“You have lost your mind”

_{Granville Sewell

August 16, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In a Dec 21, 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote:

It is not enough to say that design is a more likely senario to explain a world full of well-designed things…Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident…you have essentially “lost your mind”.

How has it happened that a majority of our intellectuals have lost their minds? I think I can explain. When one becomes a scientist, one learns that science can now explain so many previously inexpliable phenomena that one comes to expect that nothing will escape the explanatory power of our science forever (though the big bang, quantum mechanics and the fine-tuning of the laws of physics are beginning to raise doubts). When one becomes a biologist, or a paleontologist, one discovers many things about the origin and development of life, such as the long periods involved and the similarities between species, that give the impression of natural causes (“this just doesn’t look like the way God would have created things”). When one studies history (especially the history of religion), one may become overwhelmed by the misery and confusion of the human condition, and wonder, why is it so hard to see evidence of the hand of God in human history?

But notably absent from any list of reasons why intellectuals reject Intelligent Design is any direct scientific evidence that natural selection of random mutations or any other unintelligent process can actually do intelligent things. Bill Dembski’s “specified complexity” arguments and my second law arguments (which are similar, see the footnote here ) are just attempts to state in more “scientific” terms what is obvious to non-scientists like Jay Homnick: “you idiots, unintelligent forces cannot do intelligent things.” However strong may be the philosophical, psychological and religious reasons why many of our greatest minds reject ID, the argument for ID is still crystal clear to the unindoctrinated mind: once you allow yourself to seriously consider the possibility that the human body and the human mind could be entirely the products of unintelligent forces, “you have lost your mind.”

Comments

My question was a very limited one:
Am I correct in concluding that “life comes only from life,” given the start of life on earth, is a statement in support of common descent?
Jerry asks me to define common descent. I think the concept is pretty clear: common descent says that every living organism was "born" from some other living organism (either sexually or asexually), so that for any organism there is a unbroken chain of biological parent-child relationships back to the beginning of life. Note that this concept is separate from the idea that "n/s [natural selection] and random mutation are the only things necessary to qualify for an explanation of all of life," and it is separate from the question of how the first life began. One can accept common descent and also believe that the first life was created de novo, and that God (or some other similar intelligent agent) guided, or was in fact in complete control of, the changes in life as it has progressed over the last few billion years It seems to me then that the phrase "life comes only from life" implies an acceptance of common descent from the start of life onward, irrespective of how life got started. Do those of you who accept the phrase "life comes only from life" accept, then, common descent? Conversely, if you are someone who doesn't accept common descent, would you agree that the phrase "life comes only from life" is wrong? Let me note well, and again, that this is limited question that should be fairly straightforward to answer, if anyone is so inclined.Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Why don't you define common descent? And then people here can see whether they agree with your definition or not. Maybe then you would also like to make the case for common descent after you define it. Then people here can see whether they agree with your evidence and analysis. It would represent a first for you, presenting hard evidence and analysis. I should say second because you did present evidence a few months ago that indicated you did not understand the evolution debate. It should make an interesting discussion if you choose to participate.jerry_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Jack, The veery fact that science points to a beginning of the universe... and a "first" life- as excellent challanges to common descent. Not to the idea that all life is conected via an evolutionary chain of reproduction and change- but of the idea that n/s and random mutation are the only things necessary to qualify for an explanation of all of life. THere must have been a begining at some point- even DE cant avoide this... so what was it that caused that beginning? It wasnt a random mutation because there was nothing to mutate - and it was natural selection because there was no reproduction... so all that we can say is "it happened".... this by the way is not a worthy sceintific expanation for the origin of species. And this is why there IS a controversey. Common descent is to a certian extent, fine- but as the ultimate sceintific explanation for origins... no. THis is why we are all here at this site. We know that there is more to the big story and we're sick of being told to shut up and be quiet for the sake of poltical correctness.Frost122585_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Am I correct in concluding that "life comes only from life," given the start of life on earth, is a statement in support of common descent?Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Frost122585: Just a brief clarification. When I say that " “Intelligence comes only from intelligence” is just an observed fact. The same can be said of “Life comes only from life” " I am not implying that life did not begin on earth at some time. Indeed, I added: "as far as we can observe". What I mean is that we have no empirical knowledge of life coming out of non life, and therefore the emergence of life on earth remains a mystery, and requires special cognitive attention. But, obviously, I do believe that life started on earth at a certain time, but we have not observed that, and the problem remains of how it happened. For instance, maybe that the first life did not come from life, but it is possible that it came from a consciousness. But I don't want to enter a philosopical debate about that. My point was only that, if we assume a beginning of life on earth (which is a completely reasonable assumption), then we are assuming a fact which is completely different from what we have always been able to observe.gpuccio_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

The Weak Anthropic principle says that we can explain the case that the universe is fit for life by realizing that any universe that results in sentient creatures who develop a scientific viewpoint will ask the question "How are we here?" but only such a universe as could create this race, could contain them. Still, the question of why it happened in the one universe that is hangs over that. To answer that question, naturalists propose a *multiverse*. That is, the universe is just one section of a system of self-contained universes, some of which contain life, some of which do not. That satisfies those people who were satisfied by the Weak Anthropic argument. But here's the problem. We only know of one way of generating universes--and it would be safe to say we only know *part* of that. The intersection of "any universe" and the set of things we have knowledge of is identical to the part of this universe we have knowledge of. In addition the only "possible sentient race" we can speak about is ourselves--especially as observing its universe is functional in this case. Still, if we can entertain a theory divorced from empirical fact, then perhaps we can accept "any universe" as if there were other possible universes. It seems odd that we shouldn't also be able to do this about the particular sequence of physical events that end up with some form of the words "How are we here?" The trick then is to show that given the words "How are we here?" there's an intelligence considering it. Sure we can *accept* that there is. But what the Anthropic principle assumes is that if the words "How are we here?" occur they are intelligent reflections on the situation and not just a happenstance juxtaposition. So given the freedom of "universes" and their physical sequences to produce the phrase "How are we here?" the universe just results in them. We cannot guarantee that it is the universe as suggested in the standard framing of the Weak Anthropic argument. You may be skeptical that the words or symbols could occur outside of a framework which would be called "intelligent", but such a skepticism would result in a Special Pleading because we've already depressurized the chamber of requirements for imputed parallelism. You are methodologically deficient as there is no reason why skepticism should act only in one direction.jjcassidy_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

TIme is like matter - its is of this world- information on the ter hand must transcend matter... Life is a bit of a conjunction of both- but life at one time in this world did not manifest itself ,materially and hence from the standpoint of physical science did not exsit. Physical sceince however cannot grasp the concept of information... it is at a total loss because you cannot understand things as physical that are not physical.. hence the operundi of this site... Mehtdological Materialism is beings forced on people and if corrupting sceince, poltics and education- degrading them.Frost122585_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Gp, I dont really agree with you views on this ...
If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which the first intelligence arose? ” “Intelligence comes only from intelligence” is just an observed fact. The same can be said of “Life comes only from life”.
I dont agree that "life" only comes from "life" because there was in fact a "first life" which came "into" material form. In other words this would be like saying "time" on can come from "time" - which is circular. Life as understood as "the spirit" may well be understood as only comeing from itself- but in the material manifestation her in the world of physics it is not true ot say life can only come from life... and theologically God could easily create life out of matter... or "bring" life to matter if you wish. The problem with ID is that it says things "are" designed but not how they were- that is it lacks the mechinism. Evolution lacks the mechanism as well as it only retells a tale of the origins of species but does not say how the things is realy being started, formed or guided... and the funny thing is that all the evolutionsts know this that is why they appeal to the quantum loophole of multiverse which does nothing but convolutes the debate and the problem to where the discussion just trys to deny that there is one- yet underneath it all the smae questions remain... Where does form come from? Was there a first cause and if so what was it? How could there be a first cause? What moves the atom? Why should life exist at all? It would be a much simpler universe if no life existed (hance Occams law) If evolution is in fact the true historical linage, that is universal common ansestry, of all life then what if anyhting is guiding it? Quantum probabilities dont expain anyhting they just are a ratio in one point of time that attemps to predict the "probability" that something is going to happen. ^Thats not a mechinism either... its a tool used by Human beings to try and understand things. Now as to your second point about Intelligence not comeing only from inteligence... I think that it is true to say that intelligence only comes from intelligence because unlike life and time - intelligence is the uniform manifestation of "information"- and information is the only thing where by physics and sceince can be reduced to- it is everywhere and it requires some knid of original super matrix for its inception. POint is, information exists always and if it didn't we wouldn't know it... life on the other hand actually came into being in the material world once... Time on the other hand is just the realtionship between points in space time- and perhaps some object spece time universal metric. Where information always requires a higher form- time is its own form and requires no higher requisite...Frost122585_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

gpuccio:
the true mystery, and IMO a strong argument for cosmological ID, is that such abstract mental tools have such a strong explanatory power about reality; in other words that physics (a science of the external world) seems to be fully governed by mathemathics (a science which originates in the mind).
Gpuccio, this reminds me of a conversation that I had recently with a physicist. He explained all of science this way: The biologist fancies himself as a chemist. The chemist fancies himself as a physicist. The physicist fancies himself as God. and God, well, he fancies himself as a mathemetician. I just thought it was funny, and kinda profound. Portishead, let me take my whack at your silliness. Physicists understand that time itself began with the big bang. As the strong anthropic principle clearly indicates that the big bang was designed, when we consider that time began at the bang, the only logical conclusion one can come to is that there is a designer who is outside of time -- note "outside of", not "before" as there can be no concept of "before". Dr. Sewell, I like your blunt "a spade is a spade" style.bFast_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: "while all the points of darwinian theory appear at best as bad fairy tales." Like when Dawkins suggests that the appearance of design in nature (an intuitive inference) is an illusion, and then begins with Darwinism to explain that illusion, as proof of Darwinism.CannuckianYankee_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Portishead: " ” “Intelligence comes only from intelligence”. ” If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which the first intelligence arose? " "Intelligence comes only from intelligence" is just an observed fact. The same can be said of "Life comes only from life". We really don't know the mechanism by which thing arise. We don't know that for the material world, for matter and energy. Do you think the "big bang" is a mechanism? In the same way, we don't know how intelligence or consciousness or life arise. We just observe them all around and, as far as we can observe, intelligence comes only from intelligence, as consciousness comes only from consciousness, and life comes only from life. That kind of observations should stimulate us to reflect on the nature of those phenomena, whic is not the same as trying to find an unexisting "mechanisms" which should explain their origin from other phenomena (matter, energy) whose mechanism of origin we completely ignore. Things like matter, energy, physical laws, life, consciousness and intelligence simply exist. We don't know why. That is a big philosophical problem, rather than a scientific one. The scientific problem is rather that of correctly describing the laws which govern those phenomena, and the cognitive relations between them. In other words, to build good theories about them. But, IMO, no good scientific theory will ever explain how and why reality arose. That answer is better searched elsewhere. But good scientific theories can certainly give us glimpses of how reality appears to be, of the laws governing it, of the principles expressed in it, and maybe, at least partially, of its internal purpose and meaning. In other words, building a good scientific theory is much more than simply looking for "mechanisms", although god explanatory mechanisms are certainly an important part of scientific theories. So, before looking for a "mechanism" for the emergence of intelligence from something else, which simply could never be found, because in essence there is no necessity for it, science should try to understand what intelligence is, what are the laws which govern its expression, and what are its relations with other important principles manifesting in reality.gpuccio_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Granville and Gil, great posts! Indeed, belief in intelligent design of the world, and especially of the biological world, was the norm before materialist ideology gained power, while materialist and deterministic philosophies were the odd exception. In a sense, we could say that common sense prevailed. One of the arrogant boasts of the emerging materialist science has been that it can prove things which are against common sense, delivering us from our slavery to silly trivial views of reality. Now, in some cases that boast is indeed justified: the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and some of the achievements of astrophysics, are IMO true pearls of scientific thought, and all of them have some aspects (but not all!) which are counter-intuitive. So, in a sense, science can reveal aspects of reality which common sense would never suspect. But we have to consider that, in all the examples cited above, there is a very strong mathematical background which supports the counter-intuitive conclusions. Mathemathics, being a truly abstract science, and scarcely understandable by most people, can certainly support bold counter-intuitive concepts about reality: the true mystery, and IMO a strong argument for cosmological ID, is that such abstract mental tools have such a strong explanatory power about reality; in other words that physics (a science of the external world) seems to be fully governed by mathemathics (a science which originates in the mind). But can we reason the same way about the theory of darwinian evolution? Absolutely not. Here, the same thing which makes relativity and quantum mechanics so strong and beautiful (their mathematical rigour and power) is absolutely lacking. Indeed, as we all in ID know so well, darwinian theory escapes any mathemathical argument about its basics as though it were the devil itself! It is so disappointing to see such a (politically) successful scientific theory, based for its same foundations on supposed random causes, systematically try to elude any serious statistical analysis. And it is not only mathematics and statistics, but logic itself which is constantly betrayed in darwinian thought, in all its forms, old and new: scientific methodology, while applied brilliantly to some details of the research (I really do admire those biologists who daily achieve wonderful acquisitions about the working of biological beings), is constantly forgotten as soon as the fundamental parameters of interpretation of the results are at stake. And the basics of rational thought (non contradiction, causal inference, and so on) and of philosophy of science and epistemology (such as the difference between theories and facts) are not only regularly disregarded, but often openly scorned. That's why, if quantum mechanics has all the rights to defy common sense in few, but important points, darwinian evolution is totally unqualified to do the same. Indeed, the confrontation between darwinian theory and common sense has really no history: not only common sense wins practically everywhere, but if we analyze more deeply the essence of the fundamental disagreements between the two, using the only powerful rational tools we have, logic and mathemathics and statistics and cognitive philosophy and epistemology, the conclusions of common sense are absolutely confirmed and strengthened, while all the points of darwinian theory appear at best as bad fairy tales. So again, how can it be that so many intelligent minds readily accept all those unsubstantiated fantasies? You have pointed to many correct answers. I would just like to emphasize one aspect: conformism of thought. I really think that the last decades of our culture have been sadly characterized by an increasing mass conformism, not only in science, but in every branch of thought. At the beginning of the past century, scientists were bold and creative, they changed our view of reality in a few years, challenging ways of thought which had been practically universally accepted for centuries. Today, scientists seem to work only in big social groups, reinforcing the prevailing view of reality and never challenging it. Technical research has produced wonders, but where is cognitive research? I don't want to generalize: there are certainly many original scientists who are trying to find new ways, especially in physics, while fields like biology are much more rooted in dogma and conformism. But I just want to point at a general trend: most scientists tend to accept the present general view of scientific reality as definitive, and are mainly interested in elucidating the "details", instead of concentrating on those parts of reality which are completely unexplained in the current view (like purpose, life and consciousness). That was exactly the general scientific scenario at the end of the XIXth century, when the general convinction was that physics and mathematics were almost at the end of their explanatory power, and that only the details were to be defined. That was, obviously, just before the coming of people like Bohr, Schroedinger, Einstein and Godel. Let's hope our Bohrs, Schroedingers, Einsteins and Godels are coming soon.gpuccio_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Granville, Excellent post. It seems to me a root cause of this particular mental contortion is either refusal to admit to or ignorance of the philosophical frame that always precedes observation. The question "What is science?" cannot be answered scientifically, it is that simple. Knowing this, a wise person will recognize the hubris of calling another view 'stupid', when it may just be a matter of framing. Unfortunately, so many who believe scientific explanatory power is an ultimate given are themselves blind to the ultimate nature of the question "What is science?". They aren't stupid or dumb, but they aren't very wise, thus the philosophical blinders. 'Sight-challenged un-wisemen', is the nicer way to say it...todd_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Portishead "Intelligence only from intelligence" is justified by billions of observations of intelligence coming from intelligence and never a single observation of intelligence coming from non-intelligence. In other words, it has great and so far perfect predictive power. It predicts that any intelligent thing you find has an intelligent predecessor. In no instance where a predecessor can be determined has the law failed to predict correctly. Laws are often determined empirically. Theory is sought to explain why the law is a law but lacking a theoretical explanation the laws are still laws until they fail in their predictive power.DaveScot_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

” “Intelligence comes only from intelligence”. ” Portishead: "If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which the first intelligence arose?" The assumption that there needs to be a "mechanism" for the first intelligence is problematic. Also the assumption that intelligence "arose" is also problematic. If ID is correct, and I believe that it is, intelligence is ultimately necessary for the existence of anything else. Therefore, intelligence is something that transcends - it has always been. It is meaningless to ask where the ultimate intelligence came from.CannuckianYankee_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Dear bililiad, I installed a WordPress upgrade that included a beta test version of something called Troll Filter v1.0. Upon activation all your comments disappeared. Sorry about that. We're working with wordpress to determine the root cause of the problem.DaveScot_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Patrick, I think there is a difference. ID claims only to be able to identify where there has been design, not identify the designer (analogous to evolution claiming only to explain the origin of species, but not to explain the origin of life). ID claims a mechnaism for identifying design (explanatory filter etc.), and evolution claims a mechanism for the origin of species (random mutation and natural selection). But a statement like "intelligence comes only from intelligence" is different. It hints that there is at the mechanism by which intelligence arises, but doesn't say what it is. In short, it is a statement that demands some justification for itself, which hasn't been given. Now, if I'd said "you haven't idenitified the intelligence" you might have a point about my comment. But I didn't.Portishead_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Portishead, there's a reason you're on the Potential Trouble list. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-make-software-that-comes-to-life/#comment-293982
you will get banned if you insist on raising the question “Who Designed the Designer”. We don’t have any empirical data to frame answers around so it’s simply a dead end. It would be like me demanding that biologists explain where the material in materialism ultimately comes from. That’s not germane to biology and who designed the designer is not germane to ID. We don’t even have any hard data on the designer of life on this planet to say nothing of going up the chain of command to the next designer, or even if there is a next designer. All we have that we can actually observe is the end result of the intelligent agent at work. Just like all we have to actually observe is the end result of billions of years of chance & necessity at work.
Patrick_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

One more time:
"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature."
(Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4) Hoyle hit it it right on.Borne_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which the first intelligence arose? I can't prove anything but I'd guess it's related to the mechanism by which time and space first arose.DaveScot_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

" “Intelligence comes only from intelligence”. " If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which the first intelligence arose?Portishead_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Great post Granville.tribune7_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

A contributor to this phenomenon is an indoctrinated, closed mind. I grew up in a small college town, the son of a brilliant scientist and surrounded by academic types, all of whom accepted Darwinism as incontrovertible fact. I was taught that all challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy are the mindless ravings of religious fundamentalists who know nothing about science or how science works. I had no reason to doubt these claims, because all the really smart, well-educated people I knew were thoroughly convinced. Why should I question the wisdom of such people? I do remember wondering how a reptile could evolve into a bird in small incremental steps, because at some point during the process of scales and legs becoming feathers and wings the poor intermediates could neither run nor fly, which didn't seem like a good survival strategy, but I figured the experts must have worked out all those annoying details. It wasn't until I read Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (at the behest of one of those mindless religious fanatics) that I suddenly realized I had been conned, duped, propagandized. Interestingly enough, it was this same book that got Michael Behe to thinking that all was not well with Darwinism. This was a guy with a Ph.D. in biological science who fell for the con game as well, which proves how powerful groupthink and indoctrination can be. The question is, How is it that other bright scientists don't come to the realization that Behe did? I guess it just demonstrates that if one's mind is sufficiently indoctrinated and closed over a long enough period of time, eventually it will be lost altogether.GilDodgen_{August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply