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

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?Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
Again, my point is that if ID is proposing that a known cause of complexity is responsible for biological complexity, then ID is proposing that human beings were responsible
That is incorrect and demonstrates just how low on the scientific pole you are.
But in that case, ID would need to show evidence that this sort of thing exists.
The existence if design is such evidence, duh. 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. Science 101. But all that is moot to you because this has been explained to you many times and each time you either choked or ignored it.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Sundials are moot unless there is an intelligent agency around to make sense of it.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

rich:
All the designs that we know of that have any sophistication and identifiable designers come from HUMANS.
Not true. Humans did not design termite mounds. Humans did not design bee hives. Humans did not design ant hills.
Not “intelligence”.
LoL! Intelligence is defined as being able to manipulate nature for a purpose and humans definitely fit that definition.
Unless we’re reopening the “Designer could be a time traveler” reasoning, we’re very confident that humans weren’t around back then.
Humans from earth weren't around, but that is moot. If humans weren't around then we infer some other intelligent agency was as nature doesn't miraculously get the power just because humans weren't there.
But I have no reason to think that heritability, selction and differential reproduction weren’t around.
Umm those processes can explain the OoL so you lose, again. Also when observed those processes don't do anything of note- they only change allele frequency. So you lose, again.
You seem to complain about the missing peaces of my jigsaw, whilst having no jigsaw at all yourselves?
That is because you are ignorant. Intelligent design evolution is modeled by genetic and evolutionary algorithms. OTOH yours can't even be modeled.Joe_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

F/N: Corrective headlined as DDD # 16, here. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

RDF: Pardon, but this -- after all this time -- needs correction:
my point is that if ID is proposing that a known cause of complexity is responsible for biological complexity, then ID is proposing that human beings were responsible – clearly a poor hypothesis. Alternatively, ID can propose an unknown cause that somehow has the same sort of mental and physical abilities as human beings. But in that case, ID would need to show evidence that this sort of thing exists.
Let's take in slices: >> my point is that if ID is proposing that a known cause of complexity>> 1: Design theory does not address simple complexity, but specified complexity, and particularly functionally specified complexity that requires a cluster of correct, properly arranged and coupled parts to achieve a function, often in life forms at cell based level using molecular nanotech, codes and algorithms . . . such as the protein synthesis process. >> . . . is responsible for biological complexity,>> 2: Biological, FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC complex organisation, e.g. the protein synthesis system etc. (More generally, functionally specified, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I, requires many well-matched components, correctly arranged and coupled to achieve function, such as the glyph strings in this English text, or the algorithmic function of strings in D/RNA used to guide protein assembly in the ribosome. Where that constraint on configuration to achieve function locks us to isolated islands of function in the configuration space of possible arrangements of components. Thus, beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of specified complex arrangement to achieve function, we see a material blind search challenge on chance and mechanical necessity that is readily solved by intelligence, whether human [this text, underlying software and hardware] or beavers [dams adapted to stream specifics in a feat of impressive engineering] etc. Where we may simply measure FSCO/I using the Chi_500 threshold metric:
FSCO/I on the gamut of our solar system is detected when the following metric goes positive: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold [with 1,000 bits being adequate for the observed cosmos] in which I is a reasonable info metric, most easily seen as the string of Y/N questions to specify configuration in a field of possibilities, such as is commonly done with AutoCAD files or the like with S a dummy variable defaulting to zero ( chance as default explanation of high contingency, cheerfully accepting the possibilities of false negatives), and set high on noting good reason and evidence of functional specificity, e.g. key-lock fitting of proteins sensitive to sequence and folding where 500 bits gives us a "haystack" sufficiently large to overwhelm the capacity of 10^57 atoms for 10^17 s, each making 10^14 observations of chance configs for 500 bits per second [a fast chem rxn rate], comparable to taking a one straw sized sample blindly from a cubical haystack of possible configs for 500 bits [3.27*10^150] that is 1,000 light years on the side, comparably thick as our galaxy . . . light setting out when William The Conqueror attacked Saxon England in 1066 AD would still not have crossed the stack today so that if S = 1 and I > 500 bits, Chi_500 going positive convincingly points to design as best explanation as such a blind search of a haystack superposed on our galactic neighbourhood would with moral certainty beyond reasonable doubt produce naught but the typical finding: a straw but by contrast, on trillions of observed cases, design is the reliably known cause of FSCO/I
3: The rhetorical substitution made here therefore dodges a substantial case and sets up a strawman caricature, for which -- given longstanding, repeated corrections across months and years -- the error involved unfortunately has to be willful. >> then ID is proposing that human beings were responsible – clearly a poor hypothesis.>> 4: Strawman. 5: First, the very names involved are the design inference and the theory of intelligent design. At no point is there a process of inference to human action or any particular agent, only, to a process that is observed and known per observations to not only be adequate to produce the phenomenon FSCO/I, but on trillions of cases, the ONLY observed process to do this. 6: This, multiplied by needle in haystack blind search challenge analysis that points to the gross inadequacy of blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of the solar system or observed cosmos to find relevant deeply isolated islands of function. 7: Where, starting with beavers and the like, we have no good reason to infer that humans exhaust actual much less possible intelligences capable of intelligently directed contingency or contrivance, i.e. design. 8: As a further level of misrepresentation, the design inference is about causal process not identification of specific classes of agents or particular agents. One first identifies that a factory fire is suspicious and then infers arson on signs, before going on to call in the detectives to try to detect the particular culprit. Signs, that indicate that more than blind chance and the mechanical necessities of starting and propagating a fire were at work. 9: This willful caricature, after years of correction, then sets up the next step: >>Alternatively, ID can propose an unknown cause that somehow has the same sort of mental and physical abilities as human beings.>> 10: As has been pointed out to you, RD,F over and over again and stubbornly ignored in the rush to set up and knock over a favourite strawman caricature, the design inference process sets up no unknown cause [here a synonym for an agent], but compares known, empirically evident causal factors and their characteristic or typical traces. 11: Mechanical necessity is noted for low contingency natural regularities, e.g. guavas and apples reliably drop from trees under initial acceleration 9.8 N/kg, and attenuating for the surface of a sphere at the distance to the moon, the force field accounts aptly for its centripetal acceleration, grounding Newtonian gravitation analysis. 12: Blind chance tends to cause high contingency, but stochastically controlled contingency similar to how a Monte Carlo simulation analysis explores reasonably likely clusters of possibilities in a highly contingent situation. 13: But, some needles can be too isolated and some haystacks too big relative to sampling resources, for us to reasonably expect to find one needle, much less the thousands that are in just the so-called simple cell, i.e. the cluster of proteins and the nanomachines involved. 14: So, we are epistemically entitled to infer that the only vera causa plausible process that accounts for the needles coming up trumps is design. That is, intelligently directed contingency or contrivance. 15: Where also, the base of trillions of observations showing that design is the reliably known -- and ONLY actually observed -- causal process accounting for such FSCO/I makes it also a very strong, reliable sign of design as key causal factor involved where it is observed. 16: This bit of inductive reasoning then exposes the selectively hyperskeptical rhetorical agenda in: >>But in that case, ID would need to show evidence that this sort of thing exists.>> 17: Designers exist, human, beaver and more. Where, we have no good reason whatsoever to assume, assert, insinuate or imply that human and similar cases exhaust possible cases of designers. So, designers exist and are therefore possible. 18: Likewise, FSCO/I on very strong empirical basis, is a highly reliable index of design. 19: Therefore, until someone can reasonably show otherwise empirically, we are inductively entitled to take the occurrence of FSCO/I -- even in unexpected or surprising contexts -- as evidence of design as relevant causal process. 20: So, why the implicit demand for separate, direct empirical evidence of designers in the remote unobserved past of origins? Why, by contrast with being very willing to assign causal success to very implausible mechanisms for FSCO/I such as chance and necessity -- not needle in haystack plausible, not ever observed to account for FSCO/I? 21: Selective hyperskepticism joined to flip-side hypercredulity to substitute a drastically inferior explanation. In the wider context, typically for fear and loathing of the possibility of . . . shudder . . "A Divine Foot" in the door of the halls of evolutionary materialism dominated science. 22: Of course, ever since 1984, with Thaxton et al, design theorists have been careful to be conservative, noting that in effect for the case of what we see in the living cell and wider biological life, a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al would be adequate. But so locked in a death-battle with bogeyman "Creationists" are the materialists and fellow travellers that they too often will refuse to acknowledge any point, regardless of warrant, that could conceivably give hope to Creationists. 23: So, the issues of duties to reason, truth and fairness are predictably given short shrift. 24: Oddly, most such activists are typically missing in action when we point out, from the thought of lifelong agnostic and Nobel-equivalent Prize-holding Astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle and others, the evidence of cosmological fine tuning that sets up a world in which we can have C-chemistry, aqueous medium, protein using cell based life on the five or six most abundant elements points to cosmological design; most credibly by a powerful, skilled and purposeful designer who set up physics itself to be the basis for such a world. 25: Here's a key comment -- just one of several -- by Sir Fred:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
It seems that ideology rules the roost in present day origins science thinking (and in science education), even at the price of clinging to the inductively implausible in order to repudiate anything that might conceivably hint that design best accounts for our world. Sadly revealing. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

RDFish @45 'ID can propose an unknown cause that somehow has the same sort of mental and physical abilities as human beings. But in that case, ID would need to show evidence that this sort of thing exists' As an observer I have to say this... They already did. The evidence is the complexity of life and the fine tuning in the universe. Their expalnation is a causally adequate, logical and rational argument. Unlike your argument which is little more than wild speculation So far as reasonably possible they have made the argument. They can only use what evidence there is (your demand they reveal the designer beyond the evidence available is unreasonable). If the designer does not want to reveal himself any further than he already has then that is not their fault. I see it like a 'being' created in a computer program. It can look at the 'natural' world around it and make deductions however it can only really know anything about its designer apart from that through special revelation or through the designer inserting himself into the program The evidence really is all about design.DillyGill_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Hi Eric Anderson,
In other words, says RDFish, if we knew that a designer other than human beings existed then we would be able to infer that a designer other than human beings existed.
This makes no sense. If we knew it, then we wouldn't need to infer it. Again, my point is that if ID is proposing that a known cause of complexity is responsible for biological complexity, then ID is proposing that human beings were responsible - clearly a poor hypothesis. Alternatively, ID can propose an unknown cause that somehow has the same sort of mental and physical abilities as human beings. But in that case, ID would need to show evidence that this sort of thing exists.
Hello.
Hello!
And, no, it is not invalid to analogize, as long as we understand it is not a deduction, but rather an analogy.
Huh? Who said analogies were invalid?
Further, we have multiple examples of the kinds of things we are talking about and a sense of what is required to build these kinds of systems.
What are you talking about?
Your position is completely unsupportable, is inconsistent with historical science, and represents a close-minded unwillingness to consider possibilities that you prefer not to think about. Logic fail.
That's funny. Now, does anyone actually have a response to my point? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

great dialogue - it made me remember "the evolution of clocks": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjhGG6j6rorich_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

@velikovskys #35
Heks: Actually, this is incorrect. To say that something measures time is to say that it is taking some action or using some mechanism to take a measurement The rotation of the earth is an action
The rotation of the earth is an independent feature of the natural world that happens to create the necessary conditions for an intelligent being to create a rudimentary tool like a sundial, or to use shadows as a rough indicator of the time of day under different circumstances. The rotation of the earth is not a mechanism of the sundial. Any way you look at, neither a sundial nor any other basic object casting a shadow actually measures time.
HeKS: Neither a sundial nor any other even less complex object measures time. What they do is simply cast a shadow that an intelligent being can use, after accounting for other factors, to take a measurement of time. 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?
I'm saying that the information that answers the question, "What time is it?", comes from the compilation of a number of different data points when one is attempting to answer that question based on a shadow being cast by some object, and those data points are considered in advance in the construction of a sundial, which is to say that the construction of a sundial benefits from the up-front infusion of information from an intelligent being so that the shadow it casts provides the final data point to answer the question. DNA includes functionally specified information corresponding to functional amino acid sequences as part of a self-contained system for protein synthesis. The information existed in it and was fulfilling a function prior to and independent of human discovery and observation, much like a clock that actually measures time as part of a self-contained, designed system even when nobody is in the room. All this having been said, I don't see the point of any of this sundial nonsense to begin with. The point of the OP was clear. The problem of the origin of life, the creation of new protein domains and the construction of developmental programs to control morphogenesis is somewhat similar to the matter of the construction of a complex clock (though indescribably more difficult), since both involve the creation of complex functionally specified systems. Starting to talk about a sundial, or even worse the simply casting of a shadow, is just silly and a case of willfully ignoring context to derail the point. I would normally be a little more patient even with this kind of pointless tactic but I'm coughing my lungs out from bronchitis and not feeling particularly charitable. bb said:
What Barry call this type of “argument”? Definition Deficit Disorder? He was right to label it such and point out the folly.
Actually, I think this would fall under the Desperate Distraction category.HeKS_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

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.rich_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

I apologize to the level-headed on this post, for helping some divert the discussion. Rich brought up the clock, not WJM, and rich mentioned a clock that can mark tenths of a second. Clearly not the sundial that tintinn threw in to distract. The nature of the clock is of course irrelevant.bb_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

velikovsky @20 "William did not specify a particular clock" What Barry call this type of "argument"? Definition Deficit Disorder? He was right to label it such and point out the folly. "The fact remains it measures time" Measures time or is used by an intelligent agent for the purpose of measuring time? Of couse the passing of time indicated on a sundial doesn't matter to anything else.bb_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Tiguy A clock is something that was built specifically for the purpose of measuring time. So if a human built sundial it measures time, but the exact same device occurring by chance and nature does not. Even a sundial, a real sun dial, was built for that purpose. But naturally occurring shadows have no such purpose. The shadow knows whether it was intended to measure time? That is not why they exist. And yet they still measure time in exactly the same way as those shadows which were intended to measure time. People wanting to tell the time can use shadows as a way of measuring time to a certain very imprecise degree, but there is a vast difference between a shadow and a clock! There also is a vast difference between a living organisms and clocks.velikovskys_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Tjguy: "IF the world was designed by a supernatural entity, would science be able to determine this?" I'm not sure. "Do you think there would there be evidence of design in the universe?" That's one for IDists, I think. maybe.rich_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Rich @33
Maybe one day it will. Currently I think it is a conjecture and needs some actual work (like an empirical CSI hurdle and calcs that can pass a test of identifying things) before it becomes a hypothesis.
Dawkins is OK with it as long as the designer is not God. Little green men are OK, but not a supernatural being. This is the Materialist bias affecting how one interprets the data. Question: IF the world was designed by a supernatural entity, would science be able to determine this? Do you think there would there be evidence of design in the universe? What might that evidence look like? Is the evidence for design that we see like multiple overlapping independent codes, thousands of nano molecular machines, software, information processing, storage, & retrieval system and other systems(cardiovascular, circulatory, reproductive, nervous, etc), etc. Do you think these things might fit that hypothesis as well as if not better than the Materialist explanation? Why or why not? In other words, given the evidence just stated, and the impossibility of showing that blind random natural forces could actually create these things(not to mention how incredulous that idea is at face value), why is it that the design hypothesis is not the first one on the drawing board? Why aren't scientists looking for the Designer like they are looking for little green men? They seem to be sure that little green men exist, even though they have no evidence of their existence whatsoever. But many seem equally sure that the Designer does not! Isn't this because of their Materialist bias? Why is that?tjguy_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Apologies, heks: Neither a sundial nor any other even less complex object measures time. What they do is simply cast a shadow that an intelligent being can use, after accounting for other factors, to take a measurement of time.velikovskys_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Heks: Actually, this is incorrect. To say that something measures time is to say that it is taking some action or using some mechanism to take a measurement The rotation of the earth is an action . Neither a sundial nor any other even less complex object measures time. What they do is simply cast a shadow that an intelligent being can use, after accounting for other factors, to take a measurement of time. 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?velikovskys_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Velikovskys @5
‘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.’
A sundial
Heks already commented on this, but there is a huge difference between a clock and a sun dial which you are trying to hide to make your point. A clock is something that was built specifically for the purpose of measuring time. Even a sundial, a real sun dial, was built for that purpose. But naturally occurring shadows have no such purpose. That is not why they exist. People wanting to tell the time can use shadows as a way of measuring time to a certain very imprecise degree, but there is a vast difference between a shadow and a clock!tjguy_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Hi Tjguy: you say "HOWEVER, since it can neither be verified or completely falsified, why is it that evolutionists refuse to even allow the design hypothesis to be on the table?" Maybe one day it will. Currently I think it is a conjecture and needs some actual work (like an empirical CSI hurdle and calcs that can pass a test of identifying things) before it becomes a hypothesis.rich_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Tamara @2
What exactly is your point Barry? It seems to have been obscured by your conflation of the creation/evolution of a clock with the history of the movement of its hands. Regardless of any subsequent extrapolation, I think rich’s quoted point is a very good one.
Rich did make an excellent point as did WJM. This points out the limitations of historical science. Neither those who see tiny changes and extrapolate them out to infinity or those who claim it cannot happen can prove their point. We have left the realm of science where the scientific method and experiments have much influence on our ideas. Tiny little changes resulting from a reshuffling of the genome is one kind of change, but if you want to extrapolate that out and claim it accounts for all the changes ever made in nature, then you have to say that these types of tiny changes can also account for the huge changes in body plans, the volumes of new information necessary to create them, and all the seemingly irreducibly complex systems in existence in nature. This is where it gets a bit incredulous for many. However, this hypothesis cannot be verified or falsified. Lacking such evidence, it is something that simply has to be taken by faith. Or, denied based on the fact that in our experience, these types of changes, these types of machines, information and systems, always require intelligence. HOWEVER, since it can neither be verified or completely falsified, why is it that evolutionists refuse to even allow the design hypothesis to be on the table?tjguy_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

At least as far as I can see, I agree that for our Darwinist friends, intelligent agency is indeed nothing more than a hypothetical abstraction.William J Murray_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

RDFish @28: In other words, says RDFish, if we knew that a designer other than human beings existed then we would be able to infer that a designer other than human beings existed. Hello. That is why the ID inference is an inference. And, no, it is not invalid to analogize, as long as we understand it is not a deduction, but rather an analogy. Further, we have multiple examples of the kinds of things we are talking about and a sense of what is required to build these kinds of systems. Your position is completely unsupportable, is inconsistent with historical science, and represents a close-minded unwillingness to consider possibilities that you prefer not to think about. Logic fail.Eric Anderson_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Hi all - sorry got stuck in meatspace. RDFish brings up a point I was also thinking of, and it speaks the heart of ' what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” ' combined with “selective hyper-credulity” ' with a side of unwarranted extrapolation: All the designs that we know of that have any sophistication and identifiable designers come from HUMANS. Not "intelligence". Unless we're reopening the "Designer could be a time traveler" reasoning, we're very confident that humans weren't around back then. But I have no reason to think that heritability, selction and differential reproduction weren't around. You seem to complain about the missing peaces of my jigsaw, whilst having no jigsaw at all yourselves?rich_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.
You seem to be referring to human beings. We don't dismiss human beings as the cause of biological complexity out of hand; rather, it is just that it is a particularly poor hypothesis for obvious reasons. But neither do you posit human beings as the cause of biological complexity, of course - you posit something that you refrain from describing. The problem is that this undescribed thing is NOT "known" to regularly create mechanisms, or anything else. It is merely a hypothetical abstraction that you call "intelligent agency", but refuse to acknowledge the need to provide evidence for. In other words, your position is that there exist (one or more) non-human entities that have mental and physical abilities similar to those of human beings (by virtue of our sense organs, nervous systems, musculature, and so on). If such things existed that might help explain how life arose on Earth. But without any evidence that such things exist, your hypothesis can't be considered to be an empirically supported theory. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

@Barry #26 Big surprise. RationalWiki seems anything but rational. It seems cobbled together by a bunch Darwin-happy pseudo-intellectuals. I'm currently chipping away at an article where I address one of their pages. I would have had it done a while ago but I've been sick for about a month and found out today I have bronchitis.HeKS_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Is this a misrepresentation?
Yes.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

@Velikovskys #20

which is of course useless to tell even minutes and hours without the purposeful markings added by an intelligent agent.
The fact remains it measures time
Actually, this is incorrect. To say that something measures time is to say that it is taking some action or using some mechanism to take a measurement. Neither a sundial nor any other even less complex object measures time. What they do is simply cast a shadow that an intelligent being can use, after accounting for other factors, to take a measurement of time. Conversely, an actual clock designed by an intelligent agent makes use of a mechanism to measure the passage of time independent of an observer and their reasoning powers. There is a vast difference between the two types of tools.HeKS_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
I have never heard anybody to whom the label “Darwinist” could be even remotely attached claim that anything beyond “Descent with modification” is required.
If the modification isn't via differing accumulations of genetic accidents, errors or mistakes, then it isn't Darwinism nor NDE.
Granted there may be many sources of the “modification”, some self evident, some proven, some very fanciful, but can you give me an example of a proposed evolutionary pathway based on something beyond “Descent with modification”?
That is too vague to be a theory. Heck YECs accept descent with modification. Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" accepts descent with modification. ID is OK with descent with modification. Again NDE has specific entailments pertaining to the modification part. Mayr wrote about it in "What Evolution Is". Dawkins called it the blind watchmaker.Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

@16 Joe Nope, Darwinism and neo-darwinism entail more than just mere descent with modification. I have never heard anybody to whom the label "Darwinist" could be even remotely attached claim that anything beyond "Descent with modification" is required. Granted there may be many sources of the "modification", some self evident, some proven, some very fanciful, but can you give me an example of a proposed evolutionary pathway based on something beyond "Descent with modification"?Tamara Knight_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply