachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
sock puppet, Jerad was using other people's words as evidence and when someone else is talking I become "other people". Duh. No one word is evidence but that doesn't stop you and your ilk from imagining it is.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Pachyaena 104 I agree that what people say is not scientific evidence (except in historical, archeological or cultural sciences). As for "testimony" I don't know what that refers to and I'll admit I haven't read the discussion between Jerad and Joe so I have to leave it at that.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Great! So what have you discovered about the designer?
That the intelligent designer(s) is(are) capable of doing things that we cannot.
How did the designer create organisms?
That is what science is for. We have noticed that you haven't a clue as to how the blind watchmaker didit.
Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?
According to wd400 dinos still live...Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Zachriel
Great! So what have you discovered about the designer?
Wow, I didn't realize that you accepted the ID inference. When did you reach the conclusion that a designer does exist and what evidence convinced you of that? Once I get an idea about your convictions here, I'll be glad to go further.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, look at this again. I've bolded a key word: “And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?” Now go back and read the comments between Jerad and Joe. Making excuses for Joe is an exercise in futility.Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study. Great! So what have you discovered about the designer? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents? http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Ant_bully_Stomp.jpgZachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
The ID inference is that "some aspects of nature exhibit evidence of having been designed by intelligence". If ID is correct on any one of those observations, then there is good reason to infer that a designer exists. The ID argument ends, successfully, at that point. Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study. If you start with the premise that a designer exists, you're no longer engaging the ID inference since you've already accepted its conclusion.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
sock puppet:
Which species that ever existed were/are designed-created and which were/are not?
That is what science is for, duh. Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?
And will you please point me to where “ID” speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not?
ID doesn't speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine. But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Pachyaena 93
Hear that, dim IDers? Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony, duh. According to Joe, what the rest of you in the ID community say isn’t. Aren’t you glad to have Joe as a ‘fellow traveler’ and ‘ilk’?
I don't think that he claimed that what he says is evidence. The evidence is what we observe. We observe aspects of nature that appear to have been designed by intelligence. We observe that natural causes are not sufficient to explain these things. We observe that intelligence can produce the same. So, we infer that intelligence was involved in the development of those things we've observed. The evidence is not what someone said, but what we observed.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Joe, since you barked this: "ID doesn’t say that all species that ever existed were designed." I have some other questions: Which species that ever existed were/are designed-created and which were/are not? How can you tell? And will you please point me to where "ID" speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not? Be sure that what you point to is published in a peer reviewed science journal. Otherwise it doesn't count, right?Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
So unguided evolution explains PCD, how?Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony
The sock puppet needs a diaper change and a napJoe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
sock puppet- the anti-ID ilk doesn't have any relevant questions AND if you could only step up and support unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution then ID would be a non-starter. You and your ilk have all the power as one of ID's entailements is that your mechanisms are incapable of producing biological information. That is why you and your ilk are cowards- because you attack ID with irrelevant spewage all the while cowering from defending the claims of your position. Yours is the accepted paradigm yet you cower when asked to lead by example. And then you take that out on us. And that is beyond patheticJoe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Joe, you constantly accuse "evos" of being cowards yet you always run away from relevant questions. I'll be glad to show the relevance when you've actually answered my questions.Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Yikes, Andre, your comprehension is even poorer than I thought, and that’s a pretty low bar. I have being trying to get you to actually look at Figure 1 of Tulha 2012, the paper that you cited (and the specific figure that you kindly provided a link to) in support of your claims that “PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM!”. I had assumed that you knew what “stationary phase” means. Oh dear. I will make one more attempt: Figure 1 shows the viability of the two strains over the course of 22 days in stationary phase. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444424/figure/F1/ Figure 1 shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. The inset in Figure 1 shows that, under conditions that allow growth, the two strains have identical growth rates. So when you write:
So far you’ve tried to discredit what I’ve been saying with little silly arguments about concepts you clearly did not fully comprehend an example is your ignorant rant about how well the cells were growing during stationary phase……
You are displaying your total lack of reading comprehension. NOTHING I have written could be interpreted (by anyone who as actually read and understood Tulha) as implying that cells grow in stationary phase. As far as name-calling and belittling goes, I have only responded when you indulged. "ignorant rant" LOL. Here, complete with the original emphasis, is my post 160 from the “heks-continues…” thread a week ago.
Really, Andre, you should learn that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. Your original claim is that
No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.
Leading me to ask:
DNA_Jock @ 508: is it your contention that Type 1 CPD is essential to S. cerevisiae?
Your response:
Andre @ 517 : Is PCD Vital to Saccharomyces cerevisiae? You betcha! [pastes two passages from Tulha 2012.] It sucks to be a Darwinist….. PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM! Game over sweetie pie! Game set match will you concede? Won’t hold my breath….
And on this thread @115
Well the moment they tamper with Gup1, Apoptosis stops working (the evolutionary conserved bit) and necrosis is initiated. This means the cell dies….. The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.
You state (@116) that gup1 cells have a “significantly reduced lifespan”, but the actual statement in Tulha is “significantly reduced chronological lifespan”, which means that when sitting in stationary phase their viability drops off more rapidly than wild-type cells. I’m so glad that you provided the link to Figure 1 of Tulha,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444424/figure/F1/ PCD kills unguided evolution dead! Literally!
Which shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. But can these cells GROW? Your claims above state “No PCD means there is no cell” and “The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.” Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable. Game. Set. Match. :D
Please re-read this final paragraph until you understand what it says. I'll be patient.DNA_Jock
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Jerad: "But I do find your lack of interest in what others in the ID community are saying very curious." Joe: "And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?" Hear that, dim IDers? Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony, duh. According to Joe, what the rest of you in the ID community say isn't. Aren't you glad to have Joe as a 'fellow traveler' and 'ilk'?Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
The design inference is irrelevant and pointless.
So, using the design inference I'll infer:
... someone wrote them. Most likely a human being, most likely a lad from rural Warwickshire.
Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
There isn’t any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that.
So, even given knowledge of the designer would not add greatly to ID’s explanatory ability.
Why would it? Knowing the Wright brothers doesn't add anything to our knowledge of powered flight.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Jerad, Your questions just show how desperate you are. All I am doing is turning your questions against you. And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn't even testimony. Are you really that dim?Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Joe #87
LoL! @ Jerad! You have absolutely NOTHING- No hypotheses, no theory,no model, no research- NOTHING. You wouldn’t even know how to conduct an investigation. So please spare us from your obnoxious blatherings.
Too bad you didn't even make an attempt at answering some of the questions I posed in #75 above. But I do find your lack of interest in what others in the ID community are saying very curious. I would think that an investigator would want to consider all the evidence. Perhaps not. Perhaps you've already made up your mind.Jerad
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
sock puppet:
Joe, do you thoroughly understand the alleged intelligent design-creation of life itself, humans and all other species that have ever existed
LoL! @ the strawman sock- ID doesn't say that all species that ever existed were designed. Look we understand that it bothers you that your position has nothing, not even a testable hypothesis. But that doesn't give you the right to misrepresent your opponents.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply