WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington

October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

When we say "chance can build" we mean that blind and undirected process- accidents, errors, mistakes, not planned, haphazard- That has been spoon fed to you and you spit it up like a baby.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Hi WJM,
I have no argument that can penetrate willful ignorance.
Hahahahahaha!!! Perfect! So typical of you: When at a loss for anything relevant to say, simply insult! Nice job!!
No ID proponent that I have ever read has ever proposed humans as the designers of the nanotechnology of living organisms.
Uh, yes William, I've already said that we agree about that. Please refer to my #3: We all agree (I assume) that human beings were not responsible for the original creation of living things. Was this just a reading comprehension issue for you?
Well, besides me – I once opined that humans might have created life in a John Wheeler-ish, backwards-cause manner via time-traveling quantum collapse.
Sure, why not? That's as well-supported a hypothesis as ID is!
Knowing that humans are not (yet) up to the task, they look at a specific quality of human beings that is known to produce qualitatively similar things – intelligence – and propose that some entity with greater intelligence (and engineering capacity) may be up to the task.
Again, hypothesize away! That is the creative part of the quest for knowledge: generating new hypotheses that could, if true, explain what we observe. But unless you'd like to hold purely faith-based beliefs (your prerogative, of course), the next step is to provide evidence that your hypothesis is true. ID fails to do this, and amazingly, fails to admit that it is even necessary!
Is this an unwarranted extrapolation of a human characteristic? Certainly not. Other characteristics that humans have – such as, the capacity to digest diverse foods, run, swim, make loud vocal noises, jump, etc. are often seen as being shared by non-human creatures, many of them with greater such capacities. Other, non-human creatures are seen to be sophisticated engineers, rudimentary tool makers and have some level of intelligence and perhaps even basic language.
Yes, many living things share mental and physical abilities, due to the similarities among life forms: The ability to record and process information from the environment using sense organs and nervous systems, the ability to affect the environment using musculature, and so on.
Even humans have a wide spectrum of intelligence and the capacity for intelligent agency/design – ranging from none to that which borders on the miraculous.
Absolutely true. There are savants who can perform amazing feats of mathematical or artistic ability, yet cannot hold a rational conversation. That is why the term "intelligence" is so meaningless unless it is carefully qualified: The term refers to particular abilities, and any given entity that one might call "intelligent" might have some abilities but not others. And that goes for all life forms - but something that isn't even a life form (like an "immaterial intelligent agent") would be so dissimilar from a human being that we would have no way of knowing what abilities it might have.
Our literature and media is full of just such extrapolations; SETI is based on it,...
SETI is a search for life forms - in their words, "life as we know it".
...and AI depends on the idea that intelligence is not unique to humans in the universe.
HUH????? I don't want to get too sidetracked here, but AI has nothing to do with ideas about what sorts of entities exist in the universe. AI assumes that the mental abilities human beings exhibit can be replicated by machines that are very physically different from human brains/bodies. Nobody yet knows if that assumption is correct or not. And by the way, as Wm Dembski has repeatedly pointed out, if the assumptions of AI are true then ID (and much religious dogma) is false.
It is a common, even trivial extrapolation warranted both by the Copernican principle, the wide variation of intelligent agency in humans, and the earmarks of intelligence found in non-human animals.
You aren't being clear here - what extrapolation are you talking about? That extra-terrestrial life forms exist? Maybe, maybe not - most ID folks I talk to actually think SETI has failed to find any evidence of ET life forms, so there probably aren't any. ID folks usually deny the Copernican principle too! I really don't understand your argument, and I'm afraid you don't either.
So, what IDists propose is the warranted, non-controversial extrapolation of a characteristic we know exists – intelligence –
It is not a warranted conclusion because we have no evidence for it. It is merely an hypothesis. 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.
Nothing about this is controversial.
What universe do you live in? In my universe, ID is very controversial. In fact, the vast majority of professional scientists think it's nonsense. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it is certainly ridiculous to imagine it isn't controversial.
Then, all of a sudden, you find people that cannot even imagine intelligent non-human entities (even though they can imagine the most sophisticated 3D printing and programming in the world being constructed by chance. I guess when you read science fiction books are watch science fiction movies, you are utterly perplexed by the notion of non-human intelligence.
What a stupid thing for you to say! I can imagine all sorts of things, of course! That doesn't mean they exist, William. What is wrong with you?
I guess it’s okay to hypothesize that given enough time, chance can build...
Another ridiculous thing to say. Chance doesn't build anything, William. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

We can determine that something has been created by a known cause (human beings, termites, beavers, running water, static electricity, and so on).
Right so when we observe something that looks like something a human being might have designed we have every right to look into it. For example we see running electricity in our bodies complete wityh pumping stations to keep the flow going.
If we cannot explain how something came to exist, then it remains unexplained until we come up with an explanation.
The "how" remains unexplained. That it is intelligently designed has already been settled. How always comes after design is determined. Saying something is the product of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. First it eliminates entire classes of causes and limits it to a known casual class. Secondly it tells us how the investigation is to proceed. For example Stonehenge would never reveal anything if we examined it as a natural formation.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

RDFish, I have no argument that can penetrate willful ignorance. No ID proponent that I have ever read has ever proposed humans as the designers of the nanotechnology of living organisms. Well, besides me - I once opined that humans might have created life in a John Wheeler-ish, backwards-cause manner via time-traveling quantum collapse. Knowing that humans are not (yet) up to the task, they look at a specific quality of human beings that is known to produce qualitatively similar things - intelligence - and propose that some entity with greater intelligence (and engineering capacity) may be up to the task. Is this an unwarranted extrapolation of a human characteristic? Certainly not. Other characteristics that humans have - such as, the capacity to digest diverse foods, run, swim, make loud vocal noises, jump, etc. are often seen as being shared by non-human creatures, many of them with greater such capacities. Other, non-human creatures are seen to be sophisticated engineers, rudimentary tool makers and have some level of intelligence and perhaps even basic language. Even humans have a wide spectrum of intelligence and the capacity for intelligent agency/design - ranging from none to that which borders on the miraculous. Our literature and media is full of just such extrapolations; SETI is based on it, and AI depends on the idea that intelligence is not unique to humans in the universe. It is a common, even trivial extrapolation warranted both by the Copernican principle, the wide variation of intelligent agency in humans, and the earmarks of intelligence found in non-human animals. So, what IDists propose is the warranted, non-controversial extrapolation of a characteristic we know exists - intelligence - into the probable cause of artifacts the likes of which are only currently known to be generated by entities with intelligence, reaching the conditional conclusion that since that particular intelligent entity was not (as far as we know) around, some other entity with that characteristic is most likely responsible for those quantifiably similar artifacts. Nothing about this is controversial. It's a rather pedestrian extrapolation or abductive inference to best explanation - that is, until it smacks up against those who have an ideological commitment otherwise. Then, all of a sudden, you find people that cannot even imagine intelligent non-human entities (even though they can imagine the most sophisticated 3D printing and programming in the world being constructed by chance. I guess when you read science fiction books are watch science fiction movies, you are utterly perplexed by the notion of non-human intelligence. I guess it's okay to hypothesize that given enough time, chance can build a biological computer and self-replicating 3D printing machine, but it's verboten to hypothsize non-human intelligence being responsible for it.William J Murray_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

LoL! Worthless debater = being able to easily refute RDFish's tripe.
The statement that a flagellum or an eyeball is “intelligently designed” is assuming your conclusion;
No it isn't. That inference was reached after careful and thorough consideration of all of the evidence. Again the design is evidence of an intelligent designer. That alone is all that is required to show that an intelligent designer existed. I am not surprised that you cannot grasp that simple concept.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Joe, Although you are a rude and worthless debater, once in a great while I deign to respond to you just in case someone here doesn't realize why it is the best policy to simply ignore you. Here is my response:
If we determine that something is intelligently designed...
You are already confused here. We can determine that something has been created by a known cause (human beings, termites, beavers, running water, static electricity, and so on). If we cannot explain how something came to exist, then it remains unexplained until we come up with an explanation. The statement that a flagellum or an eyeball is "intelligently designed" is assuming your conclusion; the correct conclusion is "We do not know how this mechanism came to exist".
...and then determine that humans could not have designed it (perhaps because we were not around), what are we supposed to do?
Again, what we are supposed to do is say "We do not know how this thing came to exist".
Are we to deny the design inference...
By "design inference" you mean "jump to the conclusion that something that isn't human but has the mental and physical abilities of human beings exists somewhere and produced what we observe". So yes, you shouldn't do that (unless of course you choose to hold faith-based beliefs that do not require empirical evidence, which is your prerogative).
...and think that mother nature somehow had the power to do something that is far beyond her known capability?
I think it's quaint that you choose to personify nature :-) But yes, of course, there is a great deal about the world that we do not understand. It would be silly to imagine we understood everything about nature.
Or do we infer it was some non-human intelligent agency that was involved?
In order to conclude that something existed which had the mental and physical abilities of human beings, and this thing somehow created living systems, you would need to present some evidence to support your view. There is no such evidence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

William, Obviously they think we have to see the designer(s) in action. They do not care about science.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

RDFish- you are an ignorant troll. I have not only addressed your points in the past, I have refuted them. If we determine that something is intelligently designed and then determine that humans could not have designed it (perhaps because we were not around), what are we supposed to do? Are we to deny the design inference and think that mother nature somehow had the power to do something that is far beyond her known capability? Or do we infer it was some non-human intelligent agency that was involved? Or is all of that too complicated for our anti-ID guests? Tamara? RDFish? rich? Alan Fox? Why are you guys too chicken to answer those questions?Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Hi WJM, As usual, you can offer insults, sarcasm, and wildly mistaken interpretations of others' arguments, but you can't even begin to address a real argument. So sad. Read my argument @73, point by point, and tell me where I'm wrong. What's that? Can't do it? Ah, I thought as much. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Hi DillyGill, Nobody here, including you, has actually addressed my point at all. Here is my argument, as clearly as I can state it: 1) ID (for example, Barry in the OP of this very thread) explicitly states that ID proposes a known cause for the existence of biological complexity. This is a crucial part of ID's argument - that there is a known cause of complex mechanisms that ID offers as the "best explanation" of living systems. 2) HOWEVER, the only known cause that produces mechanisms similar to those we see in biological systems is a human being. 3) We all agree (I assume) that human beings were not responsible for the original creation of living things. 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 is your attempt to counter my argument: ID's evidence consists of the complexity of life and the fine tuning of the universe. But you are mistaken: these phenomena are what we are trying to explain, not evidence for some particular explanation. Various explanations for these observations have been offered (abiogenesis, evolution, multiverses, self-organizational principles, intelligent life forms, intelligent entities that are not life forms, etc). In my view, none of these explanations are satisfactory in the sense that they are without empirical support, or they are to vague and ill-defined to qualify as a good explanation, or both. Is there anyone here who can even attempt to address the specific point I'm making? I'm sure Barry can't :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Velikovskys @39 OK, so you see no difference between the fact that a sundial was specifically made to tell time and the fact that naturally occurring shadows just happen to also be able to be used in that fashion? This is the kind of "wisdom" evolutionists believe? And you wonder why more people don't join you in your belief? Of course, any shadow can be used to tell time to a certain extent, but you do see the difference of purpose and intent in your illustration I hope. Purpose and intent are hallmarks of design, intelligent design. I think the only thing I can agree with you about in your post was your last statement.
There also is a vast difference between a living organisms and clocks.
You can say that again!tjguy_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

IOW, TK simply will not say the obvious: that in such a case, such as if we find precisely carved sets of symbols in rocks on a planet we've never been to before or carved in strata 2 billion years old, even if we don't know what those symbols mean, we must infer that a non-human intelligence was probably at work. Countless sci-fi movies and books are based upon this very widespread, common notion. But here, TK cannot even bring herself to admit it. It's funny how non-human intelligence is considered either probable or certain when ID isn't the subject. When Darwinists insist humans aren't special and that other animals have forms of intelligence, or when they insist that humans are probably not anything special in the universe and other intelligent forms of life likely exist out there. But as soon as it comes to the origin of the unbelievably complex, organized and information-processing nano-technology we find in biology, suddenly intelligent agency becomes nothing more than a vague "hypothetical abstraction". I guess nobody told those idiots trying to achieve artificial intelligence that intelligent agency is nothing but a hypothetical abstraction.William J Murray_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

But thank you for avoiding the questions. It isn't as of we predicted that much from people like you.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

We have and no one else can come up with a equivalent or better explanation for what we say is designed.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

@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.Tamara Knight_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

If we determine that something is intelligently designed and then determine that humans could not have designed it (perhaps because we were not around), what are we supposed to do? Are we to deny the design inference and think that mother nature somehow had the power to do something that is far beyond her known capability? Or do we infer it was some non-human intelligent agency that was involved? Or is all of that too complicated for our anti-ID guests? Tamara? RDFish? rich? Alan Fox?Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

rich @42
bb, I actually said “looking at a clock for a tenth of a second” – the clock doesn’t have to be configured in any way for that to be possible, only my gaze.
Why a clock then? Why not a book, rock, wall, cat, tree outside.... Of course most of us, when we hear the word "clock", think of a sundial or natural object that casts a shadow from sunrise to sunset. We all know what you meant. You don't have to let others like velikovskys twist it into something else in your defense when you're called out. My apologies tintinnid. Looking back I see it was clearly velikovskys that started that trail and you only joined him on it.bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Did you know that besides us ants are the only other species to domestic other animals?Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Termite mounds are very sophisticated. Ant colonies are also sophisticated. Ask any entomologist.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @39 "So if a human built sundial it measures time, but the exact same device occurring by chance and nature does not. " I have never seen "the exact same device" occurring by chance. Are you saying there's no difference between the object pictured here and this? Which object actually tells time? At what time of day was second photo taken? Can you tell me down to the tenth of a second?bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
If mainstream science “believes” that natural processes are sufficient
What they "believe" is irrelevant to science.
but can’t explain exactly how (and they might add “yet”) then all it can ever do is investigate what is not yet understood, and apply limits to when and where “design” could have contributed.
We cannot explain how many artifacts came about yet that does not stop them from being artifacts.
But I’m not comfortable with claims that things are “impossible” implying anything more than the limits of our knowledge.
Science works via our knowledge. And all- even materialistic- inferences are tentative which means future knowledge can either refute or support it. That is the nature of science. But what we cannot do is put off the science of today for what the science of tomorrow may or may not uncover.
ID has to address at least the What and When aspects of the required design inputs, and even possibly the How.
The What is the design under investigation. The when and how always come after design has been determined. Always, unless there is direct observation or designer input.
Once you accept that “design” can be achieved by the “intelligence” possessed by termites, where do you stop?
Nature, operating freely is the stopping point. If nature, operating freely can produce something we do not infer it took an intelligent agency to produce.
Plants that grow in cliffs can design root systems that perfecly fit the cracks around them.
And when we determine that nature, operating freely, can produce plants...Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

No problem. I asked for sophisticated examples - you proffered termite mounds..rich_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

BB #41:
Clearly not the sundial that tintinn threw in to distract.
Don't blame me for the inability of some people to stay on track. Maybe it is some type of attention deficit disorder. Also, don't blame me for bringing up the sundial, because it wasn't me. Please review the comment threat.tintinnid_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

rich:
Joe, your threshold for ‘sophistication’ is MUCH lower than mine.
Evidence please. I know your level of knowledge is MUCH lower than mine and I have proven that many times over.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @35
You seem to be saying that a sundial only has information when it is observed by an intelligent being. If that is so did DNA also have no information before it was discovered?
A sundial only has information because an intelligent agent designed and constructed it. But you're saying that DNA cannot have the same type of origin?bb_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
I think an eighteenth century position would have been to regard Creation as essentially static and unchanging,
Linneaus was from the 18th century and he disagrees with that.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

@51 Joe ID uses a scientific methodology to determine design. First we try to determine if nature, operating freely could produce what we are observing. If not we see if it matches the design criteria. If nature, operating freely couldn’t have produced it AND it matches the design criteria, we infer some intelligent agency was involved. Here though I have more problems. If mainstream science "believes" that natural processes are sufficient but can't explain exactly how (and they might add "yet") then all it can ever do is investigate what is not yet understood, and apply limits to when and where "design" could have contributed. If ID proposes some intervention in the "modification", there is a chance that this could leave evidence if the intervention produced rapid change. For example, a 55 million year old fossil of a creature pregnant with a primative cat and a primative dog would require not only a designer, but one who was happy to forge his designs in the furnace of natural selection. But I'm not comfortable with claims that things are "impossible" implying anything more than the limits of our knowledge. After forty years in the electronics business, I now see things which were theoretically impossible when I graduated at the heart of trivial consumer electronic products. ID has to address at least the What and When aspects of the required design inputs, and even possibly the How. The Why aspects are probably beyond the realm of any science. I also can't see how the "intelligence" required can be meaningfully less than ours. Once you accept that "design" can be achieved by the "intelligence" possessed by termites, where do you stop? Plants that grow in cliffs can design root systems that perfecly fit the cracks around them. And the monk's head toadstool can design some pretty impressive fairy-rings too.Tamara Knight_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Joe, your threshold for 'sophistication' is MUCH lower than mine.rich_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

@24 Joe If I may paraphrase your post as "Yes, you are right but.." then we are agreed as far as that goes. Far from claiming Darwinism needs "more than mere descent with modification", you now accept there is no "mere" about it and it can form the basis of almost all descriptions of the development of life. I am happy to accept that the scope and nature of the "modification" is far from settled. I would add one other point though. My understanding is that YECism is very much a twentieth century concept. I think an eighteenth century position would have been to regard Creation as essentially static and unchanging, and its age would have been of little concern, even to the tiny numbers who did not have more pressing things to think about. Only with the nineteenth century realisation that creatures became extinct did the need for any "modification" at all raise its head.Tamara Knight_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Are rocks alive? The answer is obviously ‘no’ – but wait: 1. They can chemically react 2. They can metabolize (uranium), produce energy and waste 3. They can catalyze and form new kinds 4. They divide and recombine 5. They have memory (magnet) But we know rocks are not alive… We also know that a stick in the ground casting a shadow is not a clock - or sitting on the ground and waiting on continental drift is not a mode of travel. It appears some people on this forum believe a stick in the ground is a clock – which brings me back to my first question, “Are rocks alive”? – if you get my (continental) drift…Heartlander_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply