ID and Catholic theology

_{Lord Ickenham

April 2, 2008

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

Father Michal Heller, 72, a Polish priest-cosmologist and a onetime associate of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, the future pope, was named March 12 as the winner of the Templeton Prize.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801398.htm

In this recent interview came a critique of the intelligent design position as bad theology, akin to the Manichean heresy. Fr. Heller puts forth this rather strange argument as follows:

“They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.”

Coming from a theologian, this is an astonishing summary of the Manichean heresy. Historically Manichæism is a form of dualism: that good and evil were equal and opposite forces, locked in an eternal struggle. In this distortion, the role of the all-powerful evil is replaced by chance? It is traditional Christian teaching that God forms (i.e. designs) creation. Does this make God the arch-rival of chanciness? It is difficult to see how the intelligent design perspective could possibly be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks in his Summa of God explicitly as the great designer of the creation:

“… the “Spirit of God” Scripture usually means the Holy Ghost, Who is said to “move over the waters,” not, indeed, in bodily shape, but as the craftsman’s will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form.”

The ID point of view is such a minimalist position it is amazing to see the charge of heresy– it simply does not have the philosophical meat necessary to begin to make this kind of theological accusation.

There are some points that Fr. Heller raises that are entirely consistent with an ID point of view:

“There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.” But “God is also the God of chance events,” he said. “From what our point of view is, chance — from God’s point of view, is … his structuring of the universe.”

In this quote, he is basically saying the there is no such thing as fundamental chance, only apparent chance. The apparent noise is really a beautiful tapestry viewed from the wrong side. Of course if there were discernable structure, then we could … well … discern it (this is the whole point of ID). The problem here is that Fr. Heller does not have a self-consistent position that one can argue or agree with, as his next quote shows:

“As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”

Now if I were picking from a list of random events to use as my illustration of chance acting in the world, childbirth would not be one of them. Does he mean the timing of birth, or the act of conception, or the forming of the child? If anything this is an extremely well-choreographed event that has very little to do with chanciness of any flavor. Here he seems to be going back, and saying that chance is real (not just apparent) – but God intends to have it that way. Once again, the ID position can also be reconciled with the existence of fundamental chance, but not fundamental chance as the only thing that exists in the universe.

In this interview, Fr. Heller does not seem to have a sophisticated view of how randomness can work together with intelligence, he also does not seem to have read any books by design advocates – the arguments he makes are directed to nonexistent opponents. For a physicist/theologian that is giving an interview upon the reception of his Templeton award, the only physics/theology that is offered is internally confused, and based on caricatures of the ID argument. My feeling is that if he actually read and considered the ID arguments we might find a kindred spirit.

Comments

4] your COMPLETE line of reasoning is that I am wrong about our inability to separate God’ action from nature because we can identify God’s action in nature through the presence of complex information which proves intelligence, but not divine intelligence. DOUBLE Yikes! See that key misrperesentaiton again: PROVES? What we have pointed out per scientific method and significant empirical investigation, is that we have identified a reliable SIGN of intelligence. We then identify DNA and the complex organisation of the cosmos as significant cases in point. We then scientifically infer to intelligence as the best explanations of both. In short, your selectively hyperskeptical question begging simply continues and now reaches its “logical” conclusion. 5] 126, Your argument hinges on the idea that ID can say everything about “not only human intelligence” but all intelligence based on one example . . . . What if you had a friend who adamantly claims “in all his experience fishing worm are ALWAYS the best bait.” When you asked him, “How many times have you been fishing?” He says, “Once.” How vast is his knowledge of fishing. The two are simply not comparable or analogous. Onlookers, observe: above Frosty and others, including myself, have pointed out that we have instances of intelligence that are credibly non-human [albeit obviously more limited than ours], starting with that of animals and the current state of and prospects for the ongoing AI research programme. So the “one example” inference is plainly and indisputably false. (And that is long before we get to the too often brushed aside issue that there are millions of people across history and currently -- including a pretty big slice of the list of the greatest minds and lives ever lived -- who have seriously claimed to know a certain extra-Cosmic intelligence personally and relationally, showing the results in transformed and transforming lives. I point this out to show that there are at least a few signs out there that there is a bigger world outside the currently fashionable evolutionary materialist, radical secularist version of Plato's Cave. “Step into the sunshine . . .”) More generally, we have evidence from ourselves that intelligence is possible in our cosmos. We have no good reason to infer that we exhaust the possibilities for such intelligence, but just the converse. We also have a well-tested, reliable sign of intelligence, namely FSCI. We observe a case where we obviously were not present to produce it – a complex message that is foundational to life itself, and exists in a cosmos that was carefully and complexly organised in a way that just happens to facilitate such life. In such a context, and in the light of the general track record of the underlying scientific method at work, to reject the inference that DNA points to intelligence that is beyond our human world of intelligence is selective hyperskepticism. 6] 132, The issues here are very specific. If you think in challenging the 1) “not known law nor chance then intelligence” syllogism and 2) the abilities of ID to identify divine intelligence as separate from nature, I am building a “strawman caricature,” please explain how. Are these not the basis of the discussion here? First, the insistence on the use of the term “syllogism” is an instance of a clear distortion of the method and context of the design inference, as has been repeatredly shown by others and myself above, including, again, just above. Second, I took the charitable assumption that this reflects want of knowledge instead of deliberate misrepresentation, so in response to someone else's similar inference, I put up a list of basic 101 level material. You now claim to NOT be ignorant. Oh, well . . . Just above, I have shown in summary how your argument fails,and in so failing, shows that precisely you either [a] do not understand the scientific method or [b] are utterly unwilling to accept that the process that leads us to the conclusion that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence follows that process. You take your pick -- on either horn of that dilemma, your argument fails. 7] you simply assume that your point [FSCI in all cases of direct observation of the causal story is the product of intelligent action] is proven in only we assume the exact point under contention. Your use of “all cases” really means actually one case. The highlighted part shows a gross misrepresentation, where by lumping literally billions of test instances -- the very stuff of empirical observation and testing -- into the head: “human” you try to turn billions into “just one instance.” Sir, the empirical challenge to you and your ilk is this: show a single case where we know the causal story directly, where chance + necessity produce a sample of FSCI beyond the Dembski type bound, i.e 500 – 1,000 or so bits of information storage capacity. We can easily show many, many instances where reliably the presence of FSCI points to intelligent agency. On the track record of literally years of putting this challenge to evo mat advocates and their fellow travellers, NOT ONE KNOWN COUNTER INSTANCE EXISTS. So, per the scientific method, we have a perfect right to infer that FSCI is a sign of intelligence, until and unless a counter isntance produced by chance + necessity only can be produced. From the sort of counter arguments excerpted above, we have a perfect right to infer that you cannot produce a counter example where lucky noise in our observation produced FSCI. [And Genetic algorithms, Dawkins' “methinks” and the like simply don't count: they are preloaded with active information and intelligently designed search algorithms. In fact they are inadvertent examples of precisely the contention that FSCI is the product of intelligent agency.] 8] Two LONG posts in a row, filled with lengthy explication of points not under contention, interspersed with self-righteous assertions, accusations of straw men, and so on. Excuse me, I have SHOWN the strawman arguments, including again above. 9] . . . my “ferocious” focus on two or three specific issues is now, in your words, “selective hyperskepticism rooted in question-begging and even suppression of relevant evidence.” I am curious about what evidence I have suppressed, but, apparently, unless I agree with you I am forcing the world into the clutches of materialism. Really? Seriously? First, a clarification:t eh ferocious resistance to ID I am speaking of is in the broad context of our exchange – censorship, redefinitions of science, career-busting, slanderous accusations and the like, now also court rulings that are very questionably based. I would have hoped that that should have been fairly clear to one long familiar with the debates and conflicts over ID in Western culture. Second, If you claim to have long acquaintance with ID but so utterly distort it [as you do,on evidence such as I have discussed just above], then it properly becomes a serious issue as to whether you are dialoguing in good faith but making basic errors or are debating using dubious tactics; which last is indeed argument in bad faith. At this point, I am still willing to hold the former, on the charitable assumption that there is a confusion on the basic method of science at work. [Sadly, in our day there is so much confusion about what science is and how it works, that it is very possible to make the sort of basic errors pointed out above.] So, I apologise for causing unintended offense. Having noted that, if there is resistance to correction and insistence on errors in the teeth of basic facts, then that is not a good sign at all. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Sorry: point no 9 . . .kairosfocus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

H'mm: It first seems that an apology is due on grounds of causing unintended offense, though with a caveat on the underlying issue on the merits. GG, kindly cf 8 below. Thus, let us look at the underlying basis on the merits issues, with particular reference to comment 125 [which will show that there is a serious gap between the observed misperceptions/ misrepresentations and the claimed degree of familiarity with ID thought], then move on to the apology on the grounds that I “clearly” did not communicate adequately that I am not speaking of bad faith as a “proved” fact in the here and now; but of bad faith as -- regrettably -- the best explanation if and where is persistent refusal to accept correction of basic errors and insistence on dismissal of the ID case based on such strawmen. (For now, we can leave aside the well known, sadly all too commonly encountered, bad faith tactic of twisting words to try to gain an advantage by portraying the other side of a debate as a “bad” person.) On points: 1] GG, 125: What is the basis of your proof here? FSCI is “the mark of intelligence.” You can see that assumption, right? Your “proof” hangs in it. But isn’t that exactly one of the two points under contention? See 109 for reference. If this was an “unassailable point,” would I have spent some much of my time assailing it? Excuse me, GG, but we are not dealing with "proofs" but empirically based scientific inferences. In short, unfortunately, you are misrepresenting what we are saying right from the outset. The technical name for that fallacy, FYI, is the straw-man. Wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it[3]. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent.
Then, even the very posts on this thread are examples in point of how FSCI is -- per so far un-exceptioned observations, where we directly know the causal story -- a reliable and even routine product of intelligence. That is not a [question-begging] “assumption” but an easily exemplified, empirically reliable observation. [Strawman no 2.] Let's take the above excerpt from you as an example, i.e. 312 ASCII discrete-state characters, at 128 states per element; or a config space of 128^312, or ~2.82 * 10^657 cells. This is complex in the Dembski-type sense [which is based on the number of quantum states that the cosmos we observe will have from its origin at the big bang to the heat death of the cosmos as we project it, i.e a metric of the probabilistic resources of the observed cosmos so that if something is significantly more improbable than 1 in 10^150, it is improbable that the cosmos acting as a giant lottery will be able to find it -- not all conceivable lotteries are winnable!], being well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits worth of information storage capacity. It is functionally specified as English language text, and it is complex beyond the UPB, even as extended to take in reasonable islands of functionality with up to 10^150 functional cells altogether. Thus, we confidently infer to an agent, rather than to lucky noise, which it is logically conceivable could generate such a configuration through chance processes. And, in light of other contextual cues, this is the case: FSCI correctly points to atgency. At this point, so many cases have been adduced in point that the real empirical challenge is not to exemplify FSCI as the product of agency, but to find a credible counter-instance whereby there is a known chance + necessity process that generates an instance of FSCI. [I have often issued a challenge to set up a million retired PC's and disk drives, to spew random noise across the disks and see if a viable sense-making, functional text string of 500 or more bits emerges.] So, the attempt to turnabout the burden of proof fails; as it is an apt example of selective hyperskepticism on your part. And, that is exactly what I and others have repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere. 2] your proof that we can identify God’s actions in nature is because DNA-FSCI proves intelligence. Yikes! First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, in science nothing of consequence is a “proof.” We have more or less reliable, empirically anchored explanations and inferences, also observations. So, you have distorted what has been said, making it into a strawman caricature, now repeated in the teeth of corrections from other posters [especially note GP's remarks above and some by Eric, Frosty and SB] and myself. Unfortunately, you then go on to build a card-castle on your selectively hyperskeptical attempt to assert question-begging on our part. Here's the deal: in science, we observe real-world patterns and infer hyps that explain them. We subject to tests on known cases, until it is credible that the hyp is reliable. We then induce, per the general [as opposed to absolute] uniformity of the natural world principle -- of course an unproved thesis of scientific work -- that the reliable explanation is, provisionally speaking, a general one. At this point, the burden then shifts to those who would overturn the validity of the reliable pattern. Sounds familiar? It should; cf. Wiki for a on the basics of scientific method 101:
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
In the case in view, we have laid out the observation that FSCI exists and in the many cases where we know the causal story [i.e on empirical testing] it is routinely the product of intelligence. Indeed, so far there are no known exceptions in such test cases. How have you responded? Have you shown a counter instance? [Such would give an immediate refutation by empirical counter example and would be decisive.] No, you have not – most likely because you cannot. Instead you have tried to brand the empirically anchored principle as if it were a mere question-begging, dubious “assumption.” Then, when someone has gone on to use the principle to point out that DNA is an instance of FSCI which phenomenon per the principle of the reliably observed source of FSCI is a product of agency, you then triumphalistically announce: “Yikes!” Sorry, it is you who are caught out here, GG: caught out in question-begging selective hyperskepticism regarding the commonly accepted and highly successful basic scientific method. 3] you go onto claim that your are disproving my point about God, despite the fact that you also claim that the “intelligence” in your proof has nothing to do with God because ID doesn’t deal with God, just intelligence. Excuse me. Where have I or any other responsible ID advocate in this thread spoken in terms of “proofs”? Have we not specifically and repeatedly corrected that term as inappropriate to scientific contexts? Why have you then insisted on using it to characterise what we have to say – apart from insistent misrrpresentation? Observe again: FSCI per scientific method and literally billions of test observations -- e.g an Internet full of them -- is a reliable empirical sign of intelligence. DNA is such an instance of FSCI, and so it is inferred as credibly the result of intelligent action. Standing by itself, that does not allow you to infer that the intelligence in question is within or beyond the cosmos -- as TBO long since said in their discussion in TMLO, circa 1984. That is, there is a longstanding statement from the very first technical level ID work, that DNA points to intelligence but not to who or what that intelligence is. One may then look at the context of DNA -- namely, it exists in a cosmos that requires exquisite fine-tuning and resulting organised complexity to be at all suitable for DNA-based life to exist. So, it is credible as a candidate working hypothesis at least that the cosmos in which DNA exists as a key component of cell-based life is also the product of agency, powerful, extracosmic highly intelligent agency with an intent to produce a life-habitable cosmos. Thus, we see that the inference to design, and the further context of that inference make -- at worldviews analysis level [i.e philosophy not science] -- the theistic God a credible candidate for the agent who made a life-habitable cosmos, and then onward, actual life in it. But, even moreso than with science, worldviews are instances of inference to best explanation and comparative difficulties testing of live alternatives, not “proofs.” That is we live by faith so we need to seek critically aware, reasonable faith. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Hi gary, I'm not sure where the "only one case" argument is coming from. We have thousands of examples of CSI resulting from intelligence. In regards to DNA, it's not being invoked as an explanation, but the subject of an inference. You seem to be claiming that DNA is used as the example meant to prove intelligent causes. It's not. It is the thing being analyzed. The inference is made because of the numerous extant examples of intelligently caused CSI, and the utter lack of non-intelligently caused CSI. This is why the inference to design is reliable. So we have a subject: DNA. There are three explanations on the table as to the cause: 1) Law; 2) Chance; 3) Intelligent Design. As to law: We know of no law that can result in the formation of complex abstract code. This doesn't mean we won't find one in the future, but until we do, it's off the table. The inference to design can be falsified here by in vitro demonstration of the law of CSI self-organization. As to chance: There is absolutely no evidence that the universe contains the probabilistic resources necessary to allow a chance assemblage of the most basic bacterial life. The design inference could be falsified mathematically by demonstrating that the complexity of living organisms is such that the chance assemblage of parts could easily be arrived at within the age of the universe. As to design: complex, abstract code is present in DNA. We know of only one cause that can consistently and repeatedly result in the generation of abstract, complex, specified codes: intelligence. We know of no material processes that can generate abstract codes of this complexity (or any complexity really). So of our three choices, design is clearly the winner. No assumptions need to be made. This is the unassailable point. We know that intelligent agency can produce complex and abstract codes. The very nature of intelligently designed codes is that their specification defies any observable/testable mechanism for their arrangement, save agency. If you're arguing that this is circular reasoning, don't forget that we have thousands of examples serving as proof of extant CSI linked directly to intelligent design, and no examples serving as proof for law+chance having any similar effect -- not even close. You can't invoke biology here either, or you're guilty of the same transgression that you previously accused StephenB of (circular reasoning). So it seems to me that you're left arguing for one of the above. You're either claiming that the CSI in DNA is due to law, in which case you're obligated to divulge the law; or your arguing that chance (in whatever way you wish to define it) is responsible -- again you're obligated to demonstrate an empirical or logical case that can be objectively established; or your argument really is that design is the best explanation for DNA. If you're trying to make a case for some combination of design+chance, design+law, or for a fourth "unknown" then your invoking something that is outside the scope of ID, or outside any sort of inquiry. In this case your argument is theological, relying on what you think you already know about how the designer interacts with material reality. This results in promoting an explanation prior to examining the evidence. Forgive me if I'm skipping past your points, but this thread has been notoriously hard to follow. Thanks for your time.Apollos_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

im saying its too early IMOP for anyone to stop the conversation on the grounds on foul play. I feel he may have had a good point of inquiry I tried to adress what i kinda thought it was on many occasions but I never really got to an explicit question propsition or statement that I felt warrented his level skepticism and his derogatory tone towards the theory. He started with this point about human intelligence being 100% of the data that we use to forn the ID thery. But I brought up animals and possibly aliens and said that the whole of nature could consist of information we just dont know- that is why we have the theory cause some things like DNA- the cell and living things and the process of evolution look like they require it. I was wondering if there was more to his question then I felt my answer readily dealt with.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

To be fair, I think kairosfocus made the "foul play" accusation first. But that's quite predictable: it always happens when kf disagrees with someone for long enough online. Guar-an-teed.larrynormanfan_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Frost, I thought post #10 above was quite elegant, and spot on. Responses (starting with StephenB in #15) basically accuse GG of misunderstanding ID. But it's not so much that he misunderstands ID as that he has a different understanding than the one StephenB offers. The one StephenB offers is ID's highly rehearsed public face, but that's not necessarily the only or even most legitimate way to think about ID.larrynormanfan_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

His entire last post said nothing!
Though it is hard to parse statements such as this, apparently, my “ferocious” focus on two or three specific issues is now, in your words, “selective hyper skepticism rooted in question-begging and even suppression of relevant evidence.” I am curious about what evidence I have suppressed, but, apparently, unless I agree with you I am forcing the world into the clutches of materialism. Really? Seriously?
He’s simply talking about Kairos' statements here-- nothing of any substance regarding ID.
"To the charge that I am conflating science and philosophy, I plead guilty. Since my “hyperskepticim” is rooted in two and only two (okay, maybe three) issues and my problems with 1) the “if not know law nor chance then intelligence” syllogism are scientific, while my problems with 1) “God must be identifiable separate from nature,” is philosophical, I am bringing the two together."
I don’t even understand this part. Ok you admit your being a hyper skeptic so what can anyone do then? With this hat on we can reject the big bang, evolution, thermodynamics, ID, gravitation, relativity, logic, mathematics etc. As far as your points go you say 3 but you list only 2 one time each- and I’m at a loss as to how they are connected. The syllogism of chance, necessity, intelligence is NOT the one that ID makes. ID makes the one of complexity, specificity, design. Chance and necessity don’t equal intelligence they equal improbability- that surpassing 10^150 matched with an arbitrary pattern gives is SC and a design inference. As for your second one, God is not the same thing as the designer. The designer is only framed by the steps I listed above. Whether it is connected with nature or separate with nature or both or neither - is a question for theology at this stage in the game.
Since, according to you, this means that I am arguing in bad faith (despite your stern correction), I guess we can leave it there and argue no more. Since your posts are more accusation and “correction” than discussion anyway, I will try to bear the loss.
So now he ends the debate before it was ever understood and calls Kairosfocus out for foul play?Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

larry, Ive been reading everyhting he says- He hasn't made a single explicit point!Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

For my part, I think garygagliardi has brought a great deal of insight into these discussions. He has argued forcefully and well and -- yes, kf -- in good faith, as far as I can tell. No need to accuse him in your usual fashion. He makes a lot of arguments I would have made if I were as smart or well-read.larrynormanfan_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus at 120: Two LONG posts in a row, filled with lengthy explication of points not under contention, interspersed with self-righteous assertions, accusations of straw men, and so on. Here is my favorite part (emphasis yours):
The fact that there is such a ferocious resistance to the inference to intelligent action from its signs based on force and on selective hyperskepticism rooted in question-begging and even suppression of relevant evidence shows that the data are speaking all too clearly for those committed to a worldview in which evolutionary materialism has more or less taken science captive to an agenda. But, worldview analysis on comparative difficulties relative to factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance his phil, not science. And the distinction was clearly and repeatedly drawn. If you further insist on the above conflation in the teeth of such correction, then we are within our rights to infer that you are not arguing in good faith.
Though it is hard to parse statements such as this, apparently, my "ferocious" focus on two or three specific issues is now, in your words, "selective hyperskepticism rooted in question-begging and even suppression of relevant evidence." I am curious about what evidence I have suppressed, but, apparently, unless I agree with you I am forcing the world into the clutches of materialism. Really? Seriously? To the charge that I am conflating science and philosophy, I plead guilty. Since my "hyperskepticim" is rooted in two and only two (okay, maybe three) issues and my problems with 1) the "if not know law nor chance then intelligence" syllogism are scientific, while my problems with 1) "God must be identifiable separate from nature," is philosophical, I am bringing the two together. Since, according to you, this means that I am arguing in bad faith (despite your stern correction), I guess we can leave it there and argue no more. Since your posts are more accusation and "correction" than discussion anyway, I will try to bear the loss.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

gary, I went back and tried to reread and decode your other posts. Please do us all a favor and write out your objection or points of inquiry "as explicitly as possible" in a 1,2,3, point numberd form. I think that we all largly agree but you keep objecting about this 100% concept. Please make it more explicit. I read you last post above and you have a chance to explicitly sate your point and refute Kairosfocus' and you did not. Please enlighten us.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus at 119: If you can read my posts and think that I haven't spent some years familiarizing myself with ID and its literature, you are quite mistaken. The issues here are very specific. If you think in challenging the 1) "not known law nor chance then intelligence" syllogism and 2) the abilities of ID to identify divine intelligence as separate from nature, I am building a "strawman caricature," please explain how. Are these not the basis of the discussion here? I can go down your entire post agreeing with everything until I come (as I inevitable must because it is in EVERY postin which an ID proponent claims to rebut me) to your statement:
Indeed, I think it is fair comment to observe that FSCI and IC are in all cases where we do directly know the causal process, reliable indicators of design.
This is the point were you simply assume that your point is proven in only we assume the exact point under contention. Your use of "all cases" really means actually one case. All your reasoning before and after hinges on this statement. You cannot construct an argument without, at some point, having to make this assumption nor can other ID proponents. Either you have gotten too lazy or so used to talking with people who agree on this point that you do not even recognize when you are using the point under contention to prove you argument. You do it AGAIN to make your argument about how I am wrong about not being able to identify God:
'Sorry; you need to look at the signs of intelligence principle again, and look at he underlying complex organisation of the cosmos — does this show intelligent action?
Again, this is the very point under contention so it does NOT prove anything. It does show something. It may suggest something. I may even agree with it. What I disagree with, for reasons cited and ignored again and again, is confusing something that is suggested with something proven. Again, we have no disagreement about what we believe about the nature of the universe. Our disagreement is about very specific points. Most of your post is wasted stating things that I agree with to come to a point where your whole argument hinges on my simply conceding what I disagree with without your arguing the point. Rather than explain the entire logic of ID, which I mostly agree with, I suggest you focus laser-like on our two or three simply points of difference.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

When we say all- it is probability and specificity that makes up out understanding of "all information or intelligence" if you will. Can we say for sure that we have the final handel on information and intelligence- no way! If that is all you are arguing then your right. But if you want to argue against specificity and complexity being the hall marks of intelligence then you need to specifiy your own arguemnt. It is all ways moot when you apply to hyper skepticism. You ahve to have smothing to replace our current definition with, obviously- and guee what- if you try and do so you will be appealing to the very same quetionalbe source that your argument began negating the force of- that is human expierence.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

So the theory is hinged on probability not human intelligence- and it is going to stay hinged too, from all of the evidence that I have see. The human complexity part is just the unique perspective we have found ourselves in at this stage in the game. Humans have nothing to do with this. We have to appeal to something else- something higher. Nature? Only if it is intelligently designed does it have the resources necessary to not only produce human beings and their creative potential, but also all of the natural potential we see in the biological world such as DNA- and this is to say nothing about the fine tuning of the cosmos.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Gery, First off, the theory does not hinge on human intelligence except in the way that all theories do- that is we need our minds to devise them and understand them. As I said earlier, just because there may only be one clear cut example doesn’t mean anything about the theory's strength. Would you say that they theory of DNA is flawed because there is only one plan for how it could work- the double helix? No, of course not. A theory is judged by the amount of evidence it has for its conclusion or method- it is judge by how well it explains things in comparison to other explanations. DE says things happen because of a much of mechanisms- while it is easy to create a story of how things evolved for example I could say "a fox came from when an ancient cat and ancient dog mated"- there needs to be an assessment of evidence yes, but also probability. Darwin’s theory has evidence for parts of it although people like Mike Behe think it is adequate at explaining about 2% of life's diversity- I am intuitively in agreement because there is the issue of improbability but your better to take his word than mine. Intelligent design however can do thing and design things that are highly improbably. Yes, information of the kind we speak of is usually human based. But what is aliens were discovered? The point is that clearly there is nothing special about human information as it could exist in other life forms as well. ID deals with inferences from the effects of intelligence- that is the arrangements and structure of matter in the universe. Human invention or design is just the clear cut example like the current concept of the double helix- it is what it is alone- and I have nothing to do with it.
"Would you accept claims like this in everyday life? Do you think they make people see more credible?"
Im guessing that is meant to be "seeM" more credible? Yes, it is fine as far as credibility. he theory of Dark matter is no better than ID and it is applauded by all of the Darwinian elitists. Dark matter appeals to nothing by extrapolated mathematics and speculations about the properties of matter. Even worse dark matter is said "to be invisible." You can get locked up in mental institutions making similar claims like this. I don’t know where you 100 keeps Cumming from. I feel you misunderstand the theory. It is possible that all things are designed. This is a matter of logical fact. The theory claims that we can detect the complex design up to a point. That is it. The only claim that the theory postulates I feel is that information is ubiquitous. That is it is everywhere and transcends matter. This is a 100% postulate but we don’t claim to be able to find 100% of the design. You are the only one painting that picture. And even more ID is about probability. It is here that the theory is truly hinged. That means that there could be a case of design that slips by or there could be a case that is attributed to design that was natural. maybe one species could have happened by chance- but all species? No. To say in ever case, I agree is an over statement- but to say in all of “our experience” is a very different animal indeed. I have never seen a hole in one, in golf, live in my entire life- but I know they happen. Have you ever seen, for example, the transformative evolution of one species into another via the DE pathways? One phyla into another? No. Not in "all of the experiences" of every man who has ever lived has this miraculous transformation occurred in anyone’s life time. On the other hand in my life I have witnessed the intelligently designed evolution of the Nissan Maxima. I even had one with a tremendous Bose sound system that was crystal clear even when I‘d turn it all the way up--- that is until I wrecked it ;)Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

gpuccio at 118: I too agree with much of what you say in this point, even about ID being a useful science. My only problem is with the two (now three) points on which ID gets into trouble, making its claims seem extravagant and even foolish (see 125), instead of useful. My problems with the original post on Heller is that his particular objection to idea regarding separating God from nature was correct. As I said at 10, I believe in a universe where "both the type of variations possible and the type of environments that the universe allows are NOT random, but tightly restricted by the laws of science, i.e. the mind of God." I even agree with your critique of 113, including that, "Design is the best option." My problem is with the inflated claims of "in every case," "all our experience," etc. which attempts to move "the best option" to "absolutely proven" when, in reality, we are talking about only one or two examples no matter how often they are replicated. About my point regarding the inability of the "not law, not chance, therefore intelligence" to convince people, you say:
Where is the problem? Nobody is ever obliged to agree with a specific scientific model.
The problem is that many in ID (look throughout this thread) really think that this issue of 'FSCI proves intelligence" is beyond doubt and question. So much so that they use it to prop up every argument. I am just a complete donkey for trying to explain why most people don't see it that way. While the problems of argument here are not nearly as bad as some science blogs (I have made the mistake ONCE of trying reasoned discourse at Panda's Thumb, and won't again), this overestimation of what is proven destroy thinking. My point about the cave and the Shroud of Turin is simpler than perhaps I have stated it. Though my specific target was about the weakness in "not known law nor chance, then intelligence" syllogism, what I am saying is that the way we usually distinguish intelligence is by the presence of artificial methods rather than natural ones. I do believe that information is a sign of intelligence, but not a certain one because we cannot know if information can arise in other ways. The CERTAIN sign of human intelligence information from artifice. We can clearly distinguish between the artificial world we create from the natural world that God creates by our methods of working. Another brief thought experiment to illustrate this point. A man threatens to kill someone, predicting that the person will die at a specific day and time to the minute and second. That person DOES die at that exact second. Did that specific information prove that threatener do it even if we don't know how? The proof and even suspicion of guilt would depend entirely on the means of death. If the person died in a manner that the threatener had absolutely no control over, say a lighting strike from a thunder cloud that everyone witnessed, for example, everyone would assume that, no matter how unlikely, the cause was simply chance, wouldn't they? The point is that the level of detailed information is less persuasive proving source than many on this blog think. What is really important is the means: artificial versus natural. If intelligence involved has no control over the method creating the information, it isn't the source. This is my problem both with the ID syllogism "proving" intelligence AND the claims that Heller was wrong when he pointed out that ID's arguments deprived God of the control of nature. Indeed, if God controls nature, a non-Darwinian, teleological "natural" evolution is possible and perhaps even likely. You raise an number of interesting other points that are well worth discussing, but time is limited, but thank you for this post. I feel like I am making progress.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

For the record, another Dinesh D'Souza article is up today - continuing his argument that evolution is not atheistic, but is instead wrongfully advertised as atheistic by some scientists. Therefore, the correct choice of action isn't to try and get ID into schools, or try and get evolution out, but to investigate whether these misrepresentations of evolution are being brought into the classroom - and if they are, to demand they be removed. I have to admit, I agree. Though I personally would go a step further, and argue how what we know of the natural world (from evolution to cosmology) strongly indicates design, even if it's only through arguments of reason and philosophy.nullasalus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Frost122585 at 116: Your argument hinges on the idea that ID can say everything about "not only human intelligence" but all intelligence based on one example. The problem with this idea is laid out at 113. Would you accept claims like this in everyday life? Do you think they make people see more credible? What if you had a friend who adamantly claims "in all his experience fishing worm are ALWAYS the best bait." When you asked him, "How many times have you been fishing?" He says, "Once." How vast is his knowledge of fishing. What if a business claimed "100% customer satisfaction," "never had a customer complaint," and "every one of our customers comes back again and again." But you notice the store is empty, so you asked, "How many customers do you have?" The business owner honestly says, "One." What are all those claims worth? It actually makes ID look foolish to use phrases such as "in every case," "in all our experience," and "100% of the time," when all those claims are based on a single example.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 105 and 115: At 115, you start with a statement that makes my problems with so many of your posts clear:
His argument goes like this: We cannot distinguish the presence of Divine intelligence from nature’s physical laws, because God controls nature. I have explained to him multiple times that this assumption is irrelevant to the method of finding evidence of Divine intelligence in nature. Realizing over time that he simply would not accept this point, I decided to explain the reason.
Notice what you say here: You have made a claim over and over again without explaining the reason for it. And, golly, I just wouldn't accept your claim without knowing the reasoning behind it. I must be a real donkey! However, by being such a donkey, we finally have a chance to see if there is any reasoning in your reason. Your start:
If, because God controls nature, God’s physical laws and his intelligence are INDISTINQUISHABLE, then FSCI, which is the mark of intelligence, would not be DISTINCTLY present in nature. Case closed, right? Wrong. gary continues to ignore and dismiss this unassailable point.
What is the basis of your proof here? FSCI is "the mark of intelligence." You can see that assumption, right? Your "proof" hangs in it. But isn't that exactly one of the two points under contention? See 109 for reference. If this was an "unassailable point," would I have spent some much of my time assailing it? To bolster this unassailable argument, you then go on to add your argument from 105. And I agree with everything quoted until you say:
That means that IF GOD’S INTELLIGENCE IS MANIFEST, we can SOMETIMES discover it in the form of FSCI, but we cannot, from a scientific perspective, attribute it to God. Beyond that, I cannot say anything more. These are the facts.”
Notice the same mistake again? Doesn't your argument again assume that FSCI can only arise from intelligence? So, we are back EXACTLY where we started. Again, I am not disagreeing with your conclusions. I too believe that complex information is a result of God's action and that he enabled us to find it. However, your "proof" of this is circular. I maintain 1) we cannot identify God actions as separate from nature (which was Heller's point) AND 2) that cannot know that DNA comes from intelligence. So your proof that we can identify God's actions in nature is because DNA-FSCI proves intelligence. Yikes! And it gets worse, because you go onto claim that your are disproving my point about God, despite the fact that you also claim that the "intelligence" in your proof has nothing to do with God because ID doesn't deal with God, just intelligence. So your COMPLETE line of reasoning is that I am wrong about our inability to separate God' action from nature because we can identify God's action in nature through the presence of complex information which proves intelligence, but not divine intelligence. DOUBLE Yikes! So, I am the donkey for not simply accepting your statements as obvious fact, forcing you to explain your reasoning. When you explain, it not only includes ideas that I cannot accept (DNA proving intelligence) but ideas that YOU cannot accept (the intelligence must be divine). Is this really the quality of reasoning that you are proud of? Is this the logical foundation for the ID movement? I know you are full of pride because of all your snipes about my living in a fantasy and so on. I challenge you to put that pride to work and craft a simple, clean argument of which you can be proud.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Well the case is as it is. There is only "one" example or anser to the structure of DNA- the double Helix. Yes the inference is inductive no one has claimed otherwise. If this exmple is not being used as often its not because of me, I use it all the time. Animal intelligence is obvious. I have never tried to calculate the probability of a bee's hive of a Beaver's Dam. I conceed that point. Bu the point is still valid that animals clearly share design ability. So i stand by my words but admit it is an infernce- that is it is not certain to be right but then again no scientific theory is. The world is composed of degrees of absolute truth.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Frost122585 at 114: In rebutting my claim that ID offers only one non-human example of FSCI, DNA.
First of all it is an estimate of “all of the particle events in the universe from explosion to implosion” that mathematically warrants the design inference. Read The Design Inference.
You can certainly make that claim, but will you also admit that a bit tenuous to take a stand on? If this was a strong argument, ID would make it more often. The fact that the hundred of so claims ID has made in just this thread all reference DNA, not "the universe" says how confident ID is in this idea. In DNA we have a clearly functional information system with coding elements and decoding elements. This is what makes it like human coded information, correct? Are you saying that anyone recognizes the universe similarly? What is the code? Where is the coding mechanism? How do you separate the code from the functional parts. You then cite animal intelligence as another example of intelligence. Perhaps you could give me an example of animal created FSCI? That is what we are taking about, right? Alien intelligence? If you had a strong case here, would you b e grasping at these particular straws? You then say:
ID does not claim to be able to detect all intelligence in the world it claims to be able to detect intelligences up to a certain level.
But again, what is that claim based on? One example of intelligence.garygagliardi_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus at 104, I see you are reading Locke. I have found a fascinating correlation in Locke's Essay CTHU. As you may well have noticed I have been studying Kurt Gödel for some time now. In a book that I read about him "A World Without Time" it focuses on his relationship with Einstein at Princeton and how Gödel inspired by the logical implications of relativity theory sought to find a solution to Einstein's field equations. In any event, what the mad genius actually ended up doing was to discover a description of the known universe that was mathematically and physically sound, though dependent on general relativity, which not only proved time travel existed but hat time itself in the linear sense did not. Hence, the title of the book. The simple linguistic formulation or explanation of Gödel’s universe was said to be one where "time was actually a space." That is time is merely "the distance" between two physical events" and perhaps nothing more. This is much like saying that space is the distance between two physical objects but has nothing to do with duration- except that it is its inverse. The mysterious correlation is found in none other than Locke's Essay Concerning The Human Understanding. Locke was born and died before Gödel was born and so one has to wonder whether Gödel’s idea of a space-time and perhaps Einstein's too- was actually stolen from Locke's manifold and philosophy. Einstein did once famously says "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Perhaps I have stumbled on the meaning of that quote. Here is the text from Locke....
"As the idea of the particular duration of any thing, is an idea of that portion of infinite duration, which passes during the existence of that thing; so the time when the thing existed, is the idea of that space of duration, which passed between some known and fixed period of duration, and the being of that thing." - Locke, ECTHU page 191, book 2 of Ideas, chapter 15: Of Duration And Expansion, Considered Together
Forcing one’s way through the classical philosophical works of old can, at times, sure seem to have its benefits.Frost122585_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

garygagliardi, Since you have not yet had time to respond to my most recent post at 106, in the interest of short summaries here is a concise version of the three points I made. Looking forward to your responses. 1) You are still incorrectly attributing to ID an assumption of detecting "all intelligence". Straw man attack. 2) Even if it were true, a claim that divine intelligence is indistinguishable from undirected natural processes would have no effect on or relevance to an ID inference, which is made only for cases that are distinguishable. Heller's complaint is a religious claim with no relevance to scientific inferences to intelligent agency, regardless of whether the claim is true or false. 3) Your rock thought experiment incorrectly supposes that such a case is not "artificial" if the medium is natural, e.g. rock. This misses the central fact that it is the arrangement, not the material of the medium, which is artificial, i.e. beyond the range of undirected natural processes as judged tentatively by science according to the evidence it has. Supplemental examples: For your rock drawing, try substituting Mount Rushmore and see if that suggests intelligent design using a natural medium. Or Case 1: Visible water vapor high in the atmosphere (i.e. clouds) might accidentally look kind of like a bunny, or maybe a turtle, or something else. Case 2: Visible water vapor high in the atmosphere spells out "EAT AT JOES". It is not the medium which matters. What matters is the artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the material of the medium is "natural".ericB_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Gary, 2: First, I must commend GP for an exemplary, very gentle, patient, well-written corrective response. [I do note that I believe Kant had a problem or two in very sharply marking a dichotomy between the world of perceptions and ideas and the world of things in themselves, but that is for another day's debate.] Now, GG, let us respond on points relative to your 111: 1] Since the relationship that I describe between God and nature as that God controls nature, you would therefore agree that he does not [leave behind him as a sign of his intelligent work, FSCI]? No, I do not, starting with the organised, functional, information rich complexity of the physics of the cosmos. Cf my always linked, Section D. That is, as I just posted, we may infer from the physics of the cosmos and its finely tuned, evidently purposeful and functional structure, that we see sings that point to an extra-cosmic, powerful, creator who intended to create a cosmos in which life such as ours is feasible. That is compatible with the God of theism, and so it is at least reasonable that such a God can and perhaps did leave “behind” signs of his intelligent action that may be viewed as functionally specified, complex information. And, when we go to the writings and a key speech of two chief founders of the major theistic tradition in the Western Civilisation of which we are both a part, as an example of typical theistic thought, we see:
JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS – in effect the rational principle himself], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. JN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men . . . . AC 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.' RO 1:19 . . . what may be known about God is plain to [men], because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles . . . . COL 1:15 He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
That sounds to me rather like these worthies had a view of God the Creator and sustainer of the world in whom all things hold together, and in whom we live, move and have our being, that expected to see signs of his intelligent, purposeful, and indeed moral action. Indeed, so much so that they exposed their theologies to empirical test on this point. Indeed, that is what is reflected in the premature triumphalism of Dawkins, when he said that Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So, while you may have -- and are free to have -- a different view of God, it plainly does not follow from the fact that God may have created and controls the cosmos, that his work in it will not leave discoverable signs of his intelligent action. Indeed, just the opposite is to be expected, once one factors in that God may have reason to want to relate to his creatures personally, i.e. us. So, the issue as to whether design that may trace to God is detectable or just conceivable is something to be examined, not assumed or asserted. And,t eh case of cosmological ID raises some interesting pointers. Similarly, once we see the sort of universe in which we live in, we then see that the evident design of life -- recall how often evolutionary materialists are forced to insist that the apparent design is an illusion [complete with censorship to enforce that insistence] – points to as the best (but obviously not only) candidate for originator of life on earth, the same intelligence that is responsible for the life-facilitating design of the cosmos. Nor is the testimony of millions across the centuries and currently that hey have met and know that creator personally and as the transformer of their lives, easily dismissed evidence; unless we are willing to resort to selective hyperskepticism. 2] you would also agree that IDs method can identify God as the source of FSDI, despite its frequent claims that is does not even attempt to do so? Observe the above and previous. Nowhere have we said --- and no responsible technical level ID person says -- that ID as a scientific method identifies God as the source of FSCI. Indeed, the design inference is an inference from signs to intelligent ACTION not the identity of the ACTOR. In short, this is a strawman misrepresentation. I pointed instead to the specific focus where science routinely studies signs of intelligence and infe3rs thereto, relative to the known causal facrtors, chance, necessity, agency. I then insisted on a CONSISTRENT application of this inference when we see the same signs of intelligence. In certain situations, this consistent reading of the source of organised, functionally specified complexity [e.g in DNA as a digital code bearing molecule, or the finetuned physics of the cosmos] then establishes a credible datum against which philosophical level worldview analysis may happen. Namely, that on good scientific induction, it is credible that intelligence acted in certain contexts. Other contextual cues and live option alternatives at phil level then lead to a situation where some suggest or conclude that the scientific results are compatible with or even support that God is a relevant candidate for causing the identified intelligent action. The fact that there is such a ferocious resistance to the inference to intelligent action from its signs based on force and on selective hyperskepticism rooted in question-begging and even suppression of relevant evidence shows that the data are speaking all too clearly for those committed to a worldview in which evolutionary materialism has more or less taken science captive to an agenda. But, worldview analysis on comparative difficulties relative to factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance his phil, not science. And the distinction was clearly and repeatedly drawn. If you further insist on the above conflation in the teeth of such correction, then we are within our rights to infer that you are not arguing in good faith. As to SB's remarks, he clearly was pointing out that FSCI is a sign of intelligence, and it is not reasonable to infer that God, as the creator-sustainer of the cosmos, cannot leave that behind. 3] we have one and only one example of intelligence, humanity. And we also have one and only one example of FSCI that we know doesn’t have a human origin, DNA. Simply false. We have many more or less intelligent animals, we have computers and robots that are/may be fully independent intelligences, depending on your estimation of the current status of AI. And, we live in a cosmos in which our existence shows that intelligent agents may exist in it. We have no grounds for artificially constricting the existence of intelligence to ourselves. As tot eh FSCI, not only is tere a lot of it in biology that goes far beyond DNA, but the existence of DNA is a powerful case in point, not one to be dismissed. What do we know about the source of codes that are integrated into algorithms and associated with machinery that implements it, from every case that we directly know the causal process? Why, then – apart from selective hyperskepticism – do you wish to resit the reasonable inferences from that? Moreover, the most significant case of non-human originated FSCI is in the physics of the cosmos; as already has been briefly discussed. 4] There is a huge difference between perceiving God, which I do and “testing for” God, which is I claim that ID’s methods cannot do. (And again, I know that ID doesn’t claim to test for God, but it assumes its tests for intelligence must be positive for God’s intelligence. While they MAY be positive, they are not necessarily so. First, no scientific reasoning is about things being “necessarily” so [that is in the province of deductive logic and/or mathematics], nor is there any assertion that say the Explanatory Filter is positive for all cases of intelligence, much less for cases of that candidate for certain cases of design: God's intelligence. [The EF is deliberately designed to be heavily biased to false negatives, through a very stringent criterion of complexity, at least 500 or so bits of information storing capacity. That is part of why when it rules positive, it does so very reliably based on our experience of cases where we can directly cross-check.] Next, the Judaeo-Christian thought I cited earlier speaks of God being clearly discernible from the creation order in which we live. That means that -- on that worldview -- God's existence and action would reasonably leave empirically detectable traces of intent-full intelligent action, which may then be empirically investigated. So, if key cases in the natural world show signs of such intelligent action, or strongly show no mark of such intelligent action, that would be relevant to the empirical support for the view, or otherwise. As Dawkins shows, many over the past 150 years or so have thought that Darwinism and its related extensions show good reason to infer that the design perceived by some in the context of OOL and its diversification is illusory. So much so, that he asserts that those who differ with his view are “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” But in fact there is good scientific reason – i.e. the empirically anchored design inference -- to see that the appearance of design in nature is apparent for the excellent reason that it is on inference to best explanation, credibly real. GEM of TKI PS: You need to note that -- as has been repeatedly pointed out to you [cf 100 above] -- natural regularities show themselves in low contingency, and that high contingency traces to chance and/or agency. Think about the case of a die sitting on a table [natural regularity] and which face is uppermost [contingency]. When the complexity of the contingency passes 500 - 1000 bits of information storing capacity and there is a functionally specified pattern, we have good reason [as previously discussed] to infer to agent action as the cause.kairosfocus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Gary: A] First off, some ID 101: 1] A good recent overview. 2] Probably the best general audience level introductory article, with an emphasis on the biological side. [There is a cosmological side, which has perhaps even bigger implications. Cf Section D my always linked, through my handle in the LH column.] 3] A good discussion in a follow up article on the cultural, historical, philosophical and general intellectual significance of the controversy surrounding ID. 4] FAQs on ID issues, by IDEA Center. You may find it useful to note the following in-a-nutshell intro to ID, from the first linked:
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. Intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it can also be detected in at least some features of living things.
In short, and citing Dembski's definition:
intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.
In another context, he discusses:
Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking. Its focus is not a designer’s mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign). What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such. (William A. Dembski, “Chapter 1: Intelligent Design: What is intelligent design?” in The Design Revolution, pg. 33, The Design Revolution (InterVarsity Press, 2004)
From this point on, we have good reason to expect that you will show us that you are addressing the real issues of ID, not a strawman caricature. B] Intelligence: We are verbalising, tool-using intelligent beings. That means that we live in a cosmos which is compatible with the existence of intelligent beings. We have no reason to infer that we are the only existing or possible intelligences -- especially when we see that animals exhibit in certain cases manifestations of [limited] intelligence. So, if we see entities behaving in ways that show creative problem solving and/or conceptual behaviour, we will have reason to infer that these entities are intelligent. C] Signs of Intelligences Further to the just above, we see that intelligent actors leave certain signs of intelligence behind when they work. We study those signs, and infer from that to intelligence on a more or less reliable way. Two of those signs are: [a] functionally specified, complex information (e.g. long enough, code-bearing messages), and organised, irreducible complexity of functional entities (e.g. entities made up from parts that when any one of a core set of the parts breaks down or is missing, the function ceases; which e.g. we routinely use in troubleshooting, and in knockout studies for genetic analysis, though we must note on redundancy). Routinely and reliably we use these insights to infer to design in the day today world and in scientific contexts, e.g. through the design of experiments that use statistical techniques to distinguish treatment and natural variability. Indeed, I think it is fair comment to observe that FSCI and IC are in all cases where we do directly know the causal process, reliable indicators of design. There may be designs that are "missed" but when they rule design, they do so accurately and reliably in our observation. So, absent clear, actually observed [not hypothetical cave paintings . . .], counter-instances, we have every reason to induce that we may trust these principles, as we similarly trust many other scientific principles. D] Intelligence and nature vs God ... Now, you also raise the claim that “God” created the world and his intelligent action is therefore foundational to nature and cannot be distinguished from it. Sorry; you need to look at the signs of intelligence principle again, and look at he underlying complex organisation of the cosmos -- does this show intelligent action? It seems so, for many reasons as discussed in brief in my always linked section D. So, we may reasonably infer to an extracosmic intelligence of vast power who made a cosmos suitable for life, which required exquisite fine-tuning of the physics of the cosmos. The operation of the laws and processes of nature is distinct from the setting up of the same, and in a way that shows that there is complex organisation that points to intelligent action. Is this “science” inferring to -- horror of horrors, in today's ever so militantly secularist intellectual culture -- “God”? Not at all. It is inference to the credible significance of he signs of intelligence embedded into the underlying fabric of the natural world. Identifying who or what that intelligence is is another story entirely, one that engages other contexts of discussion, i.e philosophy in this case. The evidence form science is CONSISTENT with the relevant intelligence being the God of theism, but that is not the same as that the inference form organised complexity here points to intelligent action. Observe the careful distinction: we show that it is arguable per the science that we may infer from signs to intelligence; i.e we have facts and inferences we have reason to view as reliable per those facts. That is where the science can take us. In this case, we cvan go beyond, into another world of discussion, worldview analysis: that inferred to intelligence from its context of power and cleverness and extracosmic status -- after all, it is very credible our observed cosmos had a beginning and is thus contingent -- is compatible with a certain view in philosophy: a personal, extracosmic intelligence of vast power as out creator. So, it is reasonable to see that we can distinguish intelligence in nature, even in the case of a candidate for “God.” GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

garygagliardi: After your very clear answer at #112, I can finally, and with satisfaction, say that we agree on practically all. First of all, I again apologize for misrepresenting your thought in my previous post: that was not in bad faith, but because I had really not understood it well. This is one of those happy cases where sincere discussion, though passionate, brings out better reciprocal understanding. So, to sum up the way I see our "agreement": You say: "As far as defining “nature” and “natural,” let’s cut to the chase: by natural I mean the material universe, that we can perceive with our senses and instruments and that we attempt to describe in our science. The soul is thus far out. God is definitely out. Human consciousness is an interesting case because it is at the center of our perception of nature, but we cannot perceive it except by inference in others. I cannot be any more clear." That's clear enough, for me, and I can partially agree with your position, even if I would define some points a little bit differently in my position. But a comparison of our positions about those points is not the issue. Just as an example, in my position I would not be able to give a clear-cut definition of nature as: "the material universe, that we can perceive with our senses and instruments and that we attempt to describe in our science". I would prefer to define it as "the idea of reality that we build from our perceptions with our senses and instruments plus our mental reconstruction processes, and that we attempt to describe in our science". In other words, I would not give an absolute existence to the object of perception ("the material world"), about whose real nature we know practically nothing. In that case, the word "nature" becomes only a synonim of "our specific phenomenal perception of reality". But that's not the point. My point, which I hope is easily acceptable, is that the concept of nature is not necessarikly the same thing to all, and that for some aspects it is even more elusive than the concept of God, from which it in some ways depends. That's why I don't like the word, and I think it can easily generate misunderstandings (which, it seems, is proven by our debate). Another point which would leave me in a slightly different position is human consciousness. For me, it is a direct manifestation of the soul, that is of a transcendental perceiver. Moreover, I wouldn't agree that: "we cannot perceive it except by inference in others". I don't believe that we can't perceive our personal consciousness: we do perceive it intuitively, that is directly, and on that perception we build all our further reconstruction of reality, including the inference of the existence of similar consciousness in others. But the certainty of he existence of "our" consciousness is not inferential, but direct and intuitive. It certainly does not pass through the senses, but rather it is the basis of any sensorial or mental experience, which all take place "in" it. But, as I said, comparison between our different perspectives on those points is not the issue here, and it is not my intention to open a new, vast philosophical thread on those points. Just consider what I have said as an incidental clarification and as an example of how it is possible to have different interpretations of the concept of nature, even when sharing many fundamental beliefs (God, the soul, and so on). But let's go on. You say: "Replacing the term “nature” with any set of laws is wrong-headed (the whole discussion of “deterministic” aside because I think we agree). The reason is that any set of laws is only an artificial and limited understanding of nature." After what I have said before, maybe it is more clear to you why I always want to replace "nature" with something, and more precisely with some subset of our "representation of reality". That's because I believe that our concept of nature, however we define it, can't be any more than that: a partial subjective concept, a partial subset of our subjective representations of what may exist. In other words, for me "nature" always means "an artificial and limited understanding", and therefore I feel I can replace the term with some "set of laws", or any other more detailed definition, without any contradiction. Again, I am not trying to force my point of view, just to describe it. I have no interest in imposing my philosophical or religious points of view, and I usually not even discuss them here. You say: "Given your knowledge of the history of science, can you give me some good examples when any generation of scientists were able to predict with any accuracy what a future generation would or would not find in terms of new principles? Every generations “logically and mathematically proven” predictions have proven false again and again. I am sorry if I lack your faith in any current set of predictions given this track record." Here I think that probably you still misunderstand me, and the main attitude of ID, a little bit. At the core of that misunderstanding, in my opinion, are some assumptions you seem to make about the meaning of science, which are in my opinion incorrect. But please, believe that I am not trying to speak for you, or deliberately misunderstand you. I am just trying to clarify what I think. If I am wrong, I will be absolutely happy to receive from you a better explanation of your thought. I will try to clarify where the problem is directly from your statements, but in essence the problem is only one, and I hope that in the end it may be clear enough. Basically, the problem is that, in a correct (at least for me, but also for most modern philosophy of science) epistemological scenario, scientific knowledge is never, for its same nature, "logically and mathematically proven". I tried to make that point clear in my previous post. In brief, logical and mathemathical proof is, in essence, "deductive". I will not try to go into detail, and I understand that these are difficult, and often controversial, subjects, but still I think we must try to clarify them a little. Logics and mathemathics are the only subsets of scientific thought for which I would use the word "proof", if with the term "proof" we mean "logically certain demonstration". It is important to remark that the "certainty" of the logical proof is a consequence of its deductive nature, ans so it is in a sense a limitation, rather than a merit. Logical proof is "certain" only because it does not really add any knowledge to a set of arbitrary premises, it just clarifies their logical implications, "if" we accept the premises "and" the implicit value of a few fundamental logical principles, such as identity, non contradiction, and so on. But, in essence, both the premises "and" the logical principles are not necessarily warranted or assigned a final relevance in reality. Empirical science is another thing. It is a tentative explanation of facts by logico-mathematical "models", and therefore: a) It is alway a theory: never a fact, and never a proof (demonstration) of anything b) It is never certain c) It is always falsifiable by either new facts or better theories d) It is mostly inferential, and not deductive, although the logico-mathemathical "model" in the theories certainly has deductive components e) As a consequence of point d), it does add new knowledge to the premises, but that knowledge is never certain f) Although not certain, that knowledge is often (not always) useful, both practically and cognitively That is a brief (and very partial) summary of my conception of science, and I believe that it could be shared by many who are serious about science itself. It has certainly good foundations in the history of philosophy of science, but obviously other paradigms of science are possible, and nothing of that, as always happens in philosophy, is non controversial. Anyway, having clarified (I hope) my position, and assuming that it may represent the general position of others (not all) in the ID field, I will go on commenting some of your statements, although at this point the issues should already be clear. "Every generations “logically and mathematically proven” predictions have proven false again and again." That's perfectly normal. They were not "proven" in that sense. When they are falsified, they are falsified, period. If they are not falsified, that does not mean that they are, in any way, "proven". "I am sorry if I lack your faith in any current set of predictions given this track record." I have no such faith. I agree with you. At the end of the nineteenth century, most scientists were convinced that physics was virtually complete and finished, and that was just a few years before the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics. Even for mathematics, which should be purely deductive, the "deductions" of a guy named Godel came as a devastating novelty. That is the glory of science, not its limit (although, in another sense, it is certainly a limit). Most of the ID battle is of that kind: having a new and better paradigm accepted against the arrogant certainties of scientism (scientism is not science, it is only a bad philosophy-religion of science). "Nature is the phenomena that we attempted to describe but it is in no way limited by our description " Science (good science, I mean) is never trying to limit "nature", only to describe it with better "maps". The map is not the territory. Scientific theories are maps, and don't limit anything. But some maps are better (more useful) than others, when we are to travel. "which is my problem with using “laws” in ID syllogism to assign cause" That's the main point. ID never tries to use any sillogism to assign cause. Sillogism is a logical tool. ID is a scientific theory, and it is inferential. So, your "sillogism": "if not known laws, and not randomness, then design" does not exist in ID. What ID is saying is: a) Known laws are not able to build an explanatory scientific model b) The same is true for randomness, or for a mixture of the two c) Design (an obervable reality) allows to build a satisfying model. d) Design is the best scientific model (indeed, at present the only credible one) we have "at present". That's all. No sillogism, no proof of anything. Only sensible, humble, correct scientific approach. If anyone in the ID field wants to consider design as a logically "proven" and incontrovertible issue, that's his problem, not mine, and not ID's. To my knowledge, none of the serious representatives of ID has ever done that, but I could be wrong. I am perfectly satisfied that ID is the best scientific model we have, and would be very happy if even a significant minority of the scientific academy would accept that. By the way, ID has never tried, to my knowledge, to be the "only" scientific model. I believe that plurality of models is the only guarantee in science (like in politics) of true progress. "One example of intelligence, PROVES little about ALL intelligence." True, but it is a good basis for scientific inference. The point is the same. "I am sure that are specific names for this fallacy in logic and, I suspect, statistics." There is no fallacy here. Inference works that way, and statistics (inferential statistics, I mean) is only the mathemathical support for inference (in a fisherian scenario, it just gives you the probability of being wrong if you reject the null hypothesis, but that's not the only interpretation, obviously). "When we universalize the nature of a characteristic based upon such a limited number of samples, we are saying nothing useful." I'll answer here to your whole discourse about generalization. Obviously, generalization is a source of error, but at the same time it is a powerful cognitive tool, when used with carefulness. From a logical point of view, the issue is simple: you have correct generalizations, which are logically true, and incorrect generalizations, which are logically false. That is logically computable, and there should be no problem with that, except in the details of the computation. But, again, here we are talking of empirical knowledge, and empirical knowledge is inferential, and there is no way to know in absolute if an inference is true or wrong. That's the substance of empirical science. You speak of "a limited number of samples". I think you don't mean "a limited number of samples of biological information", because we have billions of them. What I think you mean is that we have only two "kinds" of CSI, human-made and biological, and therefore the inference from one to the other is hazardous. That's true. It is hazardous, and statistics cannot help there (just two cases). But, again, we have just two cases, and those two cases represent a very big part of what we can observe in the outer world (not as material mass, I mean, but as type of phenomena). Therefore, some scientific inference is warranted just the same, because we cannot renounce to have scientific models for such a big part of reality. And again, in absence of any better model (indeed, of any "credible" model) design remains the best option. "Your point four uses this same reasoning only more extensively using the example of how carefully ID analyzes human CSI. I accept all that analysis as good and valid. I only object to universalizing from one example." OK. Nobody is trying to universalize: just to infer. "But God does not control events through laws. Laws are only expressions of our limited understanding of nature. Laws help us manipulate nature by understanding its rules. Divinity does not “control through laws.” Divinity controls directly." The strange thing is that I perfectly agree with you. I do believe that laws are only our way of understanding a constant expression of divine will, and not an independent principle put there in the beginning. But we must remark that here we have moved from the scientific level to a philosophical level. I have no problem with that, but that's why I have never discussed that personal conviction here. But it seems that we differ in some way in the implications of that. See the following points. "Events chosen by God are not “constrained by laws” as you claim, though they are for humans, who must work within the law." Indeed, I was speaking of the human perspective, which is all we have both in science and philosophy. In a way, we are always speaking of the human perspective. "To say that “No event of the CSI type can be explained by that kind of laws,” says more about our knowledge of our universe (which is what is represented in known laws) than it does divine action." No problem with that. ID is about our knowledge of the universe. That's no objection to ID. "I don’t know how to address your statements about Gods need to “super-impose information to those laws” except that this idea arises from your confusion about the first point. Your statement that, “It happens “inside” time, and modifies phenomena in a discernible way,” is also necessary by your conception of a God who did not, at the first moment of creation, instill in his creation everything that was needed to fulfill his plan, a God that must reach into time to “adjust” that creation. While I do not make any statements about whether this happens or not, I am simply saying that we cannot insist that it MUST happen." That's more interesting, and opens new points. First of all, as I have repeated maybe too many times, nobody is trying to say that anything MUST happen. Not in science, and not even in philosophy. Philosophy is no less inferential than science, and no less uncertain. So, even if we have moved here from science to philosophy, many methodological cautions still apply. But the interesting philosphcal point is that, from our previous agreement about God directly controlling reality, I would derive exactly the opposite model. God "always" works (in creation) "inside" time (at least, after having created it), only He does that with different modalities, or at least with what appears to our reconstruction of reality (science, philosophy) as different modalities: one appears to us as laws (necessity); another one appears to us as randomness; another one appears to us as CSI; others are possible (direct miracles being one of them). All of them are different forms of our reconstruction of reality (which, by the way, is made by other God-given faculties, and has probably a purpose). Are they the same thing for God? Probably. I like to think that, but who am I to tell? Are they the same thing for our reconstruction of reality? Absolutely not. They are clearly discernible one from the other, using correct methods. And again, "clearly" does not mean "with absolute certainty". At risk of being boring, I repeat: science "and" philosophy are about our perception of reality, not about reality itself. They are maps, not the territory. Even when we hypothesize the noumenon, we are still drawing a phenomenal map. Even when we (philosophically) postulate a God, we are drawing a map. At that level, our subjective reconstruction of reality is all we have. There is no "absolute" truth there. So, God "super-imposing" information, in other words generating CSI in biological beings, is just a different modality in which we perceive God's action. But the point is: it is "different", both from a scientific and a philosophical point of view. About God "reaching out" to "adjust": in my model, God is "always" reaching out, even in the workin of the so called natural laws (I understand we agree on that). And he is not "adjusting" anything, just directly expressing His will in different (for us) modalities. But let me incidentally remark that, in creation, there are other God created agents, endowed by God with free will, who are expressing themselves (I mean humans, at least). "Going onto my examples, the fact that you attribute the image in the cave to design is immaterial. My point is only that not everyone would agree." Where is the problem? Nobody is ever obliged to agree with a specific scientific model. Scientific consensus is a myth, and an ugly myth indeed. But, if my model has some scientific explanatory value, if indeed it is at a certain moment the best explanatory model, that can be recognized by many (never by all, and not necessarily by a majoriy). That's how science works, and evolves. "I believe most people would not be convinced by this logic even though it convinces you" People should not be "convinced" by any logic, but some of them may appreciate how well a logical model explains known data. And they can anyway prefer another model. That's how science, healthy science, works. Plurality, tolerance, respect and passionate debate. I still can't get your point about the Shroud of Turin, but that's probably not important. As I see it, if the resurrection happened (which I do believe), it was an observable event, in other words a fact. If Jesus left his image on the Shroud, where is the problem? Was it by natural laws? Probably. Was the image CSI? Probably, but only in the sense that it is an analogic record of a face, and a face is CSI. The information is only transferred to a storing media. So, I still can't see your point, but it's probably my fault. Maybe you can explain that better. "In the end, you agree with me that we are not forced to recognize divinity and I agree with you that the good work that ID does is scientific. Where ID gets screwed up is where it attempts to have religious implications, which was Heller’s original point." What gets "screwed up"? ID, as far as I know, has never, and I say never, attempted to have religious implications. That would contradict ID's definition as a scientific theory. I'll say that again. ID never attempts to have religious implications. But you can say: many IDers do think that ID has religious implications. That's true, I am one of them. Where is the problem?. As far as I can see, practically anything in the world has religious implications: facts, theories, feelings, and so on. I have a very vast conception of religion, which for me ncludes practically everything. Any religious implicaton postulated for ID is the respobsibility of the specific guy who makes it, not of ID. For me, anybody is free to see atheistic implications in ID. I have no problem with that, and I am ready to discuss any point of view, provided it is interesting and fairly expressed. So, which is "My personal religious implication from ID"? Very simple: a)I think that ID is the best scientific model to explain biological information at present (no religious implications here). b)I think that ID is a model very well compatible with many different religious beliefs (not necessarily all). c)I think ID is not very much compatible with most materialistic, purely deterministic and atheistic philosophies of life, maybe only, and with difficultes, with a very restricted subset of them. That's the real source of materialists'anger against ID. d) I think that practically all the current alternative explanations of biological information (let's call them collectively, for the sake of simplicity, post-darwinian models) are scarsely, if at all, compatible with most serious religious beliefs. That's why I have no sympathy, and certainly no cognitive esteem, for TE. That's all. I take the full responsibility for these statements. In no way they are statements of the ID theory itself. I see no other religious implications of ID, and whoever sees any others is free to state and defend them, at his own responsibility. But again, and I hope finally, ID is not "attempting" to have any religious implicatons. It is only attempting to make its specific scientific points.gpuccio_{April 7, 2008
April
04
Apr
7
07
2008
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

thats obviously space "shiP!"***Frost122585_{April 6, 2008
April
04
Apr
6
06
2008
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

His point displays his inherent ignorance of the theory of ID and I don’t mean that derogatorily. ID is about intelligence, information and design. Not only human intelligence- it could be animal or alien or natural is the planets revolving around the sun could be considered teleological. The very theory of ID speculates that intelligence does not simply exist as a descriptive illusion in the human manifold or exclusively of it. Who would argue that animals don’t exhibit a certain level of intelligence? ID says that intelligence is "defined by its effects (emphasis added)." We think that information transcends matter for various reasons but it is in the structure of the matter that information makes itself empirically manifest. Whether that is a beaver's dam or a space shit- or writing or a signal from another planet doesn’t matter. Specified complex arrangements of matter can be inferred to be the product of intelligence witch is “that transcendent property that accounts for the organization of things in the universe.” We are however only justified in a design inference if it crosses the threshold of the universes probabilistic resources. 10^150.Frost122585_{April 6, 2008
April
04
Apr
6
06
2008
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

I have a problem @ 111, and I don’t quite know what to make of it. Is this a case of intellectual confusion or calculated misrepresentation? The chaos began when garygagliardi wrote this at @70. -----“IDs methods detect (human) intelligence but ONLY because human action is separate from natural forces. How can we think those same detection methods work to separate divine intelligence from natural forces if both have the SAME cause?” His argument goes like this: We cannot distinguish the presence of Divine intelligence from nature’s physical laws, because God controls nature. I have explained to him multiple times that this assumption is irrelevant to the method of finding evidence of Divine intelligence in nature. Realizing over time that he simply would not accept this point, I decided to explain the reason. So, I offered this terse response: “If, the relationship between God and nature is as you described, then God would not leave FSCI.” The point seems obvious enough. If, because God controls nature, God’s physical laws and his intelligence are INDISTINQUISHABLE, then FSCI, which is the mark of intelligence, would not be DISTINCTLY present in nature. Case closed, right? Wrong. gary continues to ignore and dismiss this unassailable point. So, I provided a more detailed theological explanation @ 105 “Your thesis about our inability to distinguish intelligence from law is demonstrably wrong. God made the distinction for us through his creative act by separating intelligence from physical laws when he fashioned the world. We didn’t make the distinction, God did. Law manifests itself as ordered regularity and intelligence manifests itself as coded information. We can distinguish one from the other because God left clues in both forms and obviously WANTED BOTH ELEMENTS DISCOVERED. We can detect both by using sciences tools, because both can be measured and analyzed. With regard to isolating the presence of intelligence, we can identify only the fact of its existence, not its source. That means that IF GOD’S INTELLIGENCE IS MANIFEST, we can SOMETIMES discover it in the form of FSCI, but we cannot, from a scientific perspective, attribute it to God. Beyond that, I cannot say anything more. These are the facts.” In spite of my continuous effort to point out the irrelevant nature of his assumption, he now writes this incredible response filled with ambiguities and misrepresentations: First, he alludes to my earlier statement: “If, the relationship between God and nature were as you described, then God would not leave FSCI.” Then, he says this: -----“Since the relationship that I describe between God and nature as that God controls nature, you would therefore agree that he does not? And you would also agree that IDs method can identify God as the source of FSDI, despite its frequent claims that is does not even attempt to do so? While I have dealt with StephenB’s post earlier, I am curious why you, appreciating the post as you did, didn’t correct StephenB on this last point. I have never claimed that ID tries to identify God (just that its methods are limited from doing so), but have been accused making that claim again and again. Apparently, having an ID supporter make that claim that ID proves God is acceptable to you?” -------Let’s break it up: “Since the relationship that I describe between God and nature as that God controls nature, you would therefore agree that he does not?” And you would also agree that IDs method can identify God as the source of FSDI, despite its frequent claims that it does not even attempt to do so.” Now I don't want to be unkind here, but this foray into the world of fantasy is a little hard to take. We can, perhaps, forget about the first sentence, which we probably written too hurriedly. We have all done that. Notice, though, that in the second sentence, he makes a claim that is clearly not true. He accuses kairosfocus, me, and the entire ID movement of saying that we can identify God as the SOURCE of FSDI, and he further claims we all try to hide the fact. Notice also my comments above at 105, in which I had explicitly pointed out that ID cannot identify God as the source of FSDI. - -------Continuing: “While I have dealt with StephenB’s post earlier, I am curious why you, appreciating the post as you did, didn’t correct StephenB on this last point.” What is there to correct? The misrepresentation is all his. --------Continuing: “I have never claimed that ID tries to identify God (just that its methods are limited from doing so), but have been accused making that claim again and again. Apparently, having an ID supporter make that claim that ID proves God is acceptable to you?” Huh? First, he suggests that HE has been accused of claiming that ID can identify God as a“source” of information. Then, in the second sentence, he completely changes direction and accuses ME of making the same claim. Next, he wants to know if kairosfocus finds my behavior acceptable, even though he has also implicated kairosfocus in the same alleged misbehavior. Now I am guessing that this is a very young person who is just beginning to gain some experience in the life of the mind. I want to be charitable about this, but I am not sure where to go from here. What do you do when someone shrugs off repeated refutations, misrepresents clearly articulated statements, wreaks havoc and confusion, and then continues on as sleek as ever? Is this person impervious to reason?StephenB_{April 6, 2008
April
04
Apr
6
06
2008
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply