Video: ‘Intelligent Design: The Most Credible Idea?’ — A Lecture by Dr Stephen C Meyer

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 29, 2012

News}

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

Comments

Mung: Phosphorus is important, esp. for ATP, but is relatively rare. A lot of other elements are involved too, but I am highlighting the fact that hit me between the eyes, what the most common elements do for life. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Also, in response to some of the comments here, teleological arguments in evidential apologetics only first give evidence that there is "a" Creator (agnostic theism). The general arguments of design from the past do not address the natural of biological information nor mechanical working systems and we can never 'generalize' about design or ID without addressing the specific nature of the scientific evidence for agnostic theism. I apologize for the rhetoric here... but just to be clear - the argument for the God of Abraham is a cumulative case argument from agnostic theism *and* the logic (or argument from reason (i.e. being from non-being is illogical) of God's Aseity as a necessity for existence (the Creator's Self-Existence). This cumulative case argument comes via eternal Creator - Infinite Creator - monotheism - Orthodox monotheism - God of Abraham - a cumulative case argument first shared by Judaism/Islam/Christianity. As a side note (more rhetoric for most of you) when providing evidence for agnostic theism we must also expose the myth of the 'power' of chance. Chance can't create anything nor does it have the "power" to perform trial and error with the process of natural selection. Statistical information (probabilities) do NOT address real causes in causal systems and chance is not a real cause. This must be exposed.Breckmin_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 as usual is very correct in identifying the circular assumptions practiced in the natural sciences when he states "Please show me how in blue blazes ‘natural science’ can even be practiced without theological presuppositions" (I'll figure out the HTML tags for quoting in white eventually). By defining the tangible world as "natural" they/we are often operating under presuppositions that are (aw-theistic) atheistic/materialistic and completely independent of any allowance for a sustaining (metaphysical) Creator. What is even worse is when we REQUIRE circular assumptions that reject any theistic implications of any kind by requiring all naturalistic explanation(s). IOW = only materialistic conclusions allowed. Natural conclusions required for natural assumptions. Without ever addressing these circular assumptions they operate without ever questioning what natural really is...and whether it is sustained by an Infinite Creator (let alone the result OF a Creator). This circular reasoning must be exposed if we are ever to allow for theistic implications in the 'natural sciences.'Breckmin_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

kf:
It turns out that on many dimensions of fine tuning, our cosmos spits out the following first four atoms: H, He, C, O. with N nearly 5th overall, and 5th for our galaxy. That gets us to stars, the rest of the periodic table, organic chemistry, water, terrestrial rocks [oxides or oxygen rich ceramics] and proteins.
Don't forget Phosphate. Can't forget phosphate. :)Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Gregory, "Meyer uses an analogical argument elsewhere" fails to sustain the assertion that Meyer's argument in the video is analogical. "Some IDers think life is designed" fails to sustain the assertion that Meyer's argument in the video is that life is designed.
I’ve quoted multiple times directly from Meyer’s actual presentation and from his comments to Fuller.
You failed to quote Meyer at the relevant points in his presentation and his response to Fuller is irrelevant to his argument in the video. Apart from your quote where he says he's a "quasi-intelligent designer," which is not even from his presentation but rather from the QA that followed, where have you quoted Meyer from the video? Not only did I have the courtesy, after having accused you of lying, to point out your specific false statements, I asked you to provide actual quotes from Meyer's video where he makes the claims you attribute to him. Where did you do that? Refresh my memory, please.
Please don’t be so ignorant or a mindless provocateur, unless you just can’t help yourself, in which case I find no reason to respond to you.
I read your comments before I ever viewed the video, so I knew what to look for. It appears to be the majority opinion here at UD that you did in fact erect a straw-man and attack that rather than the actual argument made by Meyer in the video. Your characterization of my response to your claims hardly seems accurate. Not responding to me isn't going to rehabilitate your character.
We’re best to await dialogue with/from people who are genuinely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer’s speech at the Tyndale event.
By all means. Let's discuss the video.Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
...the evidence of the material requirements to record and transfer information are readily accessible to almost anyone.
So why do TSZ'ers avoid it like the plague? Why does Gregory pretend to not understand it? But you are oh so correct. Where did the information come from begs the question, what is required for us to recognize it as information in the first place? We would not even be asking that question if there was not in place a system for the storage and transfer of information.Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Dr Torely, In your post at 71 you did the same thing that you have always done here on UD, you provide a rational and comprehensive answer to address the topic at hand. In this particular instance I would like to add one thing to your answer.
So to return to your point, humans do have the experience that counts: the experience of creating things that contain FCSI.
I would only add to this that DNA contains more evidence than just that of specified complexity. It also demonstrates a singularly unique material condition which is readily discernable, and that this unique material condition is only found elsewhere as the direct result of an agent. In other words, FCSI is concerned with a mathematical analysis of the sequence itself, whereas this second line of evidence is concerned with the material conditions required for the existence of FCSI in the first place (i.e. the physics of information transfer). And whereas the analysis of sequence complexity may not be assessible to a wider audience (based on mathematical acumen), the evidence of the material requirements to record and transfer information are readily accessible to almost anyone. And finally, I would also add that when the physical requirements of a system capable of recording and transferring information are modeled, logic then steps in to all but dictate that the system could not operate in any other way – profoundly increasing confidence in the model and the observations its based on.Upright BiPed_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

The Language of Mathematics: Making the Invisible Visible The Fitness of the Environment an Inquiry Into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter Fitness of the Cosmos for Life: Biochemistry and Fine-TuningMung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

And yet over at TSZ they rest their case on the belief that Hoyle didn't understand the forces involved. Snort. It's interesting, I had just come across those quotes from Hoyle in some reading yesterday. A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology by Alister E. McGrath The importance of the figures cited by Hoyle, and why it's a part of the fine-tuning argument, isn't just because Carbon and Water are so important for life. It's because there must be a balance for both Carbon and Water to be produced in biophilic quantities. 4He + 4He -> 8Be 8Be + 4He -> 12C Why isn't 12C immediately converted into 16O? 12C + 4He -> 16OMung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Mung: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi Hallelujah, amen, and amen! KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Anyone who has followed the IDM for the past decade knows that Big-ID trades heavily in (and receives money from) creationist company. The graphic here reveals this clearly.
I assume you speak of a graphic that shows a series of books and editions of the popular level book pandas and people, which shows Thaxton and others gradually moving away from Creationist language to design terms in the wider context where they felt the former was inadequate to where they wished to go? As in the same Thaxton who, working with Bradley and Olsen, in 1984 -- three years before the relevant US Supreme Court decision that is usually cited in "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" narratives -- developed the first technical design theory work? As in The Mystery of Life's Origin, in which argumentation on thermodynamics, Geology, and related chemistry, polymer science, information issues and atmosphere science etc in the context of a prelife earth led them to conclude based on the unfavourable equilibria, that formation of relevant information-rich protein or RNA polymers in such a pre-life matrix was maximally implausible? Then, who went on to discuss the various proteocell theories at the time critically and concluded that none of them were plausible? Thence, concluded that the best explanation of formation of life was design, refusing to infer whether there was a 'Creator" of such life within or beyond the cosmos, on grounds that the empirical evidence did not warrant such? So, we are left to infer from Forrest's graph [where, BTW, the relevant publishers of TMLO were not allowed to speak for themselves in the courtroom . . . ], that the only plausible explanation is an attempt to avoid the implications of a court ruling? My comment is that Ms Forrest has zero credibility, and that there is an obvious pattern evident from a technical work that was well received at the time [before there was a debate over the emergence of design theory and resulting polarisation], that provides a completely adequate explanation. But if one is committed to the notion championed in the Wikipedia article I am currently marking up, that there is no technical merit to design arguments, there only remains sociological-psychological and political ones to account for its rise. In my own case, I will say something in testimony. I attended a seminar presented by Thaxton, and began to have some thoughts, that led me to acquire a copy of TMLO in the days before it was easy to get such things courtesy Amazon. I sat down and read in light of my own education in Thermodynamics and related areas, and in light of what I knew about information. I came to see the issue of the inductively known source of what I summarised descriptively as functionally specific, complex information as decisive. I engaged discussions online (in other fora), which led me to a stronger and stronger view of the inductively rooted force of the issue, which can be seen reflected in my briefing note [which is now nearly seven years old], which is linked to every post I have ever made here at UD as a comment. You will see that that note moves from the source of info to the OOL situation to OO Body Plans, and onwards to the cosmological issue, reflecting the pattern of my reasoning and it is a marker of the influence of TMLO in my thought. In early days of commenting at UD, I began to think that there was need for a course or Wiki (better yet, both)that would allow a much wider audience to access the design theory view on origins, which is quite distinct from the Creationist one I had long been familiar with, as well as of course the evolutionary materialist one. (My use of the term evolutionary materialism as a description of the core aspects of the materialist/ naturalist stranglehold on origins thought, goes back 20 - 25 years or so. You will see that I have long held the view that the critical issue with this philosophy is that it is inescapably self referential and self-undermining on mind and morality.) In the end I wrote a blog that lays out what I think such a course could cover, as a draft, and I also helped contribute to the upgraded UD weak argument correctives, in collaboration with GP and SB; most recently adding a section on the first principles of right reason in light of quantum theory linked objections. Some time after that upgrade was initially undertaken, I came to accept an invitation to contribute as an original poster at UD. Now, obviously, I am not living in an American jurisdiction where US Supreme Court or other court rulings have any force (other than to make me shake my head about the follies of courts censoring classrooms). I am not motivated by religion to adopt a theory that is rooted in the end in information theory and thermodynamics issues. I do note, as the WACs say, that Paul and John took what were risky positions 2,000 years ago, that reason and information were written into the substructure of the cosmos, and that this leads to a compelling rational inference to an author who is evidently divine. (They and other authors also argued that our being bound by moral law points to the underling divine lawgiver also.) I find it utterly astonishing that the very same ones who would pounce on it having been discovered that the cosmos is fundamentally chaotic as overturning such notions, having instead found them borne out, borne out by current scientific investigations in ways those worthies could never have foreseen, now want to attack the scientific reasoning that I and others have undertaken as being a matter of religion and politics. I guess I should start at the level that Thaxton et al did not address as beyond the scope of their investigations, which is the level that does point beyond the cosmos. For this, let me cite here a certain scientific hero of mine, the lifelong agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle:
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 [--> as in, a Cosmos-building 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.]
This seems to have been part of the conclusion of a talk he gave at Caltech in 1981. Let's clip a little earlier:
The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.
OF COURSE, IT IS WORSE THAN THIS. It turns out that on many dimensions of fine tuning, our cosmos spits out the following first four atoms: H, He, C, O. with N nearly 5th overall, and 5th for our galaxy. That gets us to stars, the rest of the periodic table, organic chemistry, water, terrestrial rocks [oxides or oxygen rich ceramics] and proteins. That I find is a big clue. Where, we must then see what Hoyle also said:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
In short, the numbers do not add up as Ms Forrest would have us believe, and the personality who is actually pivotal -- evidently including for Thaxton et al -- is not by any means a Christian, but a lifelong agnostic. And remember, the cosmological ID thinking emerged first, from the 1950's to 70's. It ties naturally into the issues being run into by OOL researchers who had by the 1970's realised they had to account for functionally specific complex information in biology. Here we need to remember Orgel and Wicken (it's all there in the IOSE, folks):
ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.] WICKEN, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
The source of my descriptive term, functionally specific complex information [and related organisation], per the conduit of TMLO, should be obvious. In short, your whole complex collapses, collapses on the grounds that its timeline is wrong and the forebears of intelligent design thought as a scientific research programme are not as you imagine. Yes, some Creationists do support design theory, after all they do believe in intelligent design, and are able to pull back a bit and ask, if we lay the business of debating interpretations of Genesis 1 - 11 aside for a bit, what do we see in the book of nature? That is a natural way to come to the threshold of design theory, and it is a context in which they can carry out serious investigations on the merits of fact and logic. And, given the balance of power in US government (as opposed to the balance of worldviews in the population at large) and who controls where compelled funds from tax payer will go for research and education [whatever the taxpayers want to think], it is utterly unsurprising that Creationists would be found among ID's funders and supporters more generally. As in, some form of belief in God guiding the origin and development of the world, whether in a short or a long timeframe and whether by direct creation of kinds or by longer processes, takes in was it about 80% of the US adult population? Where also, obviously, small and struggling research and policy centres scattered in a few cities and sites should be no threat at all to those who command the flow of billion dollar funding levels. Save, that the latter are trying to prop up an ideology imposed on science that has long since passed its sell-by date. That is why the billion dollar funds and the ruthless indoctrination and Alinsky demonisation tactics don't work as advertised. The evidence does not back up a priori evolutionary materialism as so well summed up by Lewontin:
. . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated . . . [["Billions and billions of demons," NYRB, Jan 1997. if you have been taken in by the "this is quite-mined" talking point, kindly cf the fuller citations and discussion here on.]
That is why Johnson's retort was ever so apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Gregory you state:
because serious scholars don’t want to publish philosophy and theology masquerading as natural science-only.
Please show me how in blue blazes 'natural science' can even be practiced without theological presuppositions without ending up in epistemological failure, and then I will grant you that there can be quote unquote 'serious scholars' in 'natural science-only' that are publishing without having inbuilt philosophical, theological prejudice!bornagain77_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

vjt:
Most people, when they come to worship, wouldn’t expect to encounter mathematics – and I don’t blame them!
Mathematics: The New Language of WorshipMung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

And you talk about lying, Mung!! I've quoted multiple times directly from Meyer's actual presentation and from his comments to Fuller. Please don't be so ignorant or a mindless provocateur, unless you just can't help yourself, in which case I find no reason to respond to you.Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
We’re best to await dialogue with/from people who are genuinely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer’s speech at the Tyndale event.
I couldn't help but notice how much you're written in this thread that has nothing to do with what he actually said in his talk at the event. So here's an idea. Why don't you lead the way? Lead by example.Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I think we disagree fundamentally on whether it is possible to reason to enlightenment. Without observing, testing, accepting what is useful, discarding what is not in interacting with our environment, there is no likelihood of avoiding delusion.
Oh, the irony.Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

"ID folks eliminated all of the things that made creationism religious...Obviously this is an attempt to make ID religious" - Collin Anyone who has followed the IDM for the past decade knows that Big-ID trades heavily in (and receives money from) creationist company. The graphic here reveals this clearly. small-id rejects Big-ID's speculative claims to scientificity and authenticity. small-id is the responsible position to hold for an Abrahamic believer, unless they wish for political reasons to become a Big-ID fanatic. In the latter case, they will be marginal in most universities (other than perhaps private Christian colleges) and sacrifice their publishing potential (e.g Behe) because serious scholars don't want to publish philosophy and theology masquerading as natural science-only. Why Big-ID has not tried its hand more openly and honestly in 'science, philosophy, religion' discourse is a mystery yet to be solved. #2 & #57 in this thread contain significant challenges to IDist Stephen C. Meyer's awkward position. But UD regulars sadly don't seem to wish to face such challenges. They want to insist upon no challenges possible to Big-ID and display their dedication to a Movement deluding itself based on scientism.Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

kf:
On that I will simply join with Newton and Plato to name just two...
Are those the same two that Meyer mentions which impressed Immanuel Kant as well?Mung_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Gregory You raise many points in your recent posts. I'll try to be brief. 1. Your big beef with Meyer's argument is that human beings do not have "uniform repeated experience" of using their "intelligent agency" to create life itself. True, but human beings do have "uniform repeated experience" of using their "intelligent agency" to create structures whose ability to perform a function (i.e. do a useful job) depends critically on the specific sequencing of their components. We can quantify how critical this sequencing is in mathematical terms, and when we do so, we call it functional complex specified information (FCSI). Life and artifacts can then be represented on a common spectrum: the differences between the amount of FCSI in a living cell and the amount in an artifact can be compared quantitatively. Typically, artifacts are much, much simpler than living things. It is in this respect, and this respect only, that we can speak of living cells and artifacts as differing in degree. (The intrinsic teleology of living things and the extrinsic teleology that defines artifacts are of course different in kind.) So to return to your point, humans do have the experience that counts: the experience of creating things that contain FCSI. Specified complexity is a term that has been used repeatedly to describe life by Leslie Orgel and Paul Davies; it's fairly uncontroversial in that context. As for expressing FCSI mathematically, try this paper: Hazen, R.M.; Griffin, P.L.; Carothers, J.M.; Szostak, J.W. 2007, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 104 Suppl 1, 8574-81. The other controversial claim is that unguided natural processes are incapable of creating significant amounts of FCSI - that is, amounts large enough to account for the origin of life. Some people say that genetic algorithms refute this claim, but Professor Dembski explains why that won't work in his article, Conservation of Information Made Simple and in the publications he co-authored with Robert J. Marks II at www.evoinfo.org/. Thus far the argument is purely mathematical and scientific. It leads us to the conclusion that some sort of Intelligence was responsible for the origin of life. But it doesn't tell us what kind of Intelligence that is. 2. You argue that ID proponents are none too clued up when it comes to the writings of Aquinas. Rubbish. About three years ago, I wrote a five-part series entitled, St. Thomas Aquinas and his Fifteen Smoking Guns. It was written in reply to Professor Tkacz, but it also addressed the arguments put forward by Professor Ed Feser, to the effect that Intelligent Design thinking was foreign to the thinking of Aquinas. I delved into Aquinas' writings for many months and here's what I came up with: The following 15 points were all explicitly taught by Aquinas. (a) Physical effects requiring a supernatural cause are the best possible way of demonstrating God's power and free agency. (The conclusion I draw is that St. Thomas would have therefore highly commended so-called "God of the gaps" arguments, so long as they convincingly demonstrate that some effect which we perceive in the world around us is beyond the power of Nature to produce.) (b) God can (and sometimes does) produce effects in Nature without using natural agents. (c) Some physical changes are beyond the power of Nature to bring about: they can only be produced by God. (d) The physical universe is an open system: without angels acting on it continually, the generation of new life on Earth would come to a complete stop. (e) God is an immediate cause of each and every effect occurring in the natural world. Whenever God works in co-operation with a natural agent to produce an effect, the natural agent is also an immediate cause, but it operates as an instrument of God, Who is the Principal Agent. (Concurrentism.) (f) A thing doesn't need to have a natural origin, in order to belong to a natural kind. (g) Nature always works in the same regular, repeatable way when producing each kind of thing: it needs the right kind of stuff to work on, plus an agent of adequate causal power, in order to generate the form of that kind of thing. (Hyper-uniformitarianism.) (h) God designed a world of fixed kinds, in which the evolution of new kinds of creatures as a result of mutations is impossible. Hybrids between existing kinds can occasionally give rise to new kinds of creatures, but one kind of creature can never "change into" another, over time. (Essentialism.) (i) The first animals that were capable of reproducing according to their kind must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone. (Supernatural production of the first animals.) (j) The "higher," more complex animals must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone. (k) The bodies of the first human beings must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone. (l) Language, no matter where it is found, is a hallmark of intelligence. (The conclusion I draw is that if we find effects in Nature that are written in some sort of language, we can be sure that an Intelligent Being produced them. In particular, since we now know that there is a suite of programs running within the cells of each living organism, then St. Thomas Aquinas, if he were alive today, would unhesitatingly declare that an intelligent agent must have produced these programs, and not some physical process.) (m) All of God's works are perfectly designed in relation to their ends. Hence there are no bad designs in Nature. (n) Everything that God made has a purpose; and everything in Nature has a purpose. Hence organisms contain no redundant or vestigial features. (o) God is a micro-manager: for each kind of creature living on Earth, each and every one of its natural features was personally designed by God. I provide chapter and verse citations in my five-part online reply to Tkacz. Neither Tkacz nor Feser has written an article in response to this post, as far as I'm aware. 3. There are indeed differences between ID and Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy regarding the nature of intelligence - but the point at issue is not (as is commonly claimed) whether the differences between God's intelligence and our own are purely differences of degree, or whether the term "intelligent" is predicated univocally of God and human beings. On page 315 of their book, The Design of Life (2008, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas), Professor William Dembski and Dr. Jonathan Wells define intelligence as "A type of cause, process or principle that is able to find, select, adapt, and implement the means needed to effectively bring about ends (or achieve goals or realize purposes). Because intelligence is about matching means to ends, it is inherently teleological." And here's how Aquinas describes it in his celebrated Fifth Way:
Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
The underlying idea here is that the term "intelligent" has the same meaning when predicated of God and ourselves, notwithstanding the infinite disparity between God's unlimited intellectual capacities and our limited capacities, and the utter dissimilarity between the way God thinks and the way we do. "How can it be the same meaning if the modus operandi and the capacity are so dissimilar?" you might ask. The short answer is that "know" or "understand" is not a modal verb; it refers to what the agent does rather than how he/she does it, or for that matter, how easily he/she does it. The longer answer is that there is something in common between God's modus operandi and our own: both require some sort of language. In Part Five of my reply to Professor Tkacz, I argue that the Aristotelian-Thomistic characterization of intelligence in purely teleological terms (e.g. the ability to select means to bring about ends" is insufficient, and that intelligence cannot be adequately characterized without language. (This, by the way, ties in well with "Let there be light," Genesis 1:3, and "In the beginning was the Word," John 1:1.) In other words, the act of understanding a natural entity can only be characterized by the ability to specify the concept of that entity, in some sort of language. This specification has to include a complete description of its "whatness" (or substantial form), as well as its built-in "ends" (finality). Form cannot be reduced to finality, and neither can finality be reduced to form. The reason why this is important for Intelligent Design is that the information required to produce the form can be specified mathematically. Mathematics is a kind of language. At some level, when designing life, or when designing animal body plans, or for that matter human beings (e.g. through a process of guided evolution) God must have specified exactly what He wanted. It sounds pretty obvious when you put it like that. Surprisingly, however, Professor Feser thinks otherwise. In a post entitled, ID theory, Aquinas, and the origin of life: A reply to Torley (April 16, 2010), Feser spelt out exactly what he believes happens when God creates something:
...[W]hether or not we think of God as specially creating life in an extraordinary intervention in the natural order, the way He creates is not properly understood on the model of human artifice. He does not make a living thing the way a watchmaker makes a watch or the way a builder builds a house. He does not take pre-existing raw materials and put them into some new configuration; nor does He even create the raw materials while simultaneously putting the configuration into them. (As I've said before, temporal considerations are not to the point.) Rather (as I put it in my earlier post) he creates by conjoining an essence to an act of existence, where the essence in question is a composite of substantial form and prime matter. That is the only way something that is "natural" rather than "artificial" in Aristotle's technical senses of those terms possibly could be created.
In a comment on another post, entitled, Nature versus Art (April 30, 2011), Professor Feser also asserted that God could, if He wished, make a man from the dust of the ground, simply by saying, "Dust, become a man." As he wrote back to me, when I asked him about the sequence of steps involved in such a transformation:
Forming a man from the dust of the ground involves causing the prime matter which had the substantial form of dust to take on instead the substantial form of a man. I'm not sure what "sequence of steps" you have in mind. There's no sequence involved (nor any super-engineering -- God is above such trivia). It's just God "saying," as it were: "Dust, become a man." And boom, you've got your man. (For the New Atheist types out there, no, this isn't "magic." Rather, it's something perfectly rationally intelligible in itself and at least partially intelligible to our finite minds once we do some metaphysics. It's just something that only that in which essence and existence are identical, that which is pure actuality, etc. is capable of, and we aren't. We have to work through other pre-existing material substances and thus have to do engineering and the like in order to make things. God, who is immaterial, the source of all causal power, etc. doesn't need to do that and indeed cannot intelligibly be said to do it.)
Let us suppose, now, that God commanded a piece of dust to become a man, as Professor Feser supposes he did. On behalf of the dust, I would like to reply: "What kind of man would you like me to become, Lord? A tall one or a short one? Brown eyes or blue? A Will Smith lookalike or a Tom Cruise replica? Blood type A, B, AB or O? Oh, and what about the micro-level properties of the man you want me to be? Exactly how many cells should this individual have? What sequence of bases should he have in his DNA? I'm afraid I can do nothing, Lord, unless you tell me exactly what you want." I won't belabor the point here: the difficulty should be obvious. The problem with merely telling the dust to become a man is that it under-specifies the effect – or in philosophical jargon, under-determines it. And since dust is unable to make a choice between alternatives – even a random one – then nothing at all will get done, if God commands dust to simply become a man. To get a real man, every single detail in the man’s anatomy has to be specified, right down to the atomic level. Now we can see why the psalmist wrote: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13). There's just no getting around the mechanics of design, even if you're a Deity. The reason is simple: in the real world, things are specified at all levels, including the bottom level. So contrary to what Professor Feser wrote, I would maintain that God does have to do super-engineering, if He designs an organism. 4. Professor Feser also thinks he has a quicker and more reliable teleological argument for God's existence. In a nutshell, he argues that things have built-in causal dispositions, or tendencies - in other words, causes inherently "point to" or are "directed at" their effects. Next, he argues that unintelligent natural causes can "point to" or be "directed at" their effects only if guided by an intelligence. This, in my opinion, is the step that critics will "zoom in" on. Feser refers to the effects that natural causes point to as their "ends" or "goals" - but he also goes to great pains to say that by the term "ends" he really means "dispositions" or "tendencies", where these are understood as built-in. It is far from self-evident that a natural cause's having an orientation, or tendency, towards some effect requires a guiding intelligence. Elsewhere in his writings, Feser argues that this is because the effect lies in the future - but a skeptic could argue that most natural causes appear to be only present-directed, and that even future-directed causes (e.g. developmental programs in organisms) supervene on present-directed causal processes (the underlying physics and chemistry). In my opinion, Feser might have done better to argue that the laws of Nature are normative or prescriptive (otherwise we could not rely on them) rather than merely descriptive, and that rules are embedded in the very nature of things, as part of their warp-and-woof. One could then argue that if the laws of Nature are really rules, then rules require a Rule-Maker - i.e. an Intelligent Agent. For my part, I find this argument powerful and persuasive, but I don't believe in putting all my metaphysical (or theological) eggs in one basket. I see the mathematical arguments of the Intelligent Design movement as neatly dove-tailing with those of philosophical theology - although the former do not specify the Nature of the Intelligence that was responsible for the origin of life. Well, I think I've written enough for one post. I will say one more thing re your distinction between big and small ID, very quickly. Your suggestion that big ID is better suited to churches overlooks the fact that big ID is explicitly mathematical and empirical in its formulation. Most people, when they come to worship, wouldn't expect to encounter mathematics - and I don't blame them!vjtorley_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Collin #34 wrote: “This is not about ‘Big-ID’ (a term I find unhelpful) this is about philosophy and science.” If you would openly admit “this is about philosophy, science and theology,” we’d be on the same page. Will you neither admit this nor say anything at all about it? The point about 'machines' was addressed above: Machines (in the common non-biological sense of the term) are human-made things, but organisms are not. "Although humans have not created life, they have created machines similar to those found in cells." - Collin This is where the argument fails, not where it succeeds. "'Big-ID' as you call it, does not necessarily hold that all of life was designed." - Collin Many people call it this or upper case ID. I am not special in this regard. small-id "holds that all of life was designed" - this is the orthodox Abrahamic belief. It is the Big-ID position you seem to be defending that is un-orthodox. Are you not an Abrahamic believer yourself, Collin? "Machines are designed, information comes from a mind. There are machines in cells and information in cells, therefore a mind is responsible. If you can refute these statements, then fine." - Collin That's very primitive IDist logic! It is a different KIND of 'intelligence' involving human-made machines from the 'Intelligence' that Big-ID claims to 'scientifically' be able to prove in biological information. If you were up on catholic/Catholic philosophy, Collin, you would understand why. Follow the Feser link above to catch the meaning.Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Also, ID-ers claim that they cannot identify the designer because atheists and secularists had certain objections to the teaching of creationism in schools. Then the ID folks eliminated all of the things that made creationism religious and now people are demanding that they identify the designer. Obviously this is an attempt to make ID religious so that it can be shut down without having to take its arguments at face value.Collin_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Gregory, A couple of other points. There have been dozens of articles on this blog exploring whether or not ID can be scientifically shown or merely philosophically reasoned. "A horse is a horse" is just an idiom.Collin_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Gregory, I think you are ignoring my main point about machines. Although humans have not created life, they have created machines similar to those found in cells. That is where the argument succeeds. "Big-ID" as you call it, does not necessarily hold that all of life was designed. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, for example, only points to certain attributes of life that exhibit objective signs of design. Behe probably believes in "small-ID" with respect to other features of life. I think you should take his arguments at face value rather than engage in distraction tactics. You comment so long about side issues that it makes me think you have no answer for FCSI or IC. Machines are designed, information comes from a mind. There are machines in cells and information in cells, therefore a mind is responsible. If you can refute these statements, then fine. Please try and stop using distraction techniques.Collin_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Gregory, besides the cosmos as a whole, this epistemological failure, i.e. this 'lack of a guarantee' for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends all the way down into evolutionary naturalism itself;
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8
Thus Gregory, if you say that only 'natural science' is true science, and only allow 'natural answers to be considered valid, you end up in ignoring the presuppositions that enabled modern science, as well as dooming any path science may take to epistemological failure. Related note: The integrity of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;
Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice. free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html
Now Gregory this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! Moreover, it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will or conscious observation as a starting assumption(s) in Quantum Mechanics! Thus Gregory, I hope I have shown you the importance of holding correct presuppositions about the nature of reality in order to practice science successfully. music and verse: Eric Clapton & Steve Winwood - Presence Of The Lord http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFlgDeA6Wog Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.bornagain77_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Gregory, the reason why I want a precise definition of what you think 'natural' science is is not to play 'gotcha' so much, but is to, hopefully, clearly show you that your definition of "natural" science is incomplete. You see Gregory in order to successfully practice science in the first place certain metaphysical presuppositions have to be made about the nature of reality and the ability of man's mind to comprehend it. In fact it can be very forcefully argued that it was, and is, the Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and man's mind that enabled modern science to be brought to a sustained maturity, as is noted here on commentary of Jaki's work:
The Origin of Science Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a patheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle's works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle's works in Latin.. As we will see below, the break-through that began science was a Christian commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo (On the Heavens).,, Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Further notes:
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
You see Gregory, the 'presupposition of mind' is built into our expectation that we can understand reality in a rational way!
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998
Gregory you may say 'so what' as if this subtle distinction of 'presupposed mind(s)' did not matter for 'natural science', but it is very important to note the epistemological failure that would ensue in science if one were to insist on a purely naturalistic explanation for reality and forsakes the presupposition of 'rational mind' that was behind the founding of modern science. For instance the epistemological failure of 'Boltzmann's Brain':
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 (Last powerpoint from preceding video) The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
bornagain77_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

BA77: "something is not science for you unless it meets this very specific criteria you have for ‘natural science’?? Yes or No?" No.Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Assumptions in 60? Name them.Upright BiPed_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Collin #34 wrote: “This is not about ‘Big-ID’ (a term I find unhelpful) this is about philosophy and science.” If you would openly admit “this is about philosophy, science and theology,” we’d be on the same page. The term ‘Big-ID’ is used to distinguish it from ‘small-id,’ the latter being the orthodox view in Abrahamic faiths, the former being a political-educational movement made in USA and a theory which is trying to claim scientificity for a traditionally theological ‘design argument’ (Dembski). Indeed, small-id does not believe that one can ‘scientifically’ prove the Design/Creation of the universe, while Big-ID does. That’s an important difference, which validates the reason for the meaningful distinction in terms. Owen Gingerich, Robert Russell, Edward Feser, Dennis Alexander and John Polkinghorne, are all small-id proponents (even though they rarely use the term ‘intelligent design,’ likely because they don’t wish to be associated with Big-ID and its politics). Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells are all Big-ID proponents. All 10 are self-professed Christians, but one group claims they are on the cusp of a ‘scientific [design] revolution’ which many of their Protestant evangelical followers have swallowed hook, line and sinker. The other group is more balanced and less radically political when it comes to science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourses. Recently, Vincent Torley said: “Maybe we need something in between upper and lower case!” This shows how difficult a topic this distinction is for the IDM. Won't you at least meditate on the rationale for accepting an honest and meaningful distinction between small-id and Big-ID before dismissing it, Collin? “I think that we do actually do have experience with designing life. This science is still young, but it is being done.” – Collin When you say “we do actually do have experience with designing life,” do you mean life from non-life? I don’t think we have such experience. Please show which ‘experiences’ you would refer us to. To reiterate, here is what I asked: “Human beings as [small-i, small-a] ‘intelligent agents’ simply DID NOT ‘design’ or ‘create’ or ‘construct’ or ‘build’ the Origins of Life or BioLogical Information.” Agree or disagree? Meyer refers to this challenge as “the ultimate origin of the information.” Personally, I don’t think any analogy with “causes now in operation” offers a suitable ‘historical scientific’ answer. But I’m aware that folks like KF claim to have a ‘little tent’ rebuttal to propose based on jargon like FSCI and FSCO/I, that very few scientists have adopted. Again, the main point is that Meyer flips from science to philosophy and theology in making his argument for a Mind as Designer of “the ultimate origin of the information [by which he really means capital-I 'Information'].” That is his prerogative, but he shouldn’t pretend that he’s simply ‘doing science’ when he states that conclusion. He's really doing philosophy and theology disguised as science. And you know what, I don’t really have a problem with him doing this, as long as he openly admits he is flipping between science, philosophy and theology when he is doing so. Unfortunately, he seems unwilling to do this due to an apparent desire to appear ‘scientific’ in one of, if not the most speculative of so-called ‘scientific’ fields. Origin(s) of Life – this is a science, philosophy, theology conversation, not reducible to natural-physical science or empirical data alone. “I do not think that it is analogy to say that humans have experience creating things like life.” – Collin Well, human beings do have experience ‘creating things’ – you’ll find no argument from me there. But do you actually in your heart of hearts think that human beings “create things like life?” I don’t mean just having babies, I mean Creation of Life (capitalised in a way that theists [and some agnostics] understand). Meyer’s argument rests on the univocal predication that we do. Along with many others who have seen through the Big-ID communication dances, I speak much more clearly and directly than Meyer, who uses small ‘i’/small ‘d’ and Big ‘I’/Big ‘D’ in what seems to be an intentionally misleading way. This is what makes some folks here wish to reject any distinction between Big-ID and small-id; so that they can continue to use it both ways to suit their purpose at a given time. Torley, Timaeus, nullasalus and others who’s names I can’t now remember all agree on the importance of the distinction between small-id (lower case) and Big-ID (upper case), even if this compromises the coherency of the IDM’s definition of ‘Intelligent Design.’ Speaking at a church? Then use Big-ID. Speaking at a university or public library? Then use small-id. Doing that is simply dishonest or sloppy, folks, even when you get away with it because the audience is not carefully critical enough with your language! As Meyer argues, the problem comes down to the inability to explain the Origin(s) of Information (both should be capitalised in this case because associated with Creator). Meyer, as scientist cannot separate Meyer as religious believer on this topic, thus concluding/hypothesising that information/Information implies mind/Mind. That is his personal (Presbyterian) definition of ‘information/Information’ not the result of following physical evidence where it leads. “I do not think it is analogy. A horse is a horse and a machine is a machine. Machines are designed.” – Collin So are you actually suggesting that horses are *not* designed? Please be clear and direct in answering this. Not answering it would be an admission of incoherency. Machines (in the common non-biological sense of the term) are human-made things, but organisms are not. I wrote: “It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself.” jstanley01 replied: “Meyer isn’t talking about creating life, he’s talking about the origin of the information that is necessary to its creation.” Yes, and we likewise don’t have ‘uniform repeated experience’ of using our [obviously human] ‘intelligent agency’ to create the original information that is necessary to life. So the problem again returns to the desire by the IDM to try to be ‘positive’ as a natural-physical science, instead of ‘reflexive’ as a human-social science in a way that welcomes science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue. This understanding shows why Big-ID theorists claim not to be able to identify and study Designer(s)/designers (i.e. themselves) and design processes (what human designers do) even if it *can* study specified complexity in artefacts (as KF repeats and repeats). As Collin rightly points out, people design, create, build, construct, make, etc. things, which mean that small-id can do what Big-ID doctrinally cannot. I am an 'intelligent designer' and so is everyone human (i.e. who is not a bot) that is reading this. Studying my 'intelligent designs' will break the myth of "Big-ID *cannot* = *will not* study the designer(s)/Designer(s) of information/Information. Surely you folks understand better after many months of communication why small-id vs. Big-ID makes such a fantastic difference!? Or do you simply not *want* to recognise this and accomodate it into your texts and speech? Will UD allow me to conduct a survey/opinion poll on this at UD or is it too afraid of trying to keep its movement together to see the honest results? p.s. UB's questions in #60 are not coherent, too much jargon, too many grammar errors, and too many assumptions, so won't be addressed.Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

So Gregory, just so I understand you perfectly clearly, something is not science for you unless it meets this very specific criteria you have for 'natural science'?? Yes or No?
Natural Science is the major branch most commonly recognized as “science”. It is the branch of science dealing with the natural world. The sub-branches in natural science include the physical sciences and the biological sciences. The physical sciences sub-branch deals with the physical universe of matter, space, time, and energy. Within the physical sciences are fields of study such as physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, as well as many others. The biological science sub-branch (sometimes called life science) deals with living organisms. Within the biological sciences are fields of study such as biology, zoology, genetics, botany, as well as many others. http://www.cnrt.scsu.edu/~psc152/A/branches.htm
bornagain77_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Gregory, Let us test the application of Steve Fuller's analysis to ID as a project concerned with design detection in the material world. Let us make the assumption that the intelligence of man and God are different by degree but not by kind. Now please answer this question: Is a materially-arbitrary relationship required to be instantiated in matter in order to record and transfer informartion from the genome? Let us now reverse the conclusion, and say that the intelligence of man and God are not only different by degree, but also by kind. Now answer this question: Is a materially-arbitrary relationship required to be instantiated in matter in order to record and transfer informartion from the genome? Now if you would be so kind, please compare the answers to these two qustions and provide the value of the applying these assumptions to the ID project.Upright BiPed_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply