William Lane Craig defends theistic evolution at Peaceful Science

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 20, 2022

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

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

On theological but not necessarily scientific grounds. He’s defending it against Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, pointing to a defense by Michael J. Murray and John Ross Churchill:

One of the things I appreciate about Michael J. Murray and John Ross Churchill’s paper is their candid embrace of the label, “theistic evolution,” for their view.1 This strikes me as much more accurate and straightforward a label than the euphemistic appellation, “evolutionary creationism,” recently adopted by some theistic evolutionists, which seems clearly an attempt to coopt the label, “creationism,” in order to make their view more palatable to evangelical Christians.
It will be helpful at the outset to note the very limited scope of Murray and Churchill’s response to the volume, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (SPTC). They state that the volume as a whole conveys “the message that for Christians with traditional doctrinal commitments, no version of theistic evolution that adheres largely to consensus views in biology will be a plausible option.”2 They maintain to the contrary that it is “incontrovertible” that there are versions of theistic evolution that are “immune to many of the key criticisms advanced” in the book.3 More specifically, they argue that “there are versions of theistic evolution … that are consistent with traditional doctrinal commitments” concerning divine providence, miracles, evidence for theism, and nonphysical souls. It is evident, then, that their concern is with doctrinal criticisms of theistic evolution.4
Now immediately I felt myself rather left out of the conversation. For I am a Christian with traditional doctrinal commitments, but any reservations I have about the viability of theistic evolution have nothing to do with such doctrinal commitments. My reservations are not theological but scientific in nature.
William Lane Craig, “Response to “Mere Theistic Evolution”” at Peaceful Science (March 7, 2022)

Some of us would think that if theistic evolution fails a science test, one needn’t bother with the theology. But maybe we misunderstand.

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: The mytho-history of Adam, Eve, and William Lane Craig. Long a defender of orthodoxy, Craig seems to want to prune the orthodoxies he is expected to defend. But the pruning process in which he is engaged can never really stop. The “sensible God” is most likely the one looking back at us from our medicine cabinet mirrors.

Comments

KF: Sc, I am making an OBSERVATION not a statistical inference. We have trillions, quite literally, of cases of FSCO/I, which have been observed as to actual origin.
Sorry, but you are implying a statistical significance from the magnitude of your attributed "trillions" of cases. If you didn't think that your "trillions" of observations were statistically relevant, you wouldn't have raised them. 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?Scamp_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

CD,
36: I will suggest that the terms “intelligence” and “designer” are not merely generic, they are meaningless buzzwords. They explain nothing
This is in a context where,
KF, 28: we experience ourselves and others as intelligent, building up a growing fund of experience forming part of our background common sense knowledge. Along the way, we acquire a name for the phenomenon, intelligence. As a dictionary — Random House etc version, Webster’s — summarises: in•tel•li•gence (?n?t?l ? d??ns) n. 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, and understanding; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. mental alertness or quickness of understanding. 3. manifestation of a high mental capacity. 4. the faculty or act of understanding. Wikipedia, that bastion of the party of partisan Big-S Science, actually makes a telling concession: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. [–> so, intelligently directed configuration is a characteristic aspect of intelligence, and so too is inferring design on relevant sign] Then, too, we live in the midst of a Sci-Tech Civilisation, so we readily come to understand contrivance, art, intelligently directed configuration, that is design. By playing with coins and dice etc, we recognise chance, randomness, distributions and typical vs atypical results. We also learn about natural regularities, starting with say the falling of objects and the swinging of pendulums . . . Galileo started with a chandelier observed in church. These give us frames of reference and we become familiar with characteristic signs and patterns associated with natural (chance and/or mechanical necessity) and artificial causal factors. Where, cause-effect patterns are again part of our background. So, “intuitively,” we readily recognise many signs of design and readily infer it as credible cause. Where, life forms of course show many such signs. But in a post Darwin world, powerful elites insist, this is the great counter example that overturns the common sense design inference, all dressed up in the lab coat. What is happening, is that a refinement of common sense is rehabilitating the design inference, through more sophisticated analysis. But as evolutionary materialist scientism is deeply entrenched, it is a fight. One that has been won on merits but mere warrant is not enough by itself to overwhelm entrenched schools of thought.
We see how frantic objectors are as predicted, when we see them trying to dismiss actual definitions of intelligence and design in defence of a failed orthodoxy. You can't make this up. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Sc, I am making an OBSERVATION not a statistical inference. We have trillions, quite literally, of cases of FSCO/I, which have been observed as to actual origin. In every case beyond the relevant threshold, those cases have been observed to come from intelligently directed configuration. This is backed by a readily done blind needle in haystack, search the configuration space analysis [linked BTW to the statistical mechanics foundation of the second law of thermodynamics] which makes it obvious. For simple case ponder 500 coins in a row, tossed at random, exhibiting a binomial distribution. The overwhelming bulk of outcomes will be close to 50-50 H-T, in no particular organised pattern, typical random result. And BTW, that maps directly to ASCII codes for 72 characters more or less, the distribution [3.27*10^150 possibilities matching all possible 1/0 patterns] will have every possible 72 character string, but the overwhelming bulk will be gibberish, why random doc search so far has only found up to 19 - 24 or so characters of sense. Result, we have a very strong empirically tested sign, FSCO/I is a signature of design. So, we have an epistemic right to abductively infer design as best causal explanation on seeing FSCO/I at or beyond the threshold 500 - 1,000 bits. What is almost amusing, but then sad, is to see how hard people struggle not to see this. KF PS, it should be common sense that those too young or incapable of speaking or writing language are excepted. Yes, design starts with things like intelligible speech. As noted, the Internet is a repository in the trillions (esp YT), a hardware store full of fasteners and gears points to other cases and generally, look around. FSCO/I is readily observed and there are trillions of cases with a uniform result, design. Add in things like beaver dams for specific sites and you see that it is not just humans, as SA noted (and as one of my earliest contributions explored). We exemplify designers, actual and possible, we do not exhaust the possibilities and to imagine that billions of us come down to in effect one case is beyond failing the giggle test.kairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

KF: We do not need to observe other designers on other planets etc to recognise that our existence shows what is possible, intelligent design.
I don’t have a problem with that.
The objection you tried to construct on an oddball use of degrees of freedom in this context, fails. KF
My argument is that your “trillions of examples” doesn’t have the power as a statistical inference that you think it does. This is simply a fact.
PS, I should add, each of us is a separate case of a designer, of course differing levels.
But all are human. Given that every human, with the exception of those with severe mental handicaps, is born with the potential ability to create coded strings, we are not talking about 6+ billion independent variables. The strength of your statistical inference to design has the same strength with a population size of two and ten coded strings as it does with a population of 6 billion and trillions of coded strings.Scamp_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

the terms “intelligence” and “designer” are not merely generic, they are meaningless buzzwords
Could the same thing be said about “evolution” and “life” since no one can define these either and they just became generic buzzwords. Throw in “species” too.jerry_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

CD, translated, I disagree and dismiss as I have a favoured hypothesis pivoting on causal factors never seen as adequate to actually produce FSCO/I. Abduction FYI is a major province of logic. As for trillions of cases, they are indeed out there despite your dismissiveness; you just told us you are in the position of Galileo's faculty colleagues who refused to actually look through his telescope. As for your attempt to dismiss JvN's vNSR analysis, that speaks for itself and not in your favour. Sad, in the end. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

CD
I will suggest that the terms “intelligence” and “designer” are not merely generic, they are meaningless buzzwords. They explain nothing.
That's certainly one way to try to argue against intelligent design. Just say that the word "intelligence" is meaningless. Evolutionists have been trying to tell us for a long time that the universe is the product of blind, unintelligent, mindless forces that care nothing for us. Dawkins stated that biology is the study of things that appear to be designed for a purpose. He knows what the word design means, and also what intelligence means. Forensic science can discern the different between a blind, unintelligent cause and an intelligent design.Silver Asiatic_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Chucky, so your objection to questioning evolution is... we don't know how the designer did it? Or, it doesn't immediately answer your questions? Good news is, evolution theory doesn't know how anything in detail happened and can't answer any real questions with certainty on a macro level. So, I guess that shouldn't stop you.zweston_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

KF @ 26 I've seen all this stuff before. I don't need one more cut-and-paste professorial on DNA code, hypothetical von Neumann self-replicators, abduction, or the universe's incapacity to contain all the information necessary to start a universe. I initially thought that you might be on to something new when you claimed trillions of empirically known "cases." But it is just business as usual. Your "empirically tested observable signs" are simply the same inanimate, human-designed and constructed things (i.e., human artifacts). Library books, assorted wing nuts from Home Depot or dating sites on the web don't cut it--my question went directly to life forms. Philosopher James Croft already dismantled Stephen Meyer when he tried this same "empirical " argument back in August while debating Meyer's "God Hypothesis" book. That ship has sailed. You don't get to bootstrap off of human examples to conjure up your intelligent designer. (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/o34c7a/discussion_between_james_croft_me_and_stephen/ ) Nor do you get to rely upon infinitely malleable concepts like "intelligence" or "design" to elude actual explanations for questions like those I asked:
19: Design is more broadly used to denote intelligently directed configuration. That is, design routinely involves both specification and contrivance, and indeed, there are often on the spot design works in contrivance.... So, intelligence and design are generic. (emphasis added)
I will suggest that the terms "intelligence" and "designer" are not merely generic, they are meaningless buzzwords. They explain nothing. The pending questions remain: [H]ow did the “Intelligent Designer” build whatever life forms you claim “resulted from” design and [w]hat was the first life form designed and/or built by the designer?chuckdarwin_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Seversky
As wonderful as these natural phenomena are, intelligent design entails a capacity both to consciously conceive of an objective to be achieved and to devise the means of giving material effect to the achievement of that objective. Beavers and bees are wonderful creatures but there is no evidence to show that intelligent design in that form is at work in what they do.
This is a question of design-detection and intelligence. The intelligence that beavers use shows intentionality. It's not a deterministic process, like raindrops falling from clouds or stones rolling down a hill. When we observe a pile of logs in a stream - Intelligent Design detection can tell us that the pile was created either by random, non-intelligent, materialism - or by intelligence. The beaver dam gives evidence of intelligent design. The beavers made choices and sorted through variables. The beaver dam is the work of intelligence, although only animal intelligence. There is some level of awareness (consciousness) in what the beavers are doing. It's not rational, self-awareness, but there's a non-deterministic process.
I believe we should be wary of inflating our own egos by focusing on our status as the dominant species on this planet. Yes, we have achieved great things but they also include inflicting great suffering and damage both on ourselves and the natural world of which we are a part.
I was just talking about human intelligence. That is at the pinnacle of life forms that we observe, whether we use the intelligence well or badly. One thing that separates us is that we continue to learn and communicate education to other humans. Today, humanity is more advanced in knowledge than before. We build houses differently, we transport ourselves differently and we use the materials of the earth to create things and communicate and build even more knowledge. Other animals or plants or insects do not do this at all. Ants still build their ant-colonies the same as the first ones. That in itself is strange - why haven't they improved their processes? They do not leave new instructions for future generations. It tells us, they're not worried about their future, whether they have a future as a species or not is irrelevant to them. Why is this something that humans care about? No other species tries to improve their status in life and leave instructions or wisdom for future generations. Instead, every bird makes the same mistakes that every other bird has made. Even smart animals like cats do the same foolish things. Mice keep getting caught in traps, when they could tell their progeny to avoid them, and leave instructions somewhere for future mice to understand. But that doesn't happen.
A similar impact could finish us off just as easily for all our vaunted intelligence and power and we would be ill-advised to rely on any of our gods to protect us.
I'm not sure where you're going with this except that it sounds like some kind of punishment will fall from heaven if we become too boastful? Whether a meteor destroys the earth or not, we could walk around flexing our muscles and proclaiming "We are the champions" as the dominant species. If there was no God, who would care or do anything about it? But yes, if God did create us and does demand good behavior, justice and humble reverence - then we would be in trouble if we let our egos get too big. Humble wisdom is the path of growth - true. Proud proclamations of our greatness could bring on devastation (wars and even disasters) from God's providence, but they also take away the respect we should have for all creatures, made by God, for His glory and the good of all people.Silver Asiatic_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

PPS, as a test of the capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity, random document generation would be worth looking at. The results to date are 10^100 short of the threshold as a factor.kairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Sc, humans, first, are contingent designers and our existence does not lock out other designers, we do not exhaust either intelligence nor contrivance, as even many animals demonstrate. So, intelligence and design are generic. We do not need to observe other designers on other planets etc to recognise that our existence shows what is possible, intelligent design. Where, observing patterns and signs of design becomes relevant. The objection you tried to construct on an oddball use of degrees of freedom in this context, fails. KF PS, I should add, each of us is a separate case of a designer, of course differing levels.kairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

KF: Sc, string based codes do not exhibit zero degrees of freedom;
If you are making statistical inferences about string based codes to something other than their known source (humans) you would be correct. However, all known sources of string based codes are human therefore zero degrees of freedom. Maybe this will make it clearer. Three degrees of freedom would be something like:
Example 1: Humans create string based codes. Example 2: Martians create string based codes. Example 3: Venusians create string based codes. Example 4: Alpha Centaurians (but only the green ones) create string based codes.
But all you have is humans create string based codes. It is still a valid statement to say that all known sources of string based codes are intelligence. But to claim that there are trillions of examples has zero statistical power because they are all from the same source. Humans.Scamp_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: Paley, Ch 2:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to
[--> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, "stickiness" of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]
all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [--> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] -- the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [--> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art
[--> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic "supernatural") vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]
. . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [--> i.e. design]. . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [--> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . . Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [--> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. "Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . , And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other's movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]
KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Sc, string based codes do not exhibit zero degrees of freedom; and for D/RNA, the chaining is modular, it is side branches that store information and any of ACGT/U can be followed by any other, the matching of two strands in the double helix confers redundancy, it is not where the high contingency of chaining to make a string with coded information arises. For proteins, similarly any of the twenty main AAs used in life can follow any other, again with a backbone and side branch architecture. Ask any machinist about screw threads and gears, they will tell you that the blanks from which such are cut are not exhibiting zero degrees of freedom, nor the machines that process them. In fact, such show high contingency and otherwise utterly implausible configurations most credibly explained on design. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

KF: SC, an internet full of digital string based code, starting with YouTube and its rivals, going on to a mechanical world starting with fasteners and gears etc. coded explicit information and information implicit in specific functional organization. KF
Zero degrees of freedom does not make for a good statistical inference.Scamp_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

BA77:
studies now establish that the design inference is innate ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their innate “knee jerk” design inference!
That could suggest that it is non rational and open to dismissal as convenient. But in fact, it is not. It is here seen as a part of common good sense, where a lot of logic, science and more builds on glorified common sense. Here, first, we experience ourselves and others as intelligent, building up a growing fund of experience forming part of our background common sense knowledge. Along the way, we acquire a name for the phenomenon, intelligence. As a dictionary -- Random House etc version, Webster's -- summarises:
in•tel•li•gence (?n?t?l ? d??ns) n. 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, and understanding; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. mental alertness or quickness of understanding. 3. manifestation of a high mental capacity. 4. the faculty or act of understanding.
Wikipedia, that bastion of the party of partisan Big-S Science, actually makes a telling concession:
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. [--> so, intelligently directed configuration is a characteristic aspect of intelligence, and so too is inferring design on relevant sign]
Then, too, we live in the midst of a Sci-Tech Civilisation, so we readily come to understand contrivance, art, intelligently directed configuration, that is design. By playing with coins and dice etc, we recognise chance, randomness, distributions and typical vs atypical results. We also learn about natural regularities, starting with say the falling of objects and the swinging of pendulums . . . Galileo started with a chandelier observed in church. These give us frames of reference and we become familiar with characteristic signs and patterns associated with natural (chance and/or mechanical necessity) and artificial causal factors. Where, cause-effect patterns are again part of our background. So, "intuitively," we readily recognise many signs of design and readily infer it as credible cause. Where, life forms of course show many such signs. But in a post Darwin world, powerful elites insist, this is the great counter example that overturns the common sense design inference, all dressed up in the lab coat. What is happening, is that a refinement of common sense is rehabilitating the design inference, through more sophisticated analysis. But as evolutionary materialist scientism is deeply entrenched, it is a fight. One that has been won on merits but mere warrant is not enough by itself to overwhelm entrenched schools of thought. As one reflection of this, too many objectors to the design inference presume we cannot truly know what we are talking about and must be ignorant or stupid, insane or even wicked. That's morlockery. And it has serious backing. We need to ask, what is it that the Technoplutocrats want, that ID threatens. Dollars to cents, we can bet that the big dogs have an agenda. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

SC, an internet full of digital string based code, starting with YouTube and its rivals, going on to a mechanical world starting with fasteners and gears etc. coded explicit information and information implicit in specific functional organisation. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

CD, I first suggest you look at the Resources Tab and then the menu starting with weak argument correctives. Next, let's look on points briefly: >>What are you talking about? Trillions of what known cases?>> 1: Did you notice, I was speaking to inference on reliable, empirically tested observable signs? (This goes back, in logic, to Hippocrates of Cos and diagnostic signs.) 2: There are trillions of known cases of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity, FSCO/I. Go to your hardware store and go to the fastener section, pass by a library and see books, surf the Internet, look around you at a world of technology. 3: You have been around UD long enough, you have had opportunity enough to learn a tad about what is on the table. 4: Where, a particularly important case is coded information in string -- i.e, -*-*-*- pearls on a string type -- data structures. Often, for communication, or control and for algorithms. In every case we directly observe origin, intelligently directed configuration i.e. intelligent design is cause and so the best explanation. 5: As for trillions, notice the cases pointed to. 6: Now, observe that since 1953, we have known that the cell has in it precisely such information greatly in excess of the threshold, in D/RNA and extended into ribosome and protein structures. Coded so linguistic, algorithmic so directed to goals. Seventy years, long enough. 7: Further to which, this is expressed in a facility equivalent to a von Neumann kinematic self replicator, so we know Paley was right in ch 2 of his key work when he pointed to the thought exercise of a self replicating watch thus ADDITION-ality of complexity to get to replication and reproduction. Yes for 150+ years there has been a grand strawman caricature of the watch and designer argument. 8: We now see the signs of design in the tree of life from its root, the living, self replicating cell. This is the context where I declare intellectual independence. There is strong warrant being resisted by using arbitrary ideological rules to lock out reasonable abductive inference. >> Empirically verified in what manner?>> 9: By direct and highly familiar reliable observation. 10: I am pointing to the corrective force of Newton's rules, here that in going to things beyond our observation, the actual past of origins, we must not invoke explanatory mechanisms that have not been observed by us to have causal capability to produce the like effect. 11: Or if you will, title to vol 3 of Lyell's Principles of Geology:
Principles of geology : being an attempt to explain the former changes of the earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation
>> Is the design to which you refer a cause or an inference>> 12: We are dealing with causal explanation, as you full well know, rhetorically pretended ignorance notwithstanding. 13: Further to which, we are dealing with abductive reasoning, inference to best explanation form. So, 14: we are looking at observed cases of intelligently directed configuration in here and now, establishing reliability of signs and "causes now in operation," thus grounding our epistemic right to infer from signs tracing to the past of origin, the best causal explanation. 15: See here, D/RNA, ribosomes and proteins (including enzymes). This plainly traces back to the root of the tree of life, OoL and thence to every stage since. >>–you appear to call it both? >> 16: We are dealing with direct observation warranting conclusion, FSCO/I is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as a pattern of "causes now in operation," with capability exceeding blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. 17: So, we warrant sign by observation, and infer to best explanation regarding the actual past of origins which we cannot observe from traces seen in the present. 18: That explanation is of causal factors, in the context, inference to the best explanation, a form of inductive reasoning in the modern sense. >>Design causes nothing other than design.>> 19: Design is more broadly used to denote intelligently directed configuration. That is, design routinely involves both specification and contrivance, and indeed, there are often on the spot design works in contrivance. 20: Intelligent design is used for emphasis as a notion has been circulated on unintelligent design by gross extrapolation of capabilities of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. 21: Thus, threshold of complexity involving scale of configuration space to be blindly searched becomes pivotal, 500 - 1,000 bits implying a space of 3.27 * 10^150 to 1.07 * 10^301 possibilities, overwhelming, respectively, atomic resources of the sol system, 10^57 atoms, and the observed cosmos, about 10^80 atoms. With 10^17 s as yardstick of available time and 10^-12 to -14 s as a metric of interaction time for organic reactions etc. 22: Consideration on strings is WLOG, as Autocad etc show how complex functional organisation may be reduced to description on strings using a description language. Which ties to the tape in a von Neumann kinematic self replicator 1948 [vNSR] and the observed DNA from 1953 on. 23: So, we can see just what is meant. KFkairosfocus_{March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic/20
Beaver dams, bee hives, communication from dolphins, crows. Even lowly plants indicate intelligent design as show communication protocols with each other.
As wonderful as these natural phenomena are, intelligent design entails a capacity both to consciously conceive of an objective to be achieved and to devise the means of giving material effect to the achievement of that objective. Beavers and bees are wonderful creatures but there is no evidence to show that intelligent design in that form is at work in what they do.
We recognize intelligence in plants is a lower-order than that of insects. Then fish and birds have a higher order intellect. Then we claim some are of “the most intelligent animals” – the hierarchy continues upwards to human intellect.
I believe we should be wary of inflating our own egos by focusing on our status as the dominant species on this planet. Yes, we have achieved great things but they also include inflicting great suffering and damage both on ourselves and the natural world of which we are a part. We should also bear in mind that the dinosaurs were the dominant group of reptiles on Earth for 180 million years - far longer than we have been around - until an asteroid strike 65 million years ago put an end to them. A similar impact could finish us off just as easily for all our vaunted intelligence and power and we would be ill-advised to rely on any of our gods to protect us.Seversky_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

CD: What are you talking about? Trillions of what known cases? Empirically verified in what manner?
KF is referring to the written word.Scamp_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

On top of all that, studies now establish that the design inference is innate ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their innate “knee jerk” design inference!
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. And yes, ‘denialism’ is considered a mental illness.
"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth." - Denialism - Wikipedia
Verse:
Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
bornagain77_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Seversky claims that, "There isn’t any empirical evidence for non-human intelligent design in nature, just arguments by analogy and improbability." Well then Seversky, if intelligent design is so hard to see in life, then these quotes coming from leading Darwinists are certainly strange to read
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1 “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY "We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose... Any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed... simply by looking at the structure of the object." Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,, So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267 Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr - November 24, 2009 Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/ "The real core of Darwinism,,,, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means." - Ernst Mayr Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. - per pnas "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30 “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978) “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.... Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson - “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” - 1947 http://www.thesis.xlibx.info/th-biology/165918-3-by-adam-goldstein-dissertation-submitted-the-johns-hopkins-univer.php
Of related note: Natural Selection, the supposed 'designer substitute' of Darwinists, has now been cast by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics (and empirical evidence).
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila – 2010 Excerpt of concluding paragraph: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311852574_Genome-wide_analysis_of_long-term_evolutionary_domestication_in_Drosophila_melanogaster “The Third Way” – James Shapiro, Denis Noble, and etc.. etc..,,, Excerpt: “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.” http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ “the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer” Michael Lynch – The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368
bornagain77_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Seversky This species alone falsifies the theory of evolution and it is an ultimate proof of intelligent design... of course, people like you may disagree, but it does not matter what people like you say or think ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9Mmartin_r_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Seversky
There isn’t any empirical evidence for non-human intelligent design in nature
Beaver dams, bee hives, communication from dolphins, crows. Even lowly plants indicate intelligent design as show communication protocols with each other. There's a hierarchy of intelligence and we have empirical evidence of non-human intelligent design. We recognize intelligence in plants is a lower-order than that of insects. Then fish and birds have a higher order intellect. Then we claim some are of "the most intelligent animals" - the hierarchy continues upwards to human intellect. It's a very easy inference to accept that there is an intellect, greater than human, that is responsible for the design that we see in nature.Silver Asiatic_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

There isn't any empirical evidence for non-human intelligent design in nature, just arguments by analogy and improbability.Seversky_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

KF @ 12
CD, the design inference on empirical, tested sign is just that, empirical, with trillions of known cases, no exceptions to design as cause.
What are you talking about? Trillions of what known cases? Empirically verified in what manner? Is the design to which you refer a cause or an inference--you appear to call it both? Design causes nothing other than design. If I design a car, all I have is the design of a car. If I want an actual car, I have to build it. So how did the "Intelligent Designer" build whatever life forms you claim "resulted from" design? What was the first life form designed and/or built by the designer? Since, at least for you, this is all a "no brainer," you should easily be able to answer these questions.chuckdarwin_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

SA as to theistic evolutionists
It gets kind of crazy where they talk how there is no empirical evidence at all of intelligent design in nature
i wasn't aware of that ... that's so sad. Poor guys.martin_r_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Here is a recent discussion on theistic evolution by Jay Richards.
Jay Richards on the Art of Answering Theistic Evolutionists Jay Richards offers advices on engaging with evolutionists over the issues of origins, evolution, and intelligent design. In his conversation with host Casey Luskin, he says that if someone tells you he’s a theistic evolutionist, first find out what he means by theism and evolution. The latter term, in particular, can have widely varying meanings, and the average lay persons who see themselves as theistic evolutionists likely see God as actively and creatively working in the history of life to steer evolutionary outcomes, including the origin of humanity. What they may not realize is that such a view takes them well off the reservation of what academic theistic evolutionists generally mean by the term evolution, particularly those who publicly defend evolutionary theory. Richards says that these academics hold to an internally incoherent view in many cases, and he encourages intelligent design proponents to surface that incoherence whenever the opportunity arises. For those who are willing to consider the evidence for intelligent design, Richards lists what he sees as the most rhetorically effective lines of evidence to present to people.
https://idthefuture.com/1574/ Again I recommend the following book that we all should be reading.
The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos
Richards has two chapters in the book. Denyse also has a chapter. John Bloom has a chapter too. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0736977147/?asin=0736977147&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1jerry_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Jerry: "You made no attempt to understand what Bloom was saying." Yet, per Craig, "I recall a conversation I had with ID theorist John Bloom about the objection that ID would require no more than Zeus as the explanation of biological complexity. He nodded slowly in approval. “Zeus will do,” he said. “Zeus will do.” And you then stated, " it could be Zeus and ID shouldn’t care." So I asked you, "So mythical Zeus is OK with you Jerry?" You didn't reply to that question but instead accused me of not understanding what you and Bloom were actually saying. Hence, what part did I not understand of what you and Bloom were saying? If your words actually mean what they say, then you are indeed claiming that I shouldn't care if Zeus or Jesus Christ is posited as the Intelligent Designer. i.e. "it could be Zeus and ID shouldn’t care." Yet I do care. I care very much! One reason I care very much is, (besides the little matter of the propitiation, and/or justification, of our souls before the living God via Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice), and as I pointed out via Stephen Meyer, modern science itself is dependent on Judeo-Christian presuppositions about God. Thus my response that Zeus, (as a contingent being and not as the 'necessary Being', i.e. God), and contrary to what you and Bloom are trying to claim, will hardly suffice as the Intelligent Designer of the universe and all life in it. (Again, see Stephen Meyer's book "Return of the God Hypothesis", chapter 1). As the following article succinctly put it, "Comparing the mythological gods of the Greeks and Romans with the God of Christianity is like comparing beats with beets, or bells with belles -- they aren’t even “gods” in the same sense of the term. The mythological gods were contingent beings like you and me. They didn’t have to exist; something caused them to exist. But the true God as Christians understand Him exists necessarily. He can’t not be."
Question: After we gave her some books about Greek and Roman mythology, one of our young relatives reasoned that believing in the God of Christianity is like believing in the gods of the Greeks or Romans. According to her, since we no longer believe in those gods, we shouldn’t believe in our God either. How would you reply? Reply: Comparing the mythological gods of the Greeks and Romans with the God of Christianity is like comparing beats with beets, or bells with belles -- they aren’t even “gods” in the same sense of the term. Your young relative might reasonably have asked her question about how Mormons think of God (I say this with respect; Mormons work hard at being good people). But it has no application to how Christians think of God. The mythological gods were contingent beings like you and me. They didn’t have to exist; something caused them to exist. But the true God as Christians understand Him exists necessarily. He can’t not be. The mythological gods existed in the same way that you exist. They just had more of everything. But God is the Being above all beings. He is the answer to the question of why there is something and not rather nothing – why anything at all exists apart from Him. The mythological gods were products of human imagination. But the reality of God was worked out even by the pagan philosophers, in explicit opposition to what they called the “lies of the poets.” The answer to your question was brilliantly put by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his book Introduction to Christianity: “The early Christian proclamation of the Gospel and the early Christian faith found themselves once again [like the Jews] in an environment teeming with gods …. Wherever the question arose to which god the Christian God corresponded, Zeus perhaps or Hermes or Dionysus or some other god, the answer ran: to none of them. To none of the gods to whom you pray but solely and alone to him to whom you do not pray, to that highest being of whom your philosophers speak. The early Church resolutely put aside the whole cosmos of the ancient religions, regarding the whole of it as deceit and illusion, and explained its faith by saying: When we say God, we do not mean or worship any of this; we mean only Being itself, what the philosophers have exposed as the ground of all being, as the God above all powers -- that alone is our God. … The choice thus made meant opting for the logos as against any kind of myth; it meant the definitive demythologization of the world and of religion. “… Of course, the other side of the picture must not be overlooked. By deciding in favor of the God of the philosophers and logically declaring this God to be the God who speaks to man and to whom one can pray, the Christian faith gave a completely new significance to this God of the philosophers, removing him from the purely academic realm and thus profoundly transforming him. This God who had previously existed as something neutral, as the highest, culminating concept; this God who had been understood as pure Being or pure thought, circling round for ever closed in upon itself without reaching over to man and his little world; this God of the philosophers, whose pure eternity and unchangeability had excluded any relation with the changeable and transitory, now appeared to the eye of faith as the God of men, who is not only thought of all thoughts, the eternal mathematics of the universe, but also agape, the power of creative love.” https://www.undergroundthomist.org/is-believing-in-god-like-believing-in-zeus
bornagain77_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply