William Lane Craig defends theistic evolution at Peaceful Science

Goodness Gracious. I'm getting so sick & tired of people with these pompous pithy retorts as if they're the intellectually elite, when all they are is a demonstration of pure Bias dressed up as scholarship. So WL Craig, who actually is Elite, is fashioning his beliefs to conform and please others because you disagree with him? That's a garbage attack. Atheists use the same fallacies when they say things like - Faraday & Maxwell were just checking the box "Christian " because of the Times. They couldn't be Believers because believers are stupid. Are we not better than a bunch of godless atheists? These topics do not even rank in the top hundred in what's important to serving Jesus Christ. I always say, if your pet doctrines are your life, so much so you always attack your own - flush it all down the toilet and go truly serve Christ volunteering for the poor, instead of serving yourself and your need to feel superior. Peace Absolutely

assuming a blind chance and/or mechanical necessity null hyp, the core problem is, number of observed cases

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. I stop reading your posts after a couple sentences. I assume everyone else does too. I’ve said it before. I’m not disputing your point. I just don’t know what it is. You have to know that your English construction is unlike anyone I have ever seen and I have read a lot. jerry

Jerry, assuming a blind chance and/or mechanical necessity null hyp, the core problem is, number of observed cases of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity by that = 0. While of course, the number of observed cases by observed intelligently directed configuration is in the trillions, starting with the Internet, proceeding to the fasteners and gears in a hardware store then on to the general pattern of a technological civilisation. Neglecting, that conscious utterance of significant length across history is also trillions of cases, minimum. Footnoting, beavers and the like, which show that directing intelligence is broader than our species. Further to such, as I pointed out, we will not observe -- that act of reason requires sophisticated inference associated with habitual designing capability -- an isolated case of FSCO/I by intelligent design, the number will naturally be large; this indicates that where we see one rat by day, there are dozens by night. In this context, we have no empirical basis to construct a distribution of FSCO/I by blind undirected nature, apart from flat zero. We are left with precisely the Newton's Rule challenge, before inferring a blind force hypothesis, first demonstrate that such a candidate cause is observed capable of the effect. We are therefore back at the premise, we have a reliable sign backed by huge observational base and associated needle in haystack blind configuration space search challenge analysis, that FSCO/I reliably comes about by and is a strong sign of intelligently directed configuration. KF PS, I am taking the definition of P value as a metric of "how often you would expect to see a test statistic as extreme or more extreme than the one calculated by your statistical test if the null hypothesis of that test was true." There has to first be good reason to hold that the null can and does create the result. There is no such base of actual observation. kairosfocus

Sc, the manifest evidence, is that you are refusing to acknowledge a striking, prominent observable reality, trillions of cases of FSCO/I, observed by design and nil by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. I would go further, the pattern we see suggests that there would be no intelligent observers to see and understand a single isolated case, i.e. FSCO/I is a characteristic product of intelligent designing agents and is directly connected to their ability also to observe with recognition of significance. So, the multiplicity of observations would be an aspect of the evidence. It is agents capable of design who can create science as a discipline, likewise create math including statistics as a discipline and of course embracing use of language. What we have done is simply to identify a readily observed, highly reliable indicator of design and point out that one of the longest established scientific methods is inference on observed sign. All of this is the equivalent of Galileo inviting his colleagues to look through his telescope, only to be met with flat refusal. KF kairosfocus

their existence does not provide any more statistical strength for the design inference than a single instance does

If the inference from one example is p=1.0, you are right. That’s the highest probability one can get. But in reality it’s a distinction without a difference and just fuss over nothing. The real interesting thing is the inference is p=0 that a functional system exists that was not designed that provides coordinated output. And then for the purist such as Seversky, the inference that accumulated variations in a genome produced anything significant is also p=0. Aside: the supposedly creative part of Darwin’s ideas is the inheritance of new variation. Natural selection just preserves the accumulated variation. But again the inference is p=0 that this has produced anything but trivial changes. jerry

There is none so blind who will not see. It is obvious that I am wasting my time instructing you on the proper use of statistical inferences. Scamp

Sc, a single instance of observed FSCO/I does not indicate a regular pattern. It is true that it would be an observed case of design but in that hypothetical world it would be an oddity. A pattern with trillions of cases and billions of intelligent designers as causes with nil, zip zilch actually observed from blind chance and/or mechanical necessity is a different matter. Observable regularity and reliable sign of that cause, here. KF kairosfocus

Sc, the first matter is that of willingness to acknowledge patent facts, or rather the absence of such. Just the Internet contains already trillions of cases of FSCO/I beyond the threshold, of known provenance; and the rest of our technological world starting with the hardware store backs that up. This is already parallel to Galileo's colleagues who would not look through his telescope. Next, we do not need to look at likelihood ratios or the like to assess this case: inference to best explanation of a common phenomenon with just one empirically warranted cause. Show us a few observed cases that come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and we can say that we do not have just one empirically warranted, configuration space search challenge backed causal source. Recall, beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity. Where, further, code implies much more information and organisation that appears in the actual code, a language, algorithms, underlying subject knowledge and protocols have to be in place and execution machinery. Language and protocols are already further strong signs of design and sophisticated knowledge is directly a product of intelligence. The implied argument is that you suggest or enable inferring miracles of chance, as the focus is OOL, before there is self replication. Fail, fail on first, directly observable facts. KF PS, as for there is a single known source of FSCO/I, your attempt to double down on that means you have paid no attention to my or SA's note on other known cases, most clearly, beavers and their dams. Beyond direct observation, intelligence and design are exemplified by humans, as contingent creatures we cannot exhaust the possibilities, as the SETI project illustrates, the attempt to suggest no trillions of observed cases vanish into one causal agent humans, fails. Besides, as was also pointed out there are billions of us, and our conscious use of verbal language is an example of FSCO/I by design. Speak a couple of typical sentences or write and more FSCO/I beyond the complexity threshold by observed design. Each of us is a case of an intelligent designer, and as noted, we cannot exhaust the possibilities. There is a whole popular literature that pivots on the point, Sci Fi. You tell us why we should imagine that it is dubious that there are other or are possibly other designers with similar or more advanced capabilities. You have no good warrant for that piece of hyperskepticism either. In fact the evidence of the cell on the strength of a lawlike observed regularity should be understood as strongly pointing to designs done before there was life on our planet, thus of agents capable of such designs. You have the whole case backwards, KF kairosfocus

Jerry: The evidence is overwhelming for a design inference.

I am not arguing against the evidence for design. Or even that coded strings are not evidence for design. Just that a library full of books does not provide a stronger design inference than a single book does. This is the misconception that KF keeps spreading.

Trillions of examples is just pile on. Each instance of the trillion is additional strong support for the design inference.

No, each instance of the trillion are separate pieces of evidence, but their existence does not provide any more statistical strength for the design inference than a single instance does. Scamp

misrepresentation of the strength of the evidence

The evidence is overwhelming for a design inference. Trillions of examples is just pile on. Each instance of the trillion is additional strong support for the design inference. jerry

KF: Sc, I do not need to know the specifics of your model of origins to recognise that you have a problem with evidence.

No, I am fine with evidence. I just have a problem with overstated claims about the evidence. And your “trillions of examples” is a grosse exaggeration of the strength of the evidence. When there is a single known source (humans) a single example of a coded string has exactly the same strength to support the design inference as a trillion examples of coded strings does. So your repeated use of the “trillions” qualifier is simply an attempted misrepresentation of the strength of the evidence. The misrepresentation is probably unintentional but it is still a misrepresentation. Scamp

You do not know my thoughts on origins because I have never presented them

You did once revealing your ignorance. jerry

CD is literally the definition of “sucker for punishment.”

He is a pro ID advocate. Anyone that consistently wrong can only be that way by design. jerry

Sc, I do not need to know the specifics of your model of origins to recognise that you have a problem with evidence. As for your dismissal of trillions of artifacts exhibiting FSCO/I as a signature of design, that is more than enough to warrant that cases otherwise with the sign can be confidently inferred as designed, precisely because of the exceedingly high reliability of the sign and the linked configuration space blind needle in haystack search challenge. Of course, in abstract theory, there could arise counter examples on the morrow, but as for the linked case, thermodynamics of the second law, we simply say, produce the observed exception. (Which shows the testability and potential falsifiability.) This, too, is not to infer that there may not be other cases of designed items that do not exhibit the sign FSCO/I, which will be missed; that is of no relevance to the matter. The design inference on sign is not a general design detector. KF kairosfocus

@Jerry #53 CD is literally the definition of "sucker for punishment." KRock

KF: In this case, whatever your employment or profession, you are inadvertently letting us know that your preferred scheme of thought regarding origins is grossly factually inadequate. I suggest, you think again. KF

You do not know my thoughts on origins because I have never presented them. Please stop attempting to read minds or infer motivations because you are not very good at it. I don’t understand why you are getting so worked up about being told that the quantity of designs with known sources doesn’t have the statistical power you think it does. It is a very simple statistical concept that any first year statistics student could grasp. There are plenty of other, more sound, arguments for design. Might I suggest that you retire your “trillions of examples” meme in favour of the others. Scamp

F/N3, operational definition, here is a stalking horse for the verification principle of logical positivism. At first, I was not sure but now we know that meaninglessness is in the context of a project that failed fifty years plus ago: apart from analytically true statements, meaningfulness is confined to statements subject to verification procedures. That was used to deride thought about God, ethics, metaphysics and more, until it was challenged to meet its own criterion. Self referentially incoherent and so REALLY meaningless, no wonder it tended to rule everything else as meaningless. Fail. Fail, in the face of a trillions member base of artifacts showing that FSCO/I is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as cause. Fail, showing fifty years out of date rhetoric being resurrected (again, that happened with the deductive problem of evil). KF PS: Sufficient has to be stated to substantiate. kairosfocus

F/N2: There is no need to follow the Creationism red herring, those who want to debate that or seek answers can go to old and young earth creationism sites. The rhetorical subtext is the snide insinuation that ID is a stalking horse for creationism, to which the proper answer is to point those playing that game to the Resources tab. A red herring is a distractor showing one cannot face the issue on the merits, and in this thread we have seen resort to trying to dismiss trillions of observed artifacts demonstrating signs of design. kairosfocus

F/N: Documenting the bias, Lewontin:

. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads

[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

Then, there is the US National Science Teachers Association Board tendentiously trying to redefine science ideologically, it is not an isolated individual speaking:

All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]

kairosfocus

CD, not even wrong. As there is a claim that blind incremental variation and differential reproductive success lead to descent with unlimited variation and to apparent design, there is manifest need for terms that clarify in the face of frankly obfuscation. Further to which it is quite evident on a trillions member observation base that there are empirically -- yes, observationally -- reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration or contrivance as key cause. In that context we actually routinely recognise such design with high confidence, independent of who did it, when, how, or why. All of those are red herrings as there is further good reason to see that blind processes cannot credibly produce FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. Yet further given Venter et al, we know molecular nanotech driven design of cell based life is feasible, have in hand viable techniques and see good prospects for better technique. Then, there is more than a single way to skin a cat fish, i.e. differing technologies can give the same result. So, given that we show design is possible by such means, designers are possible so we should take observable evidence of design seriously as a scientific matter. As for needless religion baiting, that inadvertently exposes hostility and bias on the part of those who go there. KF PS, I document that bias next. kairosfocus

",, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose." - William Dembski - Science and the Myth of Progress - pg 294 - 2003 https://books.google.com/books?id=9w53fjGdnAoC&pg=PA294

As Adam Sedgwick pointed out to Charles Darwin himself about his ‘grand principle’ of natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, and yet,,, “You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.”

From Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin - 24 November 1859 Cambridge Excerpt: As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study & comprehend— Acting by law, & under what is called final cause, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. ’Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, & the subsequent battle for life.— https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

And indeed this totally imaginary power for nature to supposedly intelligently choose between viable options is woven throughout the ‘just-so story telling’ of Darwinists in which they, (without any empirical warrant whatsoever), falsely give nature the power to ‘select’ whatever characteristic one is seeking to explain the origination of simply because they can imagine it had some sort of fitness advantage over not having that particular characteristic. As Stephen Jay Gould explained, “Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

To repeat, “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.” Try telling that line to your physics or chemistry professor and see what kind of reaction you get! :) bornagain77

Until the term “intelligent design” is operationally defined, it is empirically meaningless

But it is defined. Still batting a thousand getting things wrong. So perfect, it must be intelligently designed. It couldn’t happen by chance. jerry

ChuckyD, Put A Sock In It https://uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/ Andrew asauber

I shouldn't have to respond, but apparently some folks on this blog are so literal that they can't understand context. I fully understand that the words "intelligent" and "design" have dictionary definitions. My comment that these two words are meaningless is in the context of the claim that "intelligent design" is science. ID advocates, especially with the term "intelligent," repeatedly use the term without ever anchoring it to an operational definition, i.e., a measurable variable. The same is true with the term "design" which is even more vague because IDers refuse to even identify the entity doing the design and the mechanism of design, except the overtly Christian IDers who claim it is the God of theism and the description is akin to the Genesis myth (which carries its own empirical problems as the Adam and Eve wars rear their ugly head). Until the term "intelligent design" is operationally defined, it is empirically meaningless.... chuckdarwin

If objectors to the design explanation feel they have to attack matters of patent fact, then that is a sign they don’t have the facts

Kf, it’s all about you. I’ve said it before. There is a resentment from others here to your long posts. So they challenge them in any supercilious way they can. In the process they reveal who they are. You make the mistake of trying to correct them with even longer posts. The above exchange about statistical inference is a case in point. The objections to your observations were nonsense, pure and simple. You and I know they have no facts or truth. They know it too. I always maintain that it is the motivation of these people that is most interesting. What drives them to such behavior? My guess - resentment. They come here expecting bumpkins and then find it is they that are intellectually deficient. jerry

Jerry, we can see where it has now come out. It would be funny if it were not sad, we see here denial that the Internet, hardware and general resources of technology, frankly even our junkyards and rubbish landfills collectively involve trillions of examples of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information where we directly know the cause. Further, we can see that there is evident unwillingness to accept that we do not exhaust the possibilities for intelligent design, as contingent creatures we are demonstrations -- billions of them -- that such are possible. Just, beaver dams show that other species are capable of limited designs. I guess, this tells us the depth of commitment to other views we are dealing with. The obvious historical parallel is Galileo's faculty colleagues refusing to look through his telescope at the heavens that they were convinced could not be as he observed and sketched. Sad. KF PS, in a sense, the exchanges above show that we have the case on the merits. If objectors to the design explanation feel they have to attack matters of patent fact, then that is a sign they don't have the facts and what they warrant as explanatory inference. Sad. kairosfocus

Sc, you have first chosen to erect assertions that try to deny that there are trillions of artifacts exhibiting functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information, in the face of a case where even your objections simply add to the already trillions online. As for hardware and general resources of technology, this includes the machines you use to comment. That is directly a case of selective hyperskepticism expressed as denial of patent fact, and it is not a personal attack to duly (and, sadly) note it. In this case, whatever your employment or profession, you are inadvertently letting us know that your preferred scheme of thought regarding origins is grossly factually inadequate. I suggest, you think again. KF kairosfocus

KF: Sc, your attempt to deny is transparently hyperskeptical. Ironically, you are actually adding to the total as you object. KF

I guess it is always easier to malign the commenter than to address the comment.

PS, perhaps, you do not recognise a distinction between a reliable scientifically or empirically observed pattern and statistical inferences. This is a pattern with trillions of cases in point. Notoriously so.

Actually, I make a living out of distinguishing between reliable scientifically or empirically observed patterns and statistical inferences. My Stats Can employer insists on it. Do you really want to continue defending the strength of your “trillion example” statistical inference? Scamp

Sc, your attempt to deny is transparently hyperskeptical. Ironically, you are actually adding to the total as you object. KF PS, perhaps, you do not recognise a distinction between a reliable scientifically or empirically observed pattern and statistical inferences. This is a pattern with trillions of cases in point. Notoriously so. kairosfocus

Why don’t you just admit that your “trillions” reference is a hyperbolic reference falsely intended to assign statistical power to an inference that does not deserve it

One example would be enough. Two would be an amazing coincidence. A thousand for a thousand would be one of the most certain inferences ever. A trillion for a trillion is off the charts. Most definitely deserves it. jerry