Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 63: Do design thinkers, theists and the like “always” make bad arguments because they are “all” ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dawkins’ barbed blanket dismissiveness comes up far too often in discussions of the design inference and related themes. Rarely, explicitly, most often by implication of a far too commonly seen no concessions, selectively hyperskeptical policy that objectors to design too often manifest. It is time to set this straight.

First, we need to highlight fallacious, crooked yardstick thinking (as exposed by naturally straight and upright plumb-lines). And yes, that classical era work, the Bible, is telling:

Notice, a pivotal point here, is self-evident truths. Things, similar to 2 + 3 = 5:

Notoriously, Winston Smith in 1984 is put on the rack to break his mind to conform to The Party’s double-think. He is expected to think 2 + 2 = whatever The Party needs at the moment, suppressing the last twisted answer, believing that was always the case, while simultaneously he must know that manifestly 2 + 2 = 4 on pain of instant absurdity. This is of course a toy example but it exposes the way crooked yardstick thinking leads to chaos:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

(Yes, real lemmings do not act like that. But, humans . . . that’s a whole other story.)

So, now, let us turn to a recent barbed remark by one of our frequent objectors and my reply, laying out a frame of thought and inviting correction — dodged, of course:

KF, 120 in the Foundations thread: [[It is now clear that SG is unwilling to substantially back up the one liner insinuation he made at 84 above, try making a good argument. Accordingly, let me respond in outline, for record, to the general case, that people like us are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked and the associated zero concessions, selectively hyperskeptical dismissiveness policy. Here, I will show the rational responsibility of the design inference and related ideas, views and approaches, for record and reference:

I will use steps of thought:

1: Reason, in general: Notice, supporters and fellow travellers of evolutionary materialistic scientism undermine the responsible, rational freedom required for reason to be credible. They tend to discount and discredit objectors, but in fact their arguments and assertions are self-referentially incoherent, especially reduction of mind to computationalism on a wetware substrate. Reppert is right to point out, following Haldane and others:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

2: This extends to Marx’s class/cultural conditioning, to Freud’s potty training etc, to Skinner’s operant conditioning , to claims my genes made me do it, and many more. So, irrationality and undermining of the credibility of reason are a general issue for such supporters and fellow travellers, it is unsurprising to see projection to the despised other (a notorious defence mechanism) and linked failure to engage self referentiality.

3: First principles of right reason: Classically, the core of reason starts with distinct identity, excluded middle, non contradiction. Something x is what it is i/l/o its core characteristics, nothing can be both x and not x in the same sense and circumstances, any y in W = {x| ~x} will be x, ~x, not both or neither. And more. Claimed quantum counter examples etc actually are rooted in reasoning that relies on such. And yes, there have been enough objections that this has come up and is in UD’s Weak Argument Correctives. We leave it to objectors like SG to tell us whether they acknowledge such first principles of right reason: _______ and explain why ________ .

4: Self evidence: There are arguments that, once we have enough experience and maturity to understand [a sometimes big if], will be seen as true, as necessarily true and as true on pain of immediate absurdities on attempted denial. That error exists is a good case in point, and if one is able to see that the attempt to deny objectivity of knowledge for a given reasonably distinct field of thought such as morals or history or reality [metaphysics], or the physical world, or external reality, or in general, etc, one is claiming to objectively know something about that field and so refutes oneself.

5: self referential incoherence and question begging: We just saw an example of how arguments and arguers can include themselves in the zone of reference of an argument in ways that undermine it, often by implying a contradiction. Such arguments defeat themselves. Question begging is different, it assumes, suggests or imposes what should be shown and for which there are responsible alternatives. Arguments can be question begging, and then may turn out to be self refuting.

6: Deduction, induction, abduction (inference to the best [current] explanation [IBE]) and weak-form knowledge: Deduction uses logical validity to chain from givens to conclusions, where if givens are so and the chain valid, conclusions must also be true. Absent errors of reasoning, the debate rapidly becomes one over why the givens. Induction, modern sense, is about degree of support for conclusions i/l/o evidence of various kinds as opposed to demonstration, statistics, history, science, etc are common contexts. Abduction, especially IBE, compares live option alternatives and what they imply, on factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power, to choose the best explanation so far. In this context weak sense common knowledge is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. Which, is open to correction or revision and extension.

7: Worldviews context: Why accept A? B. But why B? C, etc. We see that we face infinite regress, or circularity or finitely remote first plausibles . . . which, frame our faith points . . . as we set out to understand our world. Infinite regress is impossible to traverse in reasoning or in cause effect steps, so we set it aside, we are forced to have finitely remote start points to reasoning and believing, warranting and knowing — first plausibles that define our views of the world. Thus, we all live by faith, the question is which, why; so, whether it is rational/reasonable and responsible. Where, too, all serious worldview options bristle with difficulties, hence the point that philosophy is the discipline that studies hard, basic questions. Question begging circles are a challenge, answered through comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power: elegantly simple, neither ad hoc nor simplistic.

[Let’s add an illustration:]

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

[or in Aristotle’s words:]

8: Failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller views: It will be evident already, that, while institutionally and culturally dominant, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are profoundly and irretrievably incoherent. Yes, a view backed by institutions, power brokers in the academy, the education system and the media can be irretrievably, fatally cracked from its roots.

9: Logic of being (and of structure and quantity), also possible worlds: Ontology and her grand child, Mathematics, grow out of core philosophy, particularly distinct identity and consideration of possible worlds. A possible world, w, is a sufficiently complete description of how our world or another conceivable or even actual world is or may be; i.e. a cluster of core, world describing propositions. In that context, a candidate being or entity or even state of affairs, c, can be impossible of being [e.g. a Euclidean plane square circle] or possible. Possible beings may be contingent [actual in at least one possible world but not all] or necessary [present in every possible world]. We and fires are contingent, dependent for existence on many independent, prior factors; what begins or may cease of existence is contingent. Necessary beings are best seen as part of the fabric or framework for this or any possible world. We can show that distinct identity implies two-ness, thence 0, 1, 2. Ponder, W = {A|~A}, the partition is empty, 0, A is a unit, ~A is a complex unit, so we see 2. So, onward via von Neumann’s construction, the counting numbers N. Thence, Z, Q, R, C, R* etc in any w. This is what gives core Mathematics its universal power.

10: The basic credibility of the design inference: of course, we routinely recognise that many things show reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration as key cause, i.e. design. For example, objectors to the design inference often issue copious, complex text in English, beyond 500 to 1,000 bits of complexity. In the 70’s Orgel and Wicken identified a distinct and quantifiable phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, which I often abbreviate FSCO/I. Organisation is there as things like a fishing reel [my favourite, e.g. the ABU 6500 CT] or a watch [Paley, do not overlook his self replicating watch thought exercise in Ch 2]

or an oil refinery or a computer program [including machine code]

Petroleum refinery block diagram illustrating FSCO/I in a process-flow system

or the cell’s metabolic process-flow network [including protein synthesis]

[with:]

Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)

[and:]

all can be described in a suitably compact string of Y/N questions, structured through description languages such as AutoCAD. The inference posits that, with trillions of cases under our belt, reliably, FSCO/I or its generalisation, CSI, will be signs of design as key cause. The controversies, as may be readily seen, are not for want of evidence or inability to define or quantify, but because this challenges the dominant evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers. Which, of course, long since failed through irretrievable self referential incoherence.
_____________________

So, challenge: let SG and/or others show where the above fails to be rational and responsible, if they can__________________ Prediction, aside from mere disagreement and/or dismissiveness, assertions, or the trifecta fallacy of red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, they will not be able to sustain a case for general failure to be rational and responsible.]]

The good argument challenge is duly open for response. END

U/D, Nov 4: As it seems certain objectors want to attack the descriptive metaphor, islands of function amidst seas of non function, let me put up here a couple of infographics I used some years ago to discuss this concept. But first, as the primary contexts have to do with protein synthesis and OoL, let me first put up Vuk Nicolic’s video illustrating just what is required for protein synthesis:

. . . and Dr James Tour’s summary presentation on OoL synthesis challenges:

Now, this is my framework for discussing islands of function:

. . . and, on associated active information:

Thus, we can discuss the Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information concept, FSCO/I, similarly:

We see here the needle in a haystack, blind search challenge and how it is dominated by not the hill climbing on fitness functions that is commonly discussed but by the issue of arriving at shorelines of first function. Obviously and primarily, for origin of cell based life [cf. Tour] but also to move from that first unicellular body plan to others. Where, we can observe too that even within an island of function, incremental changes will be challenged by intervening valleys, tending to trap on a given peak or plateau.

But, what of the thesis, that there is in effect a readily accessible first functionality, incrementally connected to all major body plans, allowing unlimited, branching tree of life body plan level macro evolution?

The Smithsonian’s tree of life model, note the root in OOL

Obviously, this architecture implies such continuity. The first problem, obviously is the root and the plethora of speculations and debatable or even dubious syntheses that have been made into icons of the grand evolutionary narrative and taught as effective fact, already tell us something is wrong. A second clue is how the diagram itself implies that transitional forms should utterly dominate the space, with terminal tips being far less common. On basic statistics, we should then expect an abundance of these transitions or “links.” The phrase, missing link, tells the tale instead.

For, the trade secret of paleontology, is the utter rarity of such forms, to the point where punctuated equilibria was a major school intended to explain that general absence. Where, Darwin, notoriously, noted the gaps but expected and predicted that on wider investigations they would go away. But now, after 150 years of searching, billions of fossils seen in situ, millions in museum back office drawers [only a relative few can be displayed] and over a quarter of a million fossil species, the pattern of gaps is very much still here, hot denials and dismissals notwithstanding. That is especially true of the Cambrian fossil life form revolution, where the major current body plans for animals pop up with nary an intermediate. So much so, that there have been significant efforts to make it disappear, obfuscating its significance.

We also have molecular islands of function, starting with protein fold domains. Thousands, scattered across the AA sequence space, no easy path connecting them. Even just homochirality soon accumulates into a serious search space challenge as molecules are complex and mirror image handedness is not energetically enforced, why racemic forms, 50-50 mixes of left and right handed molecules are what we tend to get in lab syntheses. This then gets more complicated where there are multiple isomers as Tour discusses.

In short, a real issue not a readily dismissible notion without significant empirical support.

And so forth.

U/D2 Nov 4: I just found where I had an image from p. 11 NFL, so observe:

ID researcher William A Dembski, NFL, p.11 on possibilities, target zones and events

Where, we can further illustrate the beach of function issue:

And, some remarks:

U/D 3 Nov 7: The all-revealing Eugenics Conference Logo from 1912 and 1921 showing how it was seen as a capstone of ever so many sciences and respected domains of knowledge, especially statistics, genetics, biology and medicine, even drawing on religion, with, politics, law, education, psychology, mental testing and sociology . . . menacingly . . . also being in the roots:

“Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”: Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting Eugenics as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.

U/D 4, Nov 10: A reminder on cosmological fine tuning, from Luke Barnes:

Barnes: “What if we tweaked just two of the fundamental constants? This figure shows what the universe would look like if the strength of the strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) and the value of the fine-structure constant (which represents the strength of the electromagnetic force between elementary particles) were higher or lower than they are in this universe. The small, white sliver represents where life can use all the complexity of chemistry and the energy of stars. Within that region, the small “x” marks the spot where those constants are set in our own universe.” (HT: New Atlantis)

U/D 5, Nov 12: As there is dismissiveness of the textual, coded information stored in DNA, it is necessary to show here a page clip from Lehninger, as a case in point of what should not even be a debated point:

For record.

U/D 6, Nov 14: The per aspect design inference explanatory filter shows how right in the core design inference, alternative candidate causes and their observational characteristics are highlighted:

Again, for record.

Comments
Kairosfocus @541, Unfortunately, several people here seem to be under the delusion that their opinion alone constitutes irrefutable proof. One of the key indicators that I look for is how much NEW information is added to a post. For example, when an assertion is made, does it include an example, a point from logic, or other support beyond random opinions, vacuous reactions, or trollbot babble? A good example of argument analysis is "Toulmin Argument." Here's a great website on the subject (be sure to click on the tabs): https://upresearch.lonestar.edu/rhetoric/toulmin -QQuerius
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PST
SG, when correction is needed, it is needed. Going to personalities and pretending that it is debates over style and a "condescending" attitude on my part does not change the balance on the merits or the sad, insubstantial but accusatory and hyperskeptically dismissive track record you have built yup over months. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST
KF: F/N: It seems SG failed to learn a lesson, [note the condescending tone] here he is on record in the doubt thread, at no 303: “KF starts almost every response with phrases like “Are you aware?”, “As you full well know”, or an accusation of malevolent intent. It makes it very difficult to take him seriously. Even on the rare occasion when he may have a valid argument.”
Given that my comment was an add-on to JVL’s observation, supported by VL, that you have a tendency to be condescending towards those who disagree with you, I think my observation was quite accurate. Especially in how you treat people who are not convinced by your arguments. Let’s further examine your response to my comment above:
These are outrageously false and expose the attitude problems of some objectors to design:
Accusatory, ad hominem and condescending.
1: “almost every”? Manifestly false, in a context where, having noted on the impact of Godel incompleteness, I was subjected to alinsky tactic personalisation and polarisation.
Assigning malevolent intent.
2: Generally accusatory? Ludicrous projection. A blame the target move.
Accusatory. Assigning malevolent intent.
3: Rarely correct? This OP is sufficient to show that SG was unable to back up his accusatory dismissiveness.
Assigning malevolent intent. I think your record speaks for itself. Even in a comment responding to our criticism of your commenting style, you are incapable of doing so without resorting to the tactics we identified in our criticism. Hopefully you will take our constructive criticism and amend your ways. [see, that was condescending].Sir Giles
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST
F/N: It seems SG failed to learn a lesson, here he is on record in the doubt thread, at no 303: "KF starts almost every response with phrases like “Are you aware?”, “As you full well know”, or an accusation of malevolent intent. It makes it very difficult to take him seriously. Even on the rare occasion when he may have a valid argument." These are outrageously false and expose the attitude problems of some objectors to design: 1: "almost every"? Manifestly false, in a context where, having noted on the impact of Godel incompleteness, I was subjected to alinsky tactic personalisation and polarisation. 2: Generally accusatory? Ludicrous projection. A blame the target move. 3: Rarely correct? This OP is sufficient to show that SG was unable to back up his accusatory dismissiveness. KFkairosfocus
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PST
So, even Pope Leo XIII, believed that God made some things out of other things. However, go back and look what you wrote in @529:
God wills something into existence and it appears. God created from nothing. He used no pre-existing material.
This was in response to my belief that I stated in @526:
I don’t know HOW God worked in his creation, but I’m always delighted and amazed at every new discovery in creation’s awesome complexity and beauty.
But God did use pre-existing material: Eve out of Adam and Adam out of dirt. What I don't understand is why you're taking exception to what I write, even when your statements contradict those of Pope Leo XIII, which represent the teachings of the Catholic Church. So will you please ask your priest why God creates some things out of nothing and other things our of pre-existing things? Thanks, -QQuerius
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PST
Querius at 535, I don't know what kind of answers you're looking for. Yes, God created out of nothing, so that was the source of all He created - nothing into living beings. That He could fashion Eve from Adam's side shows God is not limited. That He can do things only God can do. From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII: From part 5. "The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time."relatd
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PST
Related @535,
Woman was a special creation using a portion of the side, or rib, of the first man.
So God didn't create Eve out of nothing? Was Adam also a special creation since God created him out of dirt, also not nothing? Ask your priest why Genesis says that God created some things out of nothing but not others? That's a fair question, isn't it? Let me know what he says.
“136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).”
Yes, I believe that, too. But I ask a lot of questions and sometimes I find some really interesting answers. -QQuerius
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST
Querius at 534, Woman was a special creation using a portion of the side, or rib, of the first man. Remember this: Catechism of the Catholic Church. "136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11)."relatd
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PST
Relatd, Did you read Genesis 2:7-8, 19, 21-22? If not, please go ahead and do so. Think about the words that were chosen (or not chosen) and let the Word speak to you. For some reason, I'm reminded of an experience I once had of the beautiful sunrise soaking into me while sitting on the side of a hill in a badlands/desert, quietly listening to the wind through the dead scrub and the slow heartbeat of creation. There were no words to be said, no arguments or discussion. Just silence and awe. -QQuerius
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PST
Querius at 532, What's so hard to understand? God has the power to create matter from nothing. God has the power to raise the dead, to multiply the loaves and fishes. Nobody - meaning humans - can make life from dirt. In Genesis, the dirt could do nothing on its own. God said, "Let the earth bring forth..." All of Creation was subject to God's will, God's commands.relatd
November 23, 2022
November
11
Nov
23
23
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST
Relatd @531, Read Genesis 2:7-8, 19, 21-22. Question: Are these descriptions of God creating something out of something else necessarily incompatible with "God creates out of nothing"? Joke Darwinist faces God at the gates of heaven . . . God: Wasn't it obvious to you that I created life from dirt? Darwinist: Pfft. I can do that, too. Give me some dirt. God: Get your own dirt. -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PST
Querius at 530, Catechism of the Catholic Church: 'God creates "out of nothing" "296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing":145 "If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.146"relatd
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST
Related @529,
God wills something into existence and it appears. God created from nothing. He used no pre-existing material.
If that's true, how do you explain Genesis, where it says that God created things from other things, for example, God created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam? Notice that God didn't create them from nothing. Asking Seversky for a photo is too ambitious. I'd settle for the simplest organism, one with the least amount of DNA and internal structure. Since you probably won't get an answer, here you go: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/1382/which-organism-has-the-smallest-genome-length Smallest free-living bacterial genome: Nanoarchaeum eqitans at 491Kb, which is about 500,000 DNA base pairs, but it's apparently parasitic due to lack of function.
Nanoarchaeum equitans is a hyperthermophile, with its ideal environment having a temperature of 90 degrees Celsius. It also prefers to be in places rich in sulfur, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide since it lacks the means to metabolize these compounds on its own.
Cells of Nanoarchaeum equitans are only 400 nm in diameter, resulting in a cell volume of less than 1% of an Escherichia coli cell. They grow attached to the surface of a new Ignicoccus species under strict anaerobic conditions at temperatures between 75°C and 98°C.
Note that researchers believe these bacteria provide insights into evolution: The genome of Nanoarchaeum equitans: Insights into early archaeal evolution and derived parasitism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC240731/ -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PST
Querius at 526, God wills something into existence and it appears. God created from nothing. He used no pre-existing material. I'm still waiting for Seversky to send me a photo of the first living thing.relatd
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST
526 Relatd @526,
Seversky at 521, Theists know how God works in His Creation.
While Seversky's unsupported assertion ignores all the brilliant scientists throughout history who trust in God, your unsupported assertion also makes no sense. I don't know HOW God worked in his creation, but I'm always delighted and amazed at every new discovery in creation's awesome complexity and beauty. -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
Kairosfocus @524, Nicely summarized. It all leads to "case-by-case thinking" devoid of principle. Symptoms include statements such as, "Well, your example of _____ is a highly complex situation and doesn't generally apply," while other statements make huge emotional generalizations without rational support. Thus, we see the intentionally blind leading the comfortably blind. Their both falling into a pit is passed off as either a systemic shortcoming or simply "bad luck." -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
Seversky at 521, Theists know how God works in His Creation.relatd
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PST
PS, as a reminder for those tempted to try the stunt of turnabout projection to the despised other, that is your cognitive dissonance speaking through whatever may be left of conscience but distorted through rationalisations. Haldane, yes you need to hear him again to break through your filter psychology, will help:
[JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:] "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
kairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PST
Q, yes, ideology has tainted what we hold to be knowledge. And, for those caught up in a strong ideological current backed by the academy, education systems, the media and policy, even if it is at outset utterly and manifestly self referentially incoherent as say Haldane pointed out, it is hard indeed to un-learn. The crooked yardsticks tell them that whatever differs is wrong, and they may even doubt plumb line, self evident truths. Look at the struggles we have seen with canons of logic and logical results such as one cannot traverse a transfinite succession of finite stages in finite steps. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PST
AF, only further establishment of its epistemic and so scientific soundness. You may wish to note 501:7 - 15 above on a lab based model framework building on Venter et al. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PST
I'm back. Have I missed any new developments in Intelligent Design?Alan Fox
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PST
Relatd/520
It has not been done, even once. There are prophets in the Bible but you are no secular prophet for science. On the other hand, your blind devotion toward making life from chemicals has no basis in fact.
Prophets are irrelevant. We are here. Whether through an act of creation by your God or through some natural process, life has come into existence. What has happened once can happen again. The only difference between us is that secular scientists are curious about how life may have come about naturally and are conducting research to find out. Theists on the other hand don't seem to be the least bit interested in how their God did what they claim.Seversky
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST
Seversky at 510, It has not been done, even once. There are prophets in the Bible but you are no secular prophet for science. On the other hand, your blind devotion toward making life from chemicals has no basis in fact.relatd
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PST
Kairosfocus,
So, we are dealing with an entrenched, ideologically tainted knowledge base in spectacular violation of Newton’s Rules.
In my opinion, it boils down to ideological poisoning. -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST
PS, ponder: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Equilibria/Le_Chateliers_Principle
Le Chatelier's principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium shifts to counteract the change to reestablish an equilibrium. If a chemical reaction is at equilibrium and experiences a change in pressure, temperature, or concentration of products or reactants, the equilibrium shifts in the opposite direction to offset the change. This page covers changes to the position of equilibrium due to such changes and discusses briefly why catalysts have no effect on the equilibrium position. Case Study: The Manufacture of Ethanol from Ethene This page describes the manufacture of ethanol by the direct hydration of ethene, and then goes on to explain the reasons for the conditions used in the process. It looks at the effect of proportions, temperature, pressure and catalyst on the composition of the equilibrium mixture and the rate of the reaction. Effect of Temperature on Equilibrium A temperature change occurs when temperature is increased or decreased by the flow of heat. This shifts chemical equilibria toward the products or reactants, which can be determined by studying the reaction and deciding whether it is endothermic or exothermic. Exothermic vs. Endothermic and K
kairosfocus
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PST
SG,
KF: SG, the many hyps are generally without adequate causal foundation, [SG:] 1) This is not correct. They are without demonstrated causal foundation. Just because a hypothesis has not yet been demonstrated to be true doesn’t mean that it isn’t.
I comment in steps of thought: 1: The hyps are in direct violation of well known thermodynamics, as I have outlined and as Dr Tour and others for many years have elaborated, back at least to Thaxton et al in 1984 and onward to 2: Hoyle's underlying point in using as a metaphor the comparatively simple challenge of assembling a 747 courtesy a tornado in a junkyard in Seattle or wherever 747's were built until recently. 3: The issue is in key part about the difference between heat thus thermal energy and work, a contrast at the heart of thermodynamics. 4: Temperature is an index of average random kinetic energy per micro particle degree of freedom in a body, as Brownian motion and Einstein's analysis underscored. 5: Work is forced, ordered or organised motion. 6: As a result, mere injection of energy into a system by opening it thermodynamically, can often degrade its state of order or organisation. Melting and boiling are classic examples, as would be photodegradation of plastics and paints. 7: In the case of a Darwin's pond or the like, the thermodynamics are so adverse that concentrations of relevant macromolecules for life formation would be negligible. 8: Instead, what is needed is work to configure in accord with requisites of a target state, hence 9: the actually observed use of numerically controlled assemblers, based on coded algorithms seen for protein synthesis. Configuring, organising work, in a protected, controlled environment that exploits Le Chetalier's principle by setting up sophisticated, protected micro environments. Indeed, in part, the ribosome is an assembly line transfer machine. One that uses mobile position-arm nanotech robots, tRNAs. 10: Organising work, not spontaneous, raw energy flows. 11: So, no, the intellectual IoU and superficial comparison of plate tectonics fails. (The latter started, after all, from the suspicious fit between the E coast of S America and the W Coast of Africa, a jigsaw puzzle challenge.) And more. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PST
Sev, On the strength of what we have actually observed with Venter et al, I suggest you ponder this from 501 above, as touching a more reasonable scenario than the Darwin Pond or the like, as to what could plausibly be done to create cell based life, terraform a planet and populate it with functional ecosystems:
501:] 11: But more, we are seeing clues on a plausible original causal process. The need for NC machinery, information, organisation and controlled environment was there ab initio. So, logically, start with lab scale nanotech machines and an established body of knowledge on relevant polymer chemistry . . . thus, heavy duty computational chemistry. 12: Synthesise and assemble key components, starting with ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA that take you to molecular nanotech, filling in the supporting cast of other molecular machines as you go, building up the integrated network, finally encapsulating with smart gating. 13: Test the first cells then release to terraform, maybe run systems to feed in more and more. 14: Then as appropriate inject onward new body plans, until one has viable ecosystems that are robust, in a stable terrestrial biosphere. 15: It would not make sense to put all eggs in one basket, why not run the exercise at galactic scale.
In videos, Tour has suggested 500 years, MR suggests, he adds, possibly never regarding our efforts. I am a bit more optimistic, though I suppose much more research funding would go into reengineering established living forms to make nanotech factories. For example, modifying bacteria or yeasts to eat cellulose and make alcohols, especially isobutanol, may be a way to create biofuels. Though letting loose something that could wildly eat up our crops and forests would be a danger. I suppose, anaerobics? And so forth. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PST
Q, actually, not merely one who has done a PhD, but a leading synthesist in the world. That is a key part of the joke, in the vid in the OP, Tour takes apart the critiques, where his description of actual OoL experimentation underlines the issues as to why the Darwin Pond or the like scenario is highly dubious. Sadly, that underlying issue is right there in the cell. Let me go in steps of thought: 1: Cells have an elaborate metabolic network, with encapsulation and smart gating [there is talk of homeostasis], also an embedded von Neumann self replicator. Facts, summarised, cf OP. 2: Why something so materially and energetically expensive, using such complex molecules that are highly endothermic so thermodynamically uphill? 3: Why a special assembly line machine for proteins? 4: Why is it numerically controlled using coded algorithms? [Recall, the many rhetorical twists and turns here and doubtless in the penumbra of attack sites to try to blunt this, despite the consensus testified to by many experts and even confessed by Wikipedia?] The answer is, 5: that the Darwin's Pond or the like would be so prone to degrade such polymers that we would not accumulate or sustain more than a negligible concentration, frustrating any cumulative spontaneous process to OoL, hence speculations on some imaginary "simpler" early life. 6: Which, would be thermodynamically far fitter. But of course, no actual sound observational base. ___________________________ 7: So, we are dealing with an entrenched, ideologically tainted knowledge base in spectacular violation of Newton's Rules. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST
BobSinclair @513,
“Professor” Dave best exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger effect.
That's way too generous. How many sane high school chemistry teachers (Dave Farina has a bachelors degree in Chemistry), would want to take on a PhD synthetic organic chemist? https://youtu.be/n-wUdetAAlY?t=46 -QQuerius
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PST
@511 Interesting response Seversky, I recall a post from you a while back on the topic of Tour vs dave. You agreed with Dr.Tour’s overall summery of the OOL field that neither he nor anyone else knows anything about life’s origin. Now you claim Dr.Tours points are “Dismantled”. May I ask then for a detailed description of life’s origin that you or supposedly dave possess. As far as Dave’s videos are concerned, “Professor” Dave best exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger effect.BobSinclair
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PST
1 2 3 19

Leave a Reply