WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

HeKS: "I’ve actually kinda missed your participation here." Thank you HeKS, but I have never been away. I have commented under many names until Barry checks the IP address and bans me again. The latest being Tintinnid. But I do think that UD is much more interesting with people like myself, RDFish and others. I did notice that at the height of the censorship era (2+ days ago) the comment threads on most OPs were extremely short, if present at all. We will have to see if Barry has the guts and foresight to aoe this partial amnesty to continue. Nobody would argue with banning people who are abusive and hateful, but banning them just because they are critical of the moderator, his approach and his often uncivil tone, is just proof that he can't decent himself. I look forward to having some heated, but civil, disagreements.Acartia_bogart_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Turbokid:
Box @109 (and HeKS), it would be great if ID were to go through the process that physicists did to identify the Higgs boson.
So the taxpayers should fund ID research? Great!Mung_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Box @109 (and HeKS), it would be great if ID were to go through the process that physicists did to identify the Higgs boson. The attributes of the Higgs boson were hypothesised to staggering mathematical detail. Then the scientists used that data to try and determine if it existed. This is the opposite of what ID does.Turbokid_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

HeKS in #98 and #100 is very effective in dissecting RDFish's incoherent sputtering. I fully enjoyed this part:
HeKS: Here you seem to be trying to suggest that science is not allowed to propose the existence of previously unknown entities as the best explanation for observed effects and that the observed effects that seem to make the existence of such unknown entities necessary cannot be allowed to count as evidence for their existence. If this is what you’re trying to claim – and I can’t figure out what else you could be trying to claim – this is obviously absurd. It’s recognized to be untrue in the case of SETI. It’s recognized to be untrue when it comes to the matter of elementary particles. And only ideologues (or people who really don’t understand the issues involved) deny it’s untrue in the case of ID.
Indeed, was the proposal of Higgs boson illegitimate science? How about string theory is that not part of science? Why is RDFish not presenting his views on science at a physics forum?Box_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

LoL!@ Turbokid- RDFish has been left to incoherent sputtering. That is why he gets banned.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

I wills second AB's comment. Great to see RDFish back. Unfortunately his arguments have the effect of reducing ID proponents to incoherent spluttering. And then he gets banned.Turbokid_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
I understand Behe’s inclusion criteria for the set of intelligent agents, but I don’t understand how Ratzsch’s notion of “counterflow” constitutes an additional criterion. Again, as far as I can make out from what you’ve said, an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”. Any thing (entity, being, life form, process, system, spirit, mechanism, force, or whatever) that can do this belongs to the class of intelligent agents, and anything that cannot do that does not belong to that class. If you’d like to modify this idea regarding “counterflow” from Ratzsch, could you explain what other criteria are involved?
I get it. You are trying to trap me. So let me try to educate you: With science each scenario is treated separately. With science necessity and chance are ALWAYS given priority- ALWAYS. So when we have swept clear necessity and chance AND we have Behe's criteria, we infer intelligent design. However there are sometimes we may definitely just jump to the design inference. That includes counterflow. The presence of strong counterflow, an alien spacecraft as opposed to scratches on a rock, can only be accounted for via intelligent agency.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Just to add if the SETI project finds evidence of intelligent (intelligent enough to construct and use radio transmission equipment of sufficient power to reach Earth) life-forms this will provide data for the Drake equation and thus boost the suggestion that abiogenesis is common, rather than being unique.
LoL! That doesn't follow at all. First the Drake equation has been superseded by both the "Rare Earth" hypothesis and the equation posited by Ward and Brownlee, and also by "The Privileged Planet" hypothesis posited by Gonzalez and Richards. And if those equations are met and the privileged planet hypothesis is borne out, then it is Intelligent Design all the way down. This to is the conclusion of Gonzalez and Richards. I know the last time I told you that you freaked out. But deal with it.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

WJM Apparently, RDFish doesn’t know what the acronym “SETI” stands for.
Hahahahahaha!!! Perfect! So typical of you: When at a loss for anything relevant to say, simply insult! Nice job!!
It's generally bad form to do victory dance after being thrown out of a window.
ID pretends to be suggesting a known cause for life – is it really the same thing as SETI is looking for?
Do you mean, does it think of an intelligent cause in the same was as ID? Of course.StephenB_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
@Joe “If we determine that something is intelligently designed…” Well once WE have, we have a world changer. In the mean time, we need to work at it.
You're probably right, but most of us ID supporters have no problem believing your posts are designed, so where do you think the problem is?Mung_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

I always thought SETI was about messages, not complexity?rich_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Hey Acartia_bogart, I've actually kinda missed your participation here. Though I admit I find it rather disappointing to see you citing RDFish's arguments as examples of a "voice of reason" since they seem to me to contain everything but good reasoning. But to each his own I guess.HeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

RDFish #96 Further to my last post, you said:
They believe these might exist because WE ON EARTH are a civilization of life forms with advanced technology. We are a known cause of complex mechanisms and communication devices.
Yes, We humans living on earth are known causal agents of complex mechanisms and systems. Non-human aliens living on another planet we're unaware of are not known causal agents. But if SETI found the effects of intelligence in a radio signal they would consider that to be strong evidence that non-human aliens really do exist as causal agents somewhere out there in the vastness of space. The common feature between humans on earth and non-human aliens on another planet that would allow SETI to infer the existence of the latter on the basis of the former is intelligence capable of building complex systems.
ID pretends to be suggesting a known cause for life – is it really the same thing as SETI is looking for?
Yes, it really is the same, because both ID and SETI are based on finding the same feature or characteristic, which is intelligence capable of constructing complex systems. Both SETI and ID are proposing a known cause in an otherwise unknown causal agent. The only different between the two is that SETI is still looking for the effects of intelligent design in a radio signal while ID has actually found overwhelming amounts of evidence for intelligent design in life and in the cosmos at large.HeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Hi RSFish, it is nice to see a voice of reason back on UD. How long do you think this amnesty will last?Acartia_bogart_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish, In #85 you say:
Does this mean that an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”? That is what separates “intelligent agents” from everything else? In other words, anything that can do that is an intelligent agent, no matter what else is true of it? And anything that cannot do that is not an intelligent agent?
Let's break this down:
Does this mean that an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”?
No, that's not what an intelligent agent is in the sense of it being a definition. Rather, that's something that intelligent agents often do.
That is what separates “intelligent agents” from everything else?
It is certainly one of the things that separates intelligent agents from everything else.
In other words, anything that can do that is an intelligent agent, no matter what else is true of it?
No, to insist on that a priori as an absolute truth would be to essentially make a circular argument and a potentially meaningless claim. Rather, the claim is that only intelligent agents have ever been demonstrated to be capable of bringing about the type of effect described by Behe and that all such complex systems, when definitively traced back to their source, invariable are derived from intelligence, with trillions of examples supporting the claim and zero non-question-begging counter-examples.
And anything that cannot do that is not an intelligent agent?
No, that is no part of the claim. Some agent, like a one-year-old, may be intelligent but not yet have the necessary knowledge or capacity to bring about a complex system. All the evidence we have indicates that intelligence is a necessary condition to bring about the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. The intelligent agent much also possess enough relevant knowledge to bring about the effect in question. That some agent had sufficient relevant knowledge and ability to produce an observed effect can be deduced from the existence of the effect. Moving to comment #88, you write:
if you read SETI literature you will see clearly that the astrobiologists they employ make a number of assumptions about what they are looking for. Among these assumptions are that there is civilisation of life forms on some hospitable (temperate, water-containing) planet that has existed for a sufficient amount of time to evolve complex brains (which they quantify by means of an “encephalization quotient”) and technologies.
SETI's description of the type of agents they are looking for consists only of the minimal necessary characteristics that can be logically deduced from the type of effect they are hoping to find combined with the assumptions of Methodological Naturalism. And if they are anywhere going beyond that then they are making unwarranted (or at the very least unrelated) assumptions that are not connected to their design inference. As I've said before (and will say again), the design inference can only provide us with insight into the minimum set of characteristics that the designer must possess rather than the maximum set of characteristics the designer might possess. Furthermore, even this minimum set of characteristics must obviously be deduced as a matter of logical necessity rather than observed. The relevant point about SETI is the recognition that intelligent activity could be reliably recognized from its effect and that the finding of such evidence for intelligent activity could confirm the existence of previously unknown kinds of intelligent agents. In comment #73, you wrote:
4) THEREFORE, ID does NOT propose a known cause at all – it is in fact proposing a cause that is UNKNOWN to us, which is something that isn’t human, but still has mental and physical abilities similar to that of a human being. 5) It is up to ID to provide evidence that such a thing exists. If it exists, then it could help explain how living things came to exist. But until ID provides evidence, ID remains an unsupported hypothesis.
Here you seem to be trying to suggest that science is not allowed to propose the existence of previously unknown entities as the best explanation for observed effects and that the observed effects that seem to make the existence of such unknown entities necessary cannot be allowed to count as evidence for their existence. If this is what you're trying to claim - and I can't figure out what else you could be trying to claim - this is obviously absurd. It's recognized to be untrue in the case of SETI. It's recognized to be untrue when it comes to the matter of elementary particles. And only ideologues (or people who really don't understand the issues involved) deny it's untrue in the case of ID. In #81 you said:
SETI cannot conclude that ET life forms exist just because they exist on Earth – we actually need evidence that they exist somewhere. Same with ID.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that if they found the effects of intelligence in a radio signal they would consider that to be powerful evidence of the existence of ET life forms. They would conclude that the existence of such ET life forms was the best explanation for the radio signal effects without requiring other independent evidence of their existence. The same goes for ID.HeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Just to add if the SETI project finds evidence of intelligent (intelligent enough to construct and use radio transmission equipment of sufficient power to reach Earth) life-forms this will provide data for the Drake equation and thus boost the suggestion that abiogenesis is common, rather than being unique. (The recent flood of newly discovered exo-planets also improves the odds)Alan Fox_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

In case anyone else is confused about SETI, they are clear about what they are looking for: hospitable planets hosting civilizations of life forms who have developed advanced technology. See here for example: http://www.seti.org/faq#obs1 They believe these might exist because WE ON EARTH are a civilization of life forms with advanced technology. We are a known cause of complex mechanisms and communication devices. ID pretends to be suggesting a known cause for life - is it really the same thing as SETI is looking for?RDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Hi WJM, Poor you, taking pot shots behind my back like a little schoolyard wimp, afraid to take on the arguments I've presented. Don't worry, William, I won't be too tough on you. Just give it a try - answer the points I've made like a man, and see where it goes! Don't be such a coward. It's all right there @73, points 1-5. What's your response? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe,
RDF: Does this mean that an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”? That is what separates “intelligent agents” from everything else? JOE: That and the presence of counterflow (Ratzsch). Also the number of separate components is key, as Behe makes very clear.
I understand Behe's inclusion criteria for the set of intelligent agents, but I don't understand how Ratzsch's notion of "counterflow" constitutes an additional criterion. Again, as far as I can make out from what you've said, an "intelligent agent" is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”. Any thing (entity, being, life form, process, system, spirit, mechanism, force, or whatever) that can do this belongs to the class of intelligent agents, and anything that cannot do that does not belong to that class. If you'd like to modify this idea regarding "counterflow" from Ratzsch, could you explain what other criteria are involved? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

bb: Obviously, the "I" in SETI stands for "Hypothetical Abstractions".William J Murray_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
Does this mean that an “intelligent agent” is something that can “order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”? That is what separates “intelligent agents” from everything else?
That and the presence of counterflow (Ratzsch). Also the number of separate components is key, as Behe makes very clear. Do you think you have something? Present it and get it over with. Or continue to play games. Your choice.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

RDFish, WJM makes a valid point and gives your argument all the attention it deserves. What does the "I" in "SETI" stand for?bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Didn't mean to spell like a pirate. "Thar"="that".bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Continuing....without ever seeing something like thar occur.bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Hi WJM,
Apparently, RDFish doesn’t know what the acronym “SETI” stands for.
Hahahahahaha!!! Perfect! So typical of you: When at a loss for anything relevant to say, simply insult! Nice job!! You are indeed "on a roll" here, William! Again and again you are presented with my arguments, and rather than either concede or respond to my points, you regress into juvenile baiting. You are pathetic. For the rest of you, if you read SETI literature you will see clearly that the astrobiologists they employ make a number of assumptions about what they are looking for. Among these assumptions are that there is civilisation of life forms on some hospitable (temperate, water-containing) planet that has existed for a sufficient amount of time to evolve complex brains (which they quantify by means of an "encephalization quotient") and technologies. Now that you've gotten that wrong, can you at least try to respond to my argument, William? No? I thought not :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

After several rabbit trails, WJM's comment on rich's post still stands. After staring at a clock for only 1/10 of a second, an evolutionist/materialist/darwinist feels justified in concluding that only chance and necessity can produce the incredible technology and integration we find in biology.bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

RDFish said:
SETI is a search for life forms – in their words, “life as we know it”.
Apparently, RDFish doesn't know what the acronym "SETI" stands for.William J Murray_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe, So you are saying this: 1) We can use evidence to support a "design inference" about something 2) The "design inference" says that it was produced by something that belongs to the class of "intelligent agents" 3) When asked what the inclusion criteria are for this class, you respond thus:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Behe
Does this mean that an "intelligent agent" is something that can "order separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components"? That is what separates "intelligent agents" from everything else? In other words, anything that can do that is an intelligent agent, no matter what else is true of it? And anything that cannot do that is not an intelligent agent? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
That means look for evidence of something that might have been responsible for these intricate biological mechanisms.
That is incoherent. Obviously it is not from this planet so how do you propose we do that and why do you think it is important? You do realize that what you are asking is not part of ID but is one of the questions we will try to answer, meaning ID is not a scientific dead-end. The who designed it and how it was designed ALWAYS come after design has been determined. Saying something is the product of intelligent design tells us quite a bit.
No, it tells us precisely nothing,
No, it tells YOU nmothing but it tells me and the rest of us with investigative experience, quite a bit
which is why I always ask people what they mean when they say that, but they never respond.
I have responded and you have been ignoring. Not my problem
Every class of things must have some sort of inclusion criteria. What is the inclusion criterion for the class of intelligent agents?
I am getting tired of constantly having to repeat myself. The inclusion criteria is as Behe said in DBB : "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Behe and as Ratzsch said in "Nature, Design and Science" calls it "counterflow". Read the book. You should love it.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe,
Right so when we observe something that looks like something a human being might have designed we have every right to look into it.
Yes - and "look into it" you should! That means look for evidence of something that might have been responsible for these intricate biological mechanisms. Since we know a human being was NOT responsible, you need to look for something else.
Saying something is the product of intelligent design tells us quite a bit.
No, it tells us precisely nothing, which is why I always ask people what they mean when they say that, but they never respond.
First it eliminates entire classes of causes and limits it to a known casual class.
Every class of things must have some sort of inclusion criteria. What is the inclusion criterion for the class of intelligent agents? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply