ID and Catholic theology

gary says,

"In this case, we have only one example of non-human complex information. It is from DNA. To make any grand statement about ALL such information from our single example, is as flawed a making statement about the characteristics of ALL of any group from a single example."

Not so fast. 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. Other than human intelligence you could have alien intelligence and obviously animals do very improbable things using their intelligences such as beavers building a dam. While the beaver's dam may not cross the universal probability bound it still is intelligence. 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 as we can see with the movie Contact's information wave pattern example the theory pins down intelligence very well. It wont miss too much. Of course if you can infer intelligence in natural things not designed by humans like for example DNA then the claim that "everything" could be designed grows a lot stronger real quick.Frost122585

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

09:35 PM

9

09

35

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

The Error of Attempting to Identify the Characteristics of ALL Intelligence and ALL Complex Information From Limited (Single) Examples. There the inherent assumption running through the posts of many commenting on my statements that one example of intelligence (human), PROVES everything about ALL intelligence. Again, I can give lots of examples of how easily this process of universalizing from one example leads to errors, but to give this argument some emotional punch, think about the judgments that people might make about “all black people” or “all Jews” based upon their experience with meeting one black person or one Jew. No matter how closely and thoroughly they studied that one example, would their opinions be justified? Similarly, there is the mistake of thinking because we know of complex information from a single source (human) that the characteristics of the source of that information can be attributed to the source of all other complex information (non-human). In this case, we have only one example of non-human complex information. It is from DNA. To make any grand statement about ALL such information from our single example, is as flawed a making statement about about the characteristics of ALL of any group from a single example. When we universalize the nature of a characteristic based upon such a limited number of samples, we are saying nothing useful. In your arguments for ID, you would be well served to stop using the terms IN ALL CASE or FOR EVERY EXAMPLE when these terms actually refer to a single case and example, human intelligence and DNA. You may find the use of such terminology more convincing, but others find it less so.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

09:22 PM

9

09

22

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

gpuccio at 101: Thank you for the tone of your response and apologize for my sarcasm earlier, but, quite honestly, you post at 76 was more than a little unfair in misrepresenting my statements. 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. 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. Nature is the phenomena that we attempted to describe but it is in no way limited by our description (which is my problem with using "laws" in ID syllogism to assign cause.) All that is limited by known laws is our ability to understand and utilize nature. So, let us go onto where you address my two points specifically. We agree that chance does not explain biological information. You then say:

2) The second point of ID is that, for formal and logical reasons, it is very likely that no future new law “of that kind”, that is logically and mathematically determined, more or less coupled to random chance, will ever be able to explain biological information.

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. You then say:

3) A whole category of observable events, namely human artifacts, often exhibit the formal characteristics of CSI, the same formal characteristics which can in great abundance be observed in biological information.

I see that I am going to have to do a separate post about this problem because we keep coming back to it. One example of intelligence, PROVES little about ALL intelligence. One example of non-human source complex information PROVES little about all complex information when all other samples come from humans. I am sure that are specific names for this fallacy in logic and, I suspect, statistics. However, it isn't a complex concept. When we universalize the nature of a characteristic based upon such a limited number of samples, we are saying nothing useful. Again, I can give lots of examples of how easily this process of universalizing from one example leads to errors, but to give this argument some emotional punch, think about the judgments that people might make about "all black people" or "all Jews" based upon their experience with meeting one black person or one Jew. No matter how closely and thoroughly they studied that one example, would their opinions be justified? 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. This takes us to your analysis of Point Two, the specific problem with separating divine intelligence from nature, which it controls. Your first point objecting to this ideal is:

1) The first way is to control events through logico-mathematical laws, either purely deterministic or deterministic and probabilistic, like QM.

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. What we perceive of as "law" is simply that way that divinity choose things to work. What we see as "laws" are outlines of the will of God. Events chosen by God are not "constrained by laws" as you claim, though they are for humans, who must work within the law. This confusing divine limitations with human is exactly my point and the source of Heller's objections. 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. 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. 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. So I will again ask the question directly: would everyone agree because the syllogism of "if not law or chance then intelligence" convince them? I believe most people would not be convinced by this logic even though it convinces you. The Shroud of Turin, which you decline to address, make the challenge more interesting because, to be consistent, you would have to believe it was a fake because, using your previous logic, you must attribute it to intelligent agency rather than some natural (in the sense of physical forces) consequence of the resurrection. 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.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

08:21 PM

8

08

21

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus at 79: You praise StephenB's critique (77) as:

Eloquent, and devastating.

But may I remind you that in that post, StephenB wrote:

If, the relationship between God and nature were as you described, then God would not leave FSCI.

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? When you say:

And, if instead, the common sense observation that mechanical necessity gives rise to natural regularities is instead correct, we need to be looking to distinguishing chance and agency in looking at say DNA. When we do that, we see that FSCI is a reliable marker of agency.

Do you realize that 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. Do you really thinks that, given the sample size, we can make solid statements about something being a "reliable marker?" To make statement about ALL intelligence based on one sample or statement about ALL non-human originating FSCI given one example seems at the best, extravagant. Your statements regarding "TEs" don't apply to me (or I suspect Heller) since I ascribe to the none of the views that you ascribe to them, but answering your question regarding Paul in Romans 1. 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.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

07:14 PM

7

07

14

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

J. at 78. You state that I believe that law, chance, and intelligence all have a divine source, which I do, but I completely accept your definitions of the terms and refer you to 108 and 109 above for clarity. Your say:

But it should be noted that there can be no as-yet-undiscovered laws that will, after all, explain the remaining pockets, without reference to intelligence.

And I agree. Intelligence is a cause, the problem is that we cannot say where undiscovered laws explanation ends and intelligence begins though all "remaining pockets" are explained by one of the other. The problems arise with your next statement:

Laws are simple. If there were laws (or sets of laws) which could explain the remaining pockets, then they would be so unlikely as to require reference to intelligence to explain the specific complexity or coordination.

This statement seems to say that if there were laws that explained the remaining pockets they would be unlikely to require intelligence, but I think you meant that they WOULD require intelligence, correct? In any case, we have no idea how "complete" our knowledge of physical laws are or how large those remaining pockets of ignorance are or in our growing knowledge, what will fall to science or intelligence from within those pockets. All we can do is look back at history and ask: how good were their assessments of the completeness of their knowledge of laws, chance, and intelligence? And how correct were their assignment of phenomena to these causes. You end with:

There is no empirical demonstration that the combination of only random chance and mechanical law can evolve “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful”.

And I don't think they ever will, but the absence of evidence for one set of causes is not to be mistaken for positive evidence of a competing cause. Your opinion of the advanced state of our current science (especially computer science, which is my background) is much, much higher than mine. The most advanced thing about every generation of scientists, seen from the perspective of future generations, is their extravagant claims of what they will soon be able to do or prove.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

06:31 PM

6

06

31

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

The Limits of the ID Syllogism "Proving" Intelligence as a Cause (I have called this Point One previously.) The syllogism of "if not known law, random chance, then intelligence" fails to prove what the proponents of ID claim that it proves. Note PLEASE that I don't deny that all things ARE caused by laws, chance, or intelligence. NOR do I deny that assignments made by this syllogism COULD be correct, including that specific assignment of complex information to an intelligent cause. I am simply saying that these assignments of cause by this syllogism alone are flawed. The problem is with "known" laws portion of the syllogism. Just because we don't know a law doesn't mean that a physical law doesn't explain a phenomena. All through history people EVERY PHYSICAL PHENOMENA has thought to be cause be either chance and intelligence because those at the time didn't know the physical laws involved. MOST OF THESE assignements of cause have been proven wrong as we learned more. This syllogism ONLY works if we can eliminate ALL "physical laws" as a cause, but we can ONLY eliminate the ones we know. Give our deep lack of understanding of the laws of the universe and even our possible lack of understanding regarding the real nature of what we call random chance, assigning a cause to the category of "intelligence" by eliminating only known laws and chance fails. While certainly some and possibly even most of what ID uses this syllogism to assign to the "intelligence" is correct, it is not proven so. They could be caused physical laws that we do NOT know, not intelligence. Saying that "intelligence" is just a theory and that assignment of cause is provisional like all of science doesn't address the deep problem of using the syllogism as proof. Once again, I point to the history of "causes" assigned to all physical phenomena before an given scientific principles was known. I have given numerous examples of how easy it is for us as mere mortal to assign the wrong cause using this syllogism because our knowledge is limited. Assignment of a cause via this syllogism is not the same as an explanation of a phenomena by scientific principles, which, as you recognize, are revised by better scientific knowledge. An assignment by this syllogism doesn't rise to the level of an explanation in the normal sense. Though everyone accepts that our knowledge of nature is limited (and in my mind, severely limited), no one, thus far seems to understand how this means that assigning a cause as a "remainder" based on this syllogism is simply not proof of anything in and of itself.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

06:03 PM

6

06

03

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

To start, it may be helpful to clarify what AGREE with in ID and, indeed, have applauded in my previous posts. This may be helpful just to save others time in assigning disagreement where not exists. I think IDs methods demonstrate clearly that complex information cannot arise simply by chance, or rather, that the odds of it doing so are virtually non-existence. I think that IDs methods can identify intelligence except for one special case. I have no problem with the ideas advanced regarding functional complex specified information and find them useful, interesting and well-worth discussing. I agree that law, chance, and intelligence are all causes, and may, at least from our perspective, explain all phenomena. I agree specifically that complex information MAY only be explained by intelligence. That MAY is important because my criticisms of ID are all about the LIMITS of ID's methods not your conclusions.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

05:42 PM

5

05

42

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

A brief summary to remind myself and others of where we are and provide some context, since that seems to get lost along the way. The context of all my posts are a specific response to the initial attacks on Heller's arguments regarding the Manichean heresy. Since the original article and the subsequent "stupid TEs" comments didn't seem to understand Heller's point, which was very clear to me, my first post simply explain why ID's methods included an unconscious assumption that the intelligence being identified didn't have control of nature. This line of discussion started at my comment 10, which was responded to by others at 15,16, and 18. I responded at 31, and this discussion continued with a variety of people until it had clarified, for me, the problems with ID, at least as represented by the commenter's, which I summarized and explain at 70. IU didn't get an chance to answer ensuing comments until 99 and at this point haven't address posts 78 though 96 or anything since 99 through 106. To simplify communication in the future, rather than long posts, I am going to offer two types of shorter posts. First, I will offer short posts where I clarify my arguments succinctly on specific points that are being widely misconstrued. This will allow me simply to refer to those short posts when a specific type of misstatement regarding my position occurs again. Second, I will address each commenter's comments in a separate post dedicated to his or her arguments alone.garygagliardi

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

05:38 PM

5

05

38

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

garygagliardi (99): "The general assumption in ID is that method that detect human intelligence can detect all intelligence." (emphasis in your original). False. You have accused others of failing to engage your position. Yet you continue to cling to a false straw man view of ID, despite repeatedly warnings that it is false. I and others have been clear that ID has always recognized the potential for intelligent agency that is not detectable by ID. ID only addresses those cases where science is warranted in inferring intelligent agency as the best explanation, given the evidence so far available to science. As always with science, it is a tentative inference. It can detect intelligence, including non-human intelligence, but it only applies to effects beyond the patterns of natural process effects. Please give to others the consideration you request for your own views, and let go of the false caricatures. garygagliardi (99): "I maintain that in the special case of divine intelligence, they [the methods of ID] must fail." The claim that "they must fail" (emphasis added) is true if and only if the effects of divine intelligence are always necessarily indistinguishable from what science recognizes and describes as the patterns of undirected natural processes. (Side observation: As I mentioned earlier, this is a pantheistic religious view, not a theistic one. Within theism, the claim is false.) Let us suppose your claim is true. I pointed out that this is irrelevant to ID. The correct response is "So what?". ID has never claimed to be able to detect such an intelligence. As you acknowledged, you "have never said that [ID] did" presume to detect God's intelligence. Consequently, whether such an intelligence exists or not has no bearing at all on the scientific inference to intelligent agency. It would simply be the case that evidence indicating intelligent agency (e.g. in the origin of biological life) would be pointing toward some other intelligence, if your claim were true. Therefore, though Heller may think he is raising an objection to ID, he is only making an irrelevant religious statement. What was your response specifically to this disconnect and its irrelevance? Sorry, but I appear to have missed it. Regarding your cave drawing thought experiment, you said: "Well, clearly there is no law that explains the image. We would say “chance,” except that the image is detailed information and it is specific. So do we accept intelligence?" If the image is sufficiently detailed and complex to rule out an accidental similarity from undirected variations, then the answer is "Yes, intelligent agency is indicated (tentatively) as the best inference, given the evidence available to science." If we later discover an undirected process that puts pictures of animals into cave walls, that inference could change. You claim that "the image is not artificial" because "It is literally formed from the rock of the cave wall itself from the natural minerals in the rock." However, that claim is empty. It is the arrangement that is artificial. Detailed stone statues are also formed from rock. The medium is natural. The arrangement is artificial. If we see water frozen into the shape of an informative message, the fact that the medium (e.g. water or rock or whatever) occurs in nature is irrelevant. What matters is the artificial arrangement that defies undirected explanations. It is the arrangement that is both specified, complex, and potentially outside the reach of undirected natural processes. In any case where science observes such a distinction, the religious claims made by you or Heller do not remove that distinction. Those religious claims have no effect or relevance to the inference that directed causation has influenced the arrangement of matter.ericB

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

12:52 PM

12

12

52

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

gary: I am going to dispense with comments about “the unknown principle” for now, because there is nothing more to be said about it. You have no reason to believe that any such thing exists, so until you do, there is no reason for me to speculate about it with you. If, in the unlikely event, something of this nature could be found, ID methodology could incorporate it. Your main argument is that we cannot distinguish the presence of Divine intelligence because God controls nature. I am going to perform a service for you by boiling this thing down to its bare essence. I ask you to abandon your assumptions for two paragraphs, because that is all it will take. First, your statement about “control” is too simplistic. Yes, God is in control of all things, in the sense of being in charge, but that is not the end of the story. God also allows for an inter play between nature and other unpredictable elements, such as intelligence and chance. If I accidentally drop a glass of water, God controls only the law of gravity which forces the water to fall to the floor. God does not control my klutziness, or, if it be the case, my decision to let the glass to fall. Nor does he control the direction in which the water splatters or the final form of the water puddle. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew these things were going to happen, including the precise ways that they would manifest themselves---but he does not control them in every sense. Further, his control does not preclude me from making the distinctions that I just made. Second, 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.StephenB

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

10:41 AM

10

10

41

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

PPS: It is worth calling attention to this, from Locke's intro to his essay on human understanding, section 5: _____________ Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. ________________ Worth a thought or two, methinks. And, BTW, I should note that I am pointing out that the evidence points to design, not to just who is the relvant designer. I repeat,that requires additional clues from the situation. Consequently, DNA being designed is not the same thing as that the creator of DNA is the Logos of Jn 1, but is compatible with it; but equally so with the idea that an intelligent, ancient sentient species from elsewhere within the cosmos sowed life here, etc etc. It is NOT compatible with the evo mat view that such DNA is a product of blind chance and necessity. On the cosmological scale, teh fine tuning is evidence that points to design as that is a much better explanation that the quasi-infinite array of sub cosmi with randomly distributed physics alternative, which is an obvious piece of metaphysical ad hocery. That said, an intelligent extracosmic intelligent designer who made a cosmos suited for life sounds rather familiar. But again,even this is not a proof, it is an inference, albeit an empirically anchored one. And the field is now worldview analysis by comparative difficulties, not science proper.kairosfocus

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

05:36 AM

5

05

36

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

PS: On the origin adn nature of the concept CSI, cf here.kairosfocus

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

04:52 AM

4

04

52

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Gary: Re yr:

Let us use the previously cited example of a cave painting as its basis. Suppose a cave was found that seemed to have primitive pictures of animals. Those pictures are sufficiently detailed (complex) that they seem to be the work of intelligence, BUT as the image is examined, it is clear that the image is not artificial. It is literally formed from the rock of the cave wall itself from the natural minerals in the rock. These minerals just seem to “happen” to form this detailed image on the surface . . . . let us go to a real life example you all may be familiar with. This example is the Shroud of Turin. Here again, we have complex information in the form of a detailed image. Again presumption is that it was created by intelligence because it of its detail. However, despite all our examinations, we can think of no artificial process that could have created it. Since it is on a man-made cloth, attributing it purely to “chance” natural processes is impossible. An intelligent process would seem logical but given the fact that no known artificial means could have created the image we see, no one can say how. SO, what does everyone accept as the cause? Intelligence? Divine intelligence with the control over natural processes? And unknown natural principle? Is there agreement based upon the syllogism?

This requires several observations: 1 --> Observe, the imagined case is the one in which chance + necessity “somehow” account for an image in the form of a drawing. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS AN EMPIRICAL CASE IN POINT. 2 --> When you turn to an empirical case, it is one where as you acknowledge, intelligent agency is involved from the outset. You then divert to the question of agent identification. 3 --> In neither case do you actually address the main point at stake: the origin of FUNCTIONALLY specified, algorithmically working, digital, complex information. That is what DNA is, and we know from much observation and no observed counter examples, and from reasoning on why that would be so on probabilistic grounds, that such FSCI is reliably the product of agency. 4 --> We are not just inferring to a blank alternative, dumping ground – if not chance and necessity then let's call what's left “intelligence.” Not at all: we know what intelligence is like ,and we know what it does, and the traces it leaves when it acts: FSCI in the form of digital, algorithmic information being one of them. [BTW, this is why I focus on FSCI and not the broader concept CSI – we are directly familiar with it and can operationally recognise it easily.] 5 --> Coming back to your images: first, they are not algorithmically functional, though they are recognisable to our eyes as images. In the case of the hypothetical one, it is noteworthy that in this case, the image claimed to be produced by chance + necessity only is an imaginary one, not an empirical case. When we move to a real world case, lo and behold, the image is in a context that positively reeks of intelligent involvement: cloth is a known artifact of intelligent agents. 6 --> We may then look at the image and observe the anatomical accuracy, X-ray-like effects [bones of the hand show up], there is 3-dimensional information encoded in it, it matches icons from the relevant time and place if it had been used as a model, its flora are claimed to be “right” for the traditional time and place of origin, on both images of flowers and on pollen etc etc. It has the nail holes in the technically correct location and does not have them in the location [in the palms] that would have been likely to be so if there was deception at the time and place of the now suspect C14 dating. There is that sudarion over in Oviedo that reportedly matches the putative sindon and which has a known, diverse history. [Egypt to Spain to escape the Islamic conquest.] All of which is fascinating, but not really of much direct relevance. 7 --> So,we ask, what effect was likely to make/ capable of making an image by scorching surface fibres in 3:1 twill linen fabric, with the required characteristics? We don't really know, but we know enough to know that the object in question is unquestionably at its base -- a sheet of linen cloth -- an artifact. So, we have long since detected the presence of intelligent agents here, though their action: creation of the functionally specified complex information embedded in making a 3:1 twill linen cloth. [The odds of such retting, stripping, twirling and counter-twirling of linen fibres to form threads then weave it to make a rectangular piece of cloth with the pattern of a 3:1 twill (note the discrete state pattern here on warp and woof threads!) by chance + necessity only is negligibly different from zero. FSCI again shows up as a mark of agent action.] 8 --> The image is superposed on that, and is made up from surface fibres being slightly charred. But, images FORM (for instance, it is conceivable that a cave could have a pinhole in it that allows a pinhole camera obscura image to form on the opposite wall), they are not code-bearing, functionally specified, complex messages. The occurrence of an image – as opposed to a DRAWING or a PAINTING – is not a reliable indicator of chance vs agency. [Notice how I am using the earlier nodes of the EF . . . contingent but in a context where natural regularities of optics in general can give rise to images]. But, the occurrence of a message is known tobe an artifact of agency, and DNA is a message. 9 --> So, it comes back to the point: your “Drawing by chance + necessity” is hypothetical; your image is an image, in a context where the medium already implicates intelligent action in the time and place where the image originated. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

04:24 AM

4

04

24

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

garygagliardi: I appreciate your comments, which are certanly sincere and passionate. I think I owe you further clarifications because, although our points of view are probably not reconcilable, some aspects may perhaps be explained better. So, I will try to address your points in the best way I can. First of all, I apologize for my phrase: "you, like most theistic evolutionists, seem to constantly dismiss the main ID point". Indeed, I was not implying that you were a TE (I had no idea if you were), but that your specific attitude towards that point was the same as that of TEs. It was not my intention to force a position on you. If you are not a TE, I appreciate that, because my opinion of TE is certanly not good. Similarly, when I wrote "only", I had no intention to cite you, just to stress the word, although I was certainly trying to interpret you. But let's go to more substantial matters. You complain that I have misinterpretated your meaning when I have reformulated one of your phrases substituting your use of the term "nature". That's absolutely possible. That's why I don't like the word "nature", which has many different possible meanings. On that point, you say: "After claiming that I misuse the words “natural” and “nature,” but not explaining how" I am not claiming that you misuse the word nature, but that the word itself has no definite meaning, and therefore it would be better to specify what one means, so that there are no ambiguities. So, to be more specific, I will go into some detail about my problems with the word "nature". Your original phrase was as follows: “If, as you say, nature IS a manifestation of God’s thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any “supernatural” acts of intelligence and natural actions?” I reformulated it as follows: “If, as you say, “scientific deterministic laws” ARE a manifestation of God’s thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any “non purely deterministic” acts of intelligence and natural actions?” Now, I was not trying to read your mind, but just to express what I thought you were saying. If I was wrong, I apologize. But let's try to understand where is the problem. The problem for me is that I can't understand what you mean by "nature". Is nature all that exists except the transcendent God? Is God inside nature, or "only" outside of it? Is human consciousness, or human soul, "only" inside nature, or is it transcendental? Besides, you speak of God's thoughts and acts, but are those thoughts and acts beyond nature? Are they in any way phenomenic? (I would say that the same idea of thoughts and acts has some phenomenic aspect). And if they are, in what dimension do they happen? Supernatural? What is "supernatural"? A miracle? But a miracle happens "in" nature, so how do you define it? Something we can't explain? Or do you just think there is no such thing as a miracle? I am not saying that there are not possible and reasonable answers to those questions, I am just saying that your answers are probably different from mine, and so what is "natural" to you is not necessarily "natural" to me, and vice versa. So, I introduced the term “scientific deterministic laws” in the place of "nature". And here comes another misunderstanding. You object, rather sarcastically: "I hate to be the first to break the news to you, but the laws of physics haven’t been deterministic since the introduction of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. In real life I happen to do a lot of work on the difference between deterministic and stochastic methods. Your misunderstand of term makes it hard to take you other statement seriously." So, in the hope that you can take my other statements more seriously, I state more clearly what in my opinion should have been obvious, but probably was not. When I say “scientific deterministic laws”, I am certainly including quantum mechanics in that. Indeed, I had a lot of detailed dicussions about QM and its significance for many key points of our debate, here at UD. Now, QM is a scientific deterministic law which includes in its general model a crucial probabilistic aspect. It is very important to understand that the relationship between determinism and statistical law in QM is very subtle, and essentially the most controversial point in the interpretations of QM meaning. In other words, the mathematical computation of the wave function, which is the basic essence of QM, is totally deterministic, while the prevision of real observations, after the so called "wave function collapse", is probabilistic. The real menaing of that all is not really understood, and I agree with you that it is a crucial point in the scientific understanding of reality. But the important point is that even the probabilistic aspects of QM are anyway managed through a rigorous mathematical and statistical formalism, which is in itself logically determined. It's not a case that QM has been taken as a possible "interface" in all the models which try to explain the relationship between free will and deterministic reality (I mean, all the models which are not in line with the sheer atheistic determinism, which negates free will), but we must understand that, in all those models, a manipulation is assumed of the simple statistical laws of randomness by a different, intelligent and conscious principle, whose function of free will would be expressed through the probabilistic "window" of QM, so that a free output is achieved without apparently violating known laws, ot at least violating only the probabilistic part, which would be less "apparent". The important point is that purely probabilist mathematical laws are always laws, and even if we cannot call them deterministic, they are mathematically constrained, and are in themselves no better than pure determinism in order to explain phenomena like free will, or CSI. That's exactly the main point of ID. So, I could rephrase your statement (always for the sake of discussion, no offense intended) as follows: “If, as you say, “mathematical and logical laws which can explain events” ARE a manifestation of God’s thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any “non purely mathematically and logically explainable” acts of intelligence and "logically and mathematically explainable events"? We can. Events like human acts of free will, human generation of CSI, and the presence of CSI in biological beings "can" be distinguished from those events that a logico-mathematical model can explain. That's the point of ID. Now, after having clarified, at least as I can, my points, I will try to address yours. "Point One: The syllogism used to identify a cause, “if not known law nor random chance then intelligence” is flawed because ignorance of cause does not correctly assign a cause simply by “eliminating” two of these alternatives." Well, let's put it this way: 1)The first ID point is that no known law of necessity, more or less coupled to random chance, can even begin to explain biological information. 2) The second point of ID is that, for formal and logical reasons, it is very likely that no future new law "of that kind", that is logically and mathematically determined, more or less coupled to random chance, will ever be able to explain biological information. These first two points have nothing to do with any "sillogism". They derive from a logico-mathematical analysis of what we know. They have nothing to do with the concept of design. You can agree or disagree, but that's all. 3) A whole category of observable events, namely human artifacts, often exhibit the formal characteristics of CSI, the same formal characteristics which can in great abundance be observed in biological information. This point, again, has nothing to do with any sillogism. It is an objective observation and, for those who agree on the definition of CSI, it is practically incontrovertible. 4) ID, on the basis of the first three points, proposes a scientific model to start explaining biological information: behind it there may be a process similar to the process which is behind human CSI. As we call that process "design" for humans, we call the similar process "design" too. As humans are conscious, intelligent beings, and produce design, so we hypothesize that some conscious, intelligent being has designed biological beings. The important point is that this is not a sillogism. It is not a logical demonstration. It is an inference. An inference is a totally different thing. An inference does not give logical certainty. And yet, most of empirical sciences, if not all, are based on inferences. So, I can't understand why you go on using the term "sillogism" to describe a perfectly acceptable scientific inference. Shall I recall that the title of one of the first works by Dembski is, indeed: "The design inference"? So, if with your "point one" you mean that we cannot have the logical certainty of a designer, then I agree with you. But empirical science is never about logical certainties. Only in mathemathics, which is not an empirical science, you have some degree of logical certainties, because mathematics is largely deductive. But empirical sciences are mainly inferential. "Point Two: Divine intelligence cannot be identified as separated from nature in the same way that non-divine intelligence can because divine intelligence controls nature (this was Heller’s original point)." Here my answer is simple: I don't agree, neither with your terminology, nor with your conclusion. I will rephrase the issue as I see it, with my terminology (I am not rephrasing your thought here, just expressing mine): Divine Intelligence expresses itself in observable reality (phenomena) in (at least two)different ways. 1) The first way is to control events through logico-mathematical laws, either purely deterministic or deterministic and probabilistic, like QM. At that level, all events are totally constrained by those laws, either deterministically or probabilistically. The initial (at the beginning of time) implementation of those laws, and selection of the correct parameters for those laws, is sufficient for their workings. Those laws are, in principle, accessible to human reason through the observation of events and the formulation of logico-mathemathical models. No event of the CSI type can be explained by that kind of laws. 2) The second way is to super-impose information to those laws, without necessarily violating them formallly (or maybe "naturally" violating them at a level which is not yet observable or understandable by us). The super-imposed information is the expression of God's thoughts, and very much a God's act. It happens "inside" time, and modifies phenomena in a discernible way, in the same way that human free will (for those who believe in it) modifies phenomena "beyond" logico-mathematical laws. That second level can better be defined an "expression" rather than a "contol", but in the end it's just a matter of words. The important thing is that the second level cannot be reconducted to the same kind of laws as the first level. In other words,the second level is not logico-mathematically constrained, neither in a deterministic nor in a probabilistic way. It has, on the contrary, the characteristics of freedom, love, invention, novelty, which can, in a much lesser degree, be found in human behaviour. That second level "can" causally explain CSI, exactly as human behaviour causally explains human CSI. Being a free expression of a conscious beings, it cannot in principle be explained by human logico-mathenmatical models, as the first level. But I do believe that it can be "understood", at least in part, in other ways. But human logico-mathematical models are not, anyway, totally impotent with it. Even if they cannot explain level two, they can perfectly separate the effects of level two (CSI) from those of level one, at least empirically, if not logically. In brief, that's my model, which is perfectly compatible with ID. I can see, in my model, no problem of the kind that you rise in your point one. The different perspective and terminology, as often happens, simply eliminates the problem. Finally, let's go to your two examples. In the first one, the painting in the cave, if the evidence of CSI were strong, I would definitely attribute it to design. I can't understand how you can imagine that one can be sure that it was due to "natural" causes. Again, designers do use natural causes, only "direct" them by information. If we were sure that the painting was realized by water infiltration, well, then I would think that someone directed water infiltration to realize his design. Where is the problem? Just two notes: the evidence for CSI must be very strong, because we are talking of a single event. A single event, anyway, can never be the basis of a general theory, for obvious reasons, although it certainly retains a strong empirical value. In the case of biological CSI, luckily, we are not in that trouble. We have billions of independent events, and the evidence of CSI is strong for each one. Regarding the Shroud of Turin, I prefer not to give my opinion because I am not aware of all the pertinent problematics, and therefore I probably can't understand the true point of your example. Regarding your final observation: "What I reject is that we are FORCED to recognize his intelligence in the way you say. We can only CHOOSE to believe in it. I personally do believe in a rational universe, but not in a universe that forces belief. " Well, I certainly agree with you. That's why science is never absolute certainty. There is no certainly in the phenomenal world, least of all scientific certainty. Science should be a humble approach to our possible limited knowledge of the external world. The idea that science can give the final answers is totally wrong, and is one of the consequences of atheistic materialism. ID is science, not religion. It cannot give any final answer. But it is good science, while darwinian evolution theory is, definitely, very bad science. What we believe in our heart, as you rightly say, is only our choice, an expression of our free will.gpuccio

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

03:55 AM

3

03

55

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Okaaay . . . Returning from the real world, in the usual wee hours. LS, FYI, I am doing serious things in my “real world, for pay” work, things that are scientifically and technologically connected and deal with major challenges facing my adopted homeland, Montserrat. At some points they even over lap into the sorts of issues in this and similar threads, not least on matters linked to the ties between energy, work -- physical and economic -- and intelligent action. But, also, wearing another hat, I have an interest in where our culture is going (straight over the cliff), and the movements that are shaping it and inducing it into suicide -- literal not metaphorical. IMHBXO, the evolutionary materialist paradigm in science and as a wider world view and cultural agenda that improperly exploits the prestige of science, is such a case in point of personally and socially destructive en-darkenment in the name of enlightenment, too often backed up by Plato's Cave games. So, for instance, as an educator, I seek to understand and respond to such trends and agendas, testing my insights and responses online, e.g. at UD. So, the science is relevant, the phil is relevant, and since major worldviews intersect with theological themes, and ours is a Civilisation that has deep Judaeo-Christian roots, they also interact with Bible-oriented theology. At the centre of that intersection today lies the debate over the empirical evidence anchored inference to design. Also Leo, FYI, GP is right that I seek to distinguish the different levels and contexts in the exchanges, and as for instance may be seen in the Stein at Biola thread, from 19 on, I have laid out, step by step, the scientific issue on inference to design, and asked for response. Again and again I meet evasions, distractions and distortions, so what do you think that is telling me about the balance of the case on the merits? But, too, the very intensity and to often uncivil ferocity of the response tells me that the issue is important and the ability to de-censor science so that it may infer reasonably and credibly to the full set of relevant causal factors -- intelligence as well as chance + necessity, is a major achievement. Onward, we are interested in many cases in agent identification adn in reverse engineering the relevant techniques, which are dependent on contextual cues; but first and foremost, let the evidence be heard, uncensored: FSCI IS A RELIABLE SIGNPOST POINTING TO INTELLIGENT ACTION. (And in such a context of exposing and correcting censorship backed up by ferocious attacks to the man up to and including slander and career busting [that picture of the barrage of the expelled flying out of the halls of science as the machine works away is ever so sadly apt . . .], on one of the key institutions in our culture, the diversion to pointing out "but you have not also done X, Y, Z, A, B, C . . . loses any respectability it may otherwise have had. It becomes simply a red herring, distracting from INJUSTICE, Leo.) So, GP, thanks -- yet again. You have aptly rebutted. I also appreciate the kind words. [Leo, FYI you have improperly characterised me, and need to take back and correct your words, then deal with the real issue on the merits, not the red herrings, strawmen and ad hominems.] StephenB, thanks too. I think this whole exchange in the large is settling down to some clear conclusions on the merits. We also have now got some tested approaches for understanding, addressing and where necessary exposing, what is going on. I think Expelled looks like a good point to start the discussion in the wider culture from. Now, on particular points of note: 1] Is design in the universe “plain,” “Clearly seen” and “understandable” wrt to evident design? It is "plain" that there is a major disconnect in the thread on the key points, scientific, philosophical, theological! For instance, in citing Paul, I highlighted that his theology at the point exemplified by Rom 1:18 – 23 is open to a comparative difficulties analysis, with a scientific input. Namely: Is design empirically detectable and plain to the point of being compelling on pain of selective hyperskepticism to reject it, rather than just conceivable to the proverbial -- and there is too often a subtext of contempt in this context -- “eye of faith”? And, of course, there is usually a sneer that is not even so veiled in that reference to “faith.” Certainly, we must recall that we live in an age that is so philosophically illiterate and bewitched by the mere name “Science” that it fails to see that faith and reason are inextricably intertwined in the roots of our worldviews, once we see that for instance the quest for proof and certainly requires further proofs until either we see absurd infinite regress or else accept first plausibles. By definition, such first plausibles are taken on trust, i.e. faith. [Cf my basic level discussion here.] Now, if design is plainly seen and clearly understood from the things that have been MADE, then such design will be empirically detectable. And, such was the predominant view of the educated across our civilisation for centuries -- nay, for millennia -- until Darwin. As Dick to the Dawk to the PhD says -- and remember, he thinks he is “smarter” than you or me [note his self-chosen appellation for evo mat atheists: “Brights”] -- he thinks Darwin makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and he thinks that those who reject his evo mat darwinian view are “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” [NB, we looked at the coherence of evolutionary materialism from here on in UD, and the answer plainly is that evolutionary materialism anchored atheism cannot account dynamically and logically for the basic credibility of the mind one needs to use to think materialist thoughts and take them seriously. Evo mat is intellectually incoherent and arguably self-refuting; i.e. intellectually bankrupt. Endarkenment, not enlightenment..] So, we have an agreed point of worldviews testing: comparative factual adequacy through empirical test on whether design is credibly detectable in the empirical world. So, let us take a look under the hood . . . 2] Empirically detecting design – a scientific and fruitful project: Here, I can simply begin by scooping out and slightly adjusting the points I made in the recent thread:

1 –> Natural regularities reflect underlying mechanical necessities that we try to capture in statements of “laws of nature.” [E.g. we see that heat + oxidiser + fuel –> fire, reliably, and infer to laws of combustion to explain it.] 2 –> That is fine when we seek to explain regularities. But, we also try to explain contingent situations. [E.g. the origin of Garibaldi Hill here in Montserrat - monogentic (one-shot eruption) cooled down dome, or is it that we have evidence that it is a formerly active mini volcano in its own right with its own little history of eruptions, pyroclastic flows and all the way up to plinian eruptions and associated deposits?] 3 –> Highly contingent situations arise from chance or agency, based on our observation. For simple instance: a die sits on the table in front of us, 6 uppermost: necessity, chance or agency? Necessity may explain — using gravity and the dynamics of intermolecular repulsive forces and elasticity [very slight deflection reflecting distortion of inter-atomic relationships and resulting forces] — how it simply and reliably sits on the table, but the uppermost face (which is highly contingent) is either chance or agency. 4 –> Science often studies such contingent situations, and we have developed techniques for identifying the source of contingent outcomes. For instance, experiment designs are often based on the statistics of populations and the difference between what could be expected on chance variation and intent-full experimenter intervention. 5 –> Now, in certain situations, contingency show itself in complex information-storage capacity, and further shows itself in functionality dependent on that information, e.g the DNA code and the molecules that hold it and process it in the cell. 6 –> Such FSCI has a contingency pattern in which the functionality is relatively isolated in the space of possible configurations: to better than 1 in 10^150. So, when we have information storage beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, we can very reasonably infer that islands of functional configurations are incredibly isolated in the config space. So much so that no random-walk based search on the gamut of our observed universe could be expected to reach the shores of an island of functionality. 7 –> In short, biofuncitonality is observed to be based on DNA strands of at least of 300 - 500,000 4-state elements. The resulting config spaces start at about 10^180,000 cells, making islands of functionality so isolated that they simply are not credibly accessible to a random walk based search in any even very generous prebiotic soup scenario. 8 --> Onward, as we look a the origin of body plan level biodiversity, we see that -- e.g. through the Cambrian life revolution in the fossil record -- we need to account for dozens of phyla and subphyla, with increments of DNA that reasonably are of order 100 m bases, multiple times over in a narrow window of time and space relative to the scope of he cosmos as a whole. 100 m bases is a config space of order ~ 1,36*10^60,205,999. The bio-functional states in that space would be utterly lost and isolated, so by probabilistic resource exhaustion, are credibly unreachable by chance + necessity on the gamut of our observed universe. [And remember, one has to first reach to the shores of islands of functionality before one may begin to climb the hill to improve the functionality through culling by competition for reproduction ,nutrition etc. So, NS is irrelevant to the ORIGIN of the required biodiversity, it only culls for the better performing varieties. ] 9 --> But contingencies on the relevant scale of complexity and specificity are routinely produced by agents using insight and intent: more or less reliably functional software requiring 600k bits upwards is something all of us who deal with computers address daily. So, we KNOW that intelligence can produce FSCI, routinely,a nd that it is utterly unlikely for chance + necessity to do so on the gamut of the cosmos. So, Design thinkers, for excellent reason, conclude: on empirically anchored inference to best explanation, FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence and counts as evidence that discloses the presence of intelligence at the relevant time and place of its origin. (“All” that is needed to overturn this, is a good counter example. Guess why none is forthcoming, over the 15 or so years of the debate, onlookers . . .) 10 --> When we turn to the cosmos as a whole, of course, traditional Judaeo-Christian thought says, the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork; again, open to empirical test. And, the complex, extremely fine-tuned organisation of the physics to get to a cosmos such as ours revealed by the advances of astrophysics and cosmology in recent decades underscores that such a delicate balancing is “there” that it points to similar FSCI. So, we confidently infer to intelligence as the most reasonable explanation of the cosmos as we observe it. 11 --> So, we have a choice of two sources for such contingency, one of which arguably is inadequate [chance], the other of which is adequate [intelligence]. It is not hard -- absent selective hyperskepticism -- to see which explanation is superior.

3] The worldviews bottomline So, through scientific reasoning, we come back to the point that the evidence does point to design, quite strongly and even “plainly.” In the biological world, and in the cosmological world. That may be inconvenient tot he evolutionary mateialists who hold the positions of power in a lot of institutions of power and influence, but that is the state on the merits. And, when we see that the usual reaction is just that -- reaction, even resort to naked force and abuse of influence and power – it clinches the force of the point. So, in the end, on factual adequacy of worldviews, it is Paul, John, David and Paley that are still in the running, long after Darwin's ideas – though not the institutions dominated by those ideas – have clearly bitten the dust. So, it seems a major rethink needs to happen. And those who have revealed their design by “a long train of abuses and usurpations” must be curbed now. Before it is too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 6, 2008

April

04

Apr

6

06

2008

03:39 AM

3

03

39

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Let' start by reminded everyone of the only two points I write about: Point One: The syllogism used to identify a cause, "if not known law nor random chance then intelligence" is flawed because ignorance of cause does not correctly assign a cause simply by "eliminating" two of these alternatives. Point Two: Divine intelligence cannot be identified as separated from nature in the same way that non-divine intelligence can because divine intelligence controls nature (this was Heller's original point). First, since many posters seem to think that the special nature complex information makes these problem vanish, let me first illustrate them specifically with two examples using complex information. The first is a thought experiment. Let us use the previously cited example of a cave painting as its basis. Suppose a cave was found that seemed to have primitive pictures of animals. Those pictures are sufficiently detailed (complex) that they seem to be the work of intelligence, BUT as the image is examined, it is clear that the image is not artificial. It is literally formed from the rock of the cave wall itself from the natural minerals in the rock. These minerals just seem to "happen" to form this detailed image on the surface. How do we attribute the "cause" of the image using "Not law nor chance so intelligence" syllogism. Well, clearly there is no law that explains the image. We would say "chance," except that the image is detailed information and it is specific. So do we accept intelligence? You can answer the question for yourselves. Would most scientists, in lieu of another explanation, would go back to "chance" explanation despite the details of the image? Would others suggest a miracle? Would still others suggest some unknown process that would allow a normal cave painting to affect the rock in some unknown way to create the appearance of a natural process? Is it a message from God? For my purposes, it doesn't matter. Whatever the real cause of the image, my point is simply that the syllogism doesn't work as advertised making the answer clear. The best answer remains, as I suggested, that we don't know despite the existence of detailed information. If the image was artificial, the decision would be easy. The problem is that it is not artificial. Ah, now you are saying, BUT this is an false thought experiment. In REAL life detailed information ALWAYS has a clear source despite any problems with natural processes. People ALWAYS accept that source as intelligence. Does it? Do they? Of course we have lot of real life "miracle" images we could use as examples, but, for the purpose of argument, perhaps they are not sufficiently detailed. So, let us go to a real life example you all may be familiar with. This example is the Shroud of Turin. Here again, we have complex information in the form of a detailed image. Again presumption is that it was created by intelligence because it of its detail. However, despite all our examinations, we can think of no artificial process that could have created it. Since it is on a man-made cloth, attributing it purely to "chance" natural processes is impossible. An intelligent process would seem logical but given the fact that no known artificial means could have created the image we see, no one can say how. SO, what does everyone accept as the cause? Intelligence? Divine intelligence with the control over natural processes? And unknown natural principle? Is there agreement based upon the syllogism? No. I don't there is. Again, the syllogism is not proof of anything and not really accepted as such. In this case, it is interesting because the "intelligence" cause is preferred by non-believers. The determinative factor is the artificial nature of the cause. When artificial methods are identified, the cause is automatically attributed to human intelligence. When the methods seem natural, problems immediately arise even with detailed information. With this in mind let us go through some of the answers other posters have offered to my two points. Apologize that I haven't had time to respond to them all. I will respond to more as I get a chance, but to be honest, the process is not very profitable since no one really engages the points above and instead simply claim they are wrong and prove it by mistating my position. For now, I offer three detailed responses as example, but, I don't find that any of these posters willing to engage the core of my arguments so it isn't very useful. To DLH at 75: You don't address my Point One at all. Your argument regarding my Point Two ignores the fact that this argument is specific: that ID's methods cannot identify DIVINE intelligence that has control of nature. You may consider this "sophistry," but do you REALLY think that 95% can't understand this idea? To gpuccio at 76: You say-

My main impression, from your comments, is that you are mainly interested in the philosophical-religious implications of the question, and just avoid the scientific aspect.

Point one is a purely scientific point regarding the nature of scientific proof and I see that you don't address it. If you want, as you indicate to discuss purely scientific points, this is where to start. Point two is only philosophical-religious because it deals with a specific formulation of the divine. It points out (as Heller did initially) that a divine intelligence that complete control of nature is indistinguishable from nature. After claiming that I misuse the words "natural" and "nature," but not explaining how, you speculate on my beliefs, which are irrelevant to my arguments and finally say:

The single most important point, for me, is that you assume that God expresses Himself “only” through what you call “natural laws”.

Despite your quote around "only," I have specifically said the opposite and even suggested exactly that in the quote you use. Then you proceed to replace my easily understood concept of "nature" with your own of "scientific deterministic laws." You then proceed to prove the "obvious falsity" of "only" "scientific deterministic laws" explaining information, two things that have nothing to do with my two simply points. This type of argument doesn't even rise to the level of a straw man. Everything that you claim after that I "seem to affirm," are things I do NOT affirm and have nothing to do with my arguments. And to be honest, I stopped reading your post at that point. Why not just replace my concept of "divine" with the word "cheese," and REALLY show everyone how stupid I am saying that I am claiming that cheese has control over nature? You should be embarrassed by this. One last note, you say:

you, like most theistic evolutionists, seem to constantly dismiss the main ID point, that what we observe in the biological world is in essence different from what we observe at the purely deterministic level of the material not living world.

First, I am not a TE, but your definition and I hate to be the first to break the news to you, but the laws of physics haven't been deterministic since the introduction of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. In real life I happen to do a lot of work on the difference between deterministic and stochastic methods. Your misunderstand of term makes it hard to take you other statement seriously. StephenB at 77: Finally, we get someone wants to discuss point number one. Let us see: in paragraph one, you claim that the evidence is all against me, but don't offer it. At paragraph two, you agree with me. In paragraph three, you claim to contradict my statement about testing the syllogism, but you don't address testing the syllogism at all (which was what I was writing about), but rather the testing of information coming from human intelligence, (which is only relevant to my Point Two). You then deny that Darwinists use this syllogism in the same way but don't offer any proof because, after all you claim that I am a TE and accept Darwin, which I don't. You then go on to say:

Also, you need to be advised that ID does not presume to detect “God’s intelligence.”

Of course, I have never said that it did. Point Two says that the methods used by ID could identify intelligence, but only if it is non-divine. The general assumption in ID is that method that detect human intelligence can detect all intelligence. I maintain that in the special case of divine intelligence, they must fail. At this point, I notice that you have skipped over the heart of my arguments regarding the problems with using this syllogism as a proof of a source cause and instead skip to my argument, that the "chance" and "intelligence" have been used through history as the explanation of phenomena when we don't know any other cause. You response to this is:

That is your characterization of what ID is saying, and it happens to be wrong. We are saying, provisionally, that all the evidence points to three possible causes.

First, I was not characterizing ID as saying this. I was saying it. My arguments, which you skipped entirely, were about the dangers of using "chance" or "intelligence" as a provisionally cause when we cannot explain a phenomena using a known principles of science. You skipped over all the arguments and examples of the mistakes in doing this, but you still maintain that "all evidence points to three possible cause" because I guess you didn't read those examples or arguments. Again, you give no examples or evidence other than the claim. You then move onto Point Two. You rebut my statements saying that we are able to discern human intelligence from nature because humana do not control nature by saying:

No, human intelligence leaves clues because, in every case, the EFFECTS of intelligence manifest themselves in the form functionally specified complex information. You are confusing the reason it is true with the method for discerning the fact.

First, let me note that your "in every case," is exactly ONE case, human intelligence. Then let me note that your statement is simply an assertion, not an argument, an example, or anything else I can work with. I have used the examples of complex information at the beginning of this post and how they don't resolve anything. Regarding the problems of identifying divine intelligence as separate from nature. You say:

If, the relationship between God and nature were as you described, then God would not leave FSCI.

First, The relationship that I describe between God and nature is that of God being the author of nature and having control over it. Are you really saying that this God cannot be in control of nature if we find complex information in nature? Really? My argument is simply that we could not identify the information left by God from that left by nature so its source would always be in question, but I have no idea how to respond to your seeming statement that God cannot control nature. I assume it is a misstatement. You then go on to describe what you see as the difference between ID and TE. Since your definition of a TE is someone who believes that "God designed a non-design universe," it is helpful only in the sense that it clarifies that I, by your definition, am not a TE. In rejecting ID, I do not have to accept the absence of design, only your methods of proving it. Regardless, this argument has nothing to do with any of my points. When I point out that we cannot separate God's work from nature because God, unlike man, is in control of nature, you say:

There is no reason to believe that God is identical to, unified with, or bound by his laws in any way.

You apparently missed the first part of the next paragraph that you actually quote which says:

“Notice that I am not saying that God is limited to working through nature, but that any actions within or without of nature’s laws have the same exact source and we have no basis for telling them apart.”

Instead, you react to my statement regarding our inability to discern nature from divine action by saying:

Again, the evidence is against you. If your assumptions were true, God’s intelligence would not manifest itself in the form of 500 bits of FSCI.

So, the evidence that I am wrong about being unable to discern divine action from nature is that complex information exists in nature. I hate to remind you that no one disagrees that information exists in nature: only about its sources. And you contradict not only your own claims but those of all you fellow since you all claim that ID makes no inferences about this information coming from God. Right? Now, to prove me wrong about your inability to detect divine intelligence, you claim ID has already done so? Really? In response to my request that you agree that not really know much about God's intelligence based on the limited example of our own, you respond.

Absolutely not. Our intelligence participates in God’s intelligence. That is the point that you do not understand or refuse to accept. He set things up so that we could detect the presence of his intelligence. You don’t realize it, I’m sure, but you are arguing for an irrational universe in which God’s handiwork is totally imperceptible. If your assumptions were true, then God could not reveal himself in nature, through 500 bits of FSCI, or in Scripture, through his word. More important, both revelations would be totally incomprehensible to us.

None of your statements about my beliefs are remotely true. As a matter of fact, I believe the opposite of what you claim. I completely accept that we participate in God's intelligence and, reading my posts, you know this. I complete accept that he set up the universe so that we COULD detect his intelligence and have said so. What I reject is that we are FORCED to recognize his intelligence in the way you say. We can only CHOOSE to believe in it. I personally do believe in a rational universe, but not in a universe that forces belief. If you want me to explain the difference, I will be glad to do so, but it isn't a part of the discussion here. All for today, but for future posters, please try to avoid misrepresenting my beliefs and statements or lumping them will "all TEs (especially since I don't seem to meet the definition). My two points are simple. Please do not try to disprove them by insisting I must mean something other that what I say.garygagliardi

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

10:27 PM

10

10

27

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

----nullasalus: “If Heller has commented on Darwinism in any way, I’ve missed it - his dismissive attitude towards ID (which I, from the start, said may be due to misunderstanding) isn’t enough to place him where you’re placing him.” Most TE’s, (there may be some exceptions) believe in a naturalistic, non-directed evolutionary process as an explanation for bio-diversity. I use the word Darwinism to differentiate between TE (non-directed evolution and ID (God-directed or “designed” evolution). My definition of a Theistic Evolutionist or Christian Darwinist is anyone who argues that God allowed this naturalistic, non-directed evolution to take place. Obviously, that is tantamount to arguing for no design. Incredibly, TE’s argue that God somehow designed this no-design process by allowing it to happen. That is what they mean when they say that design is “inherent in the evolutionary process.” Still, they obviously don’t really believe that the design is real, because they are arguing for a non-design process. The idea is to both affirm and deny design, as incredible as this may seem. Even so, they are serious only about the no-design part of the formula, which is why they militate against ID. -----“No, I mean that TEs and IDers can come to a gentlemanly agreement that they both disagree about the scientific status of ID theory (present and future), while cooperating insofar as philosophical presentations of the data goes, and hey - maybe even attacks on the philosophy-as-science presentations that are offered up for a more atheistic Darwinism, often.” TEs have already decided on which side their bread is buttered. Anytime there is a debate between ID and atheistic Darwinism, the theistic evolutionist ALWAYS takes the side of the atheist. What does that tell you? -----“That requires fairly engaging the criticisms and reservations TEs have with ID. Arguing that they don’t really believe in design when they repeatedly state that they do, and even provide arguments of how they view that design, helps no one. With the possible exception of Dawkins & co.” It would appear that design that they believe in is merely rhetorical, as I have pointed out. Have you not heard of “methodological naturalism?” That is the anti-design methodology that Darwinists promote and to which TEs have signed on to wholeheartedly. So, TE’s have two non-design agendas: 1) naturalistic evolution and 2) methodological naturalism. If you are aware of a TE who abjures these agendas, let me know and I will take note of it. I don’t think that you will. To renounce naturalistic evolution and methodological naturalism automatically puts one in the ID camp. --- -----“I’m not even arguing that ID shouldn’t be recognized as science. I think ID is (in fact, must) engaging the 800lb gorilla in natural science that no one wants to go near - the theoretical extent of intelligence and what impact it could have on the natural world. So, tell me. Do you think that ID is science as deserves a place at the table or don’t you? You seem to equivocate on this matter. -----“I’m arguing that TEs are essentially on the same side as ID proponents and that the hostility between the two camps is unnecessary. What’s more, it shouldn’t bring a desire for intellectual retribution just because someone makes with a flippant remark. That should be criticized, but cooperation should be pursued.” From my vantage point, the TEs are busy undermining ID at every turn. I’ll tell you what, though, if you can get them to cease fire, I will happily participate in the peace process. Meanwhile, I am not a big fan of unilateral truces. -----“The reaction should be to A) Point out where the science ends, and where the atheology begins, and demand the same separation that critics demand of ID proposals, and B) In the philosophical realm, pick up the science and start arguing the case for a Designer (Which a good number of the TEs are doing, and which more ID proponents need to do as well).” Yes, there is some truth in what you say. A few TE’s do, at least, accept the “anthropic principle,” which points to the fine tuning of the universe. I think Francis Collins and Dinesh Dsouza probably fit that category, although Dsouza appears to accept something like a God-directed evolution, which means he is not squarely in the TE camp. However, both of these men have made damaging public pronouncements about ID science, even though they obviously know next to nothing about it. Dsouza is arguing in favor of theism and against atheism and he is doing a very good job of it. In some ways, that puts him in a position to hurt us more. Many will say, “He is a Christian apologist and even he doesn’t believe in ID.”StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

10:11 PM

10

10

11

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

garygagliardi (70): "all you seem to think is that I am saying that God can choose to “hide” his action, but my point and Heller's is much more substantial and central than that. If there is no separation between the creating intelligence and natural forces, logically one cannot be identified as separate from the other, certainly not be the same methods that separate human intelligent action from natural action." Side observation: Taken as stated, you are describing pantheism, not Catholic or Christian theology, nor even theism. However that may be, although you referred in 70 to my position, I doesn't seem you engaged or even quoted from it, either there or in 74. The application to your question is straight forward. If God's actions were always indistinguishable from what science sees as the law+chance patterns of undirected natural processes, then it follows necessarily that any time that science detects the actions of intelligent agency, that would be some intelligent agency other than God. Thus, Heller's objection to ID completely misses the mark. He does not understand that his objection makes no connection with what ID is doing. None whatsoever. You also misunderstand ID as some simple syllogism, one with absolutes that are inappropriate to science, which is always tentative. Even if the actual cause is unknown, the "unknown" is not a different kind of cause. Science does not operate based on speculations that lack empirical support. So far, I don't see that you have engaged my points about the nature of science. In summary, to take an example for illustration, if ID infers intelligent agency as the best explanation for the information content of biological life, and Heller or you come along and say "What if God's actions are indistinguishable from undirected law+chance?", the proper response is "What does that have to do with it at all? Symbolic information is distinguishable from the observed effects of undirected law+chance. This inference to intelligent agency is completely unaffected by your theological assertion."ericB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

05:41 PM

5

05

41

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

He is what he is. And that encapsulates exactly why I am frustrated by ID in it’s current incarnation. After detecting design, it asks no further questions. OK, someone says a particular thing is designed. He is asked who designed it. He answers he doesn't know. Why would that invalidate the claim that that particular thing was designed?tribune7

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

05:33 PM

5

05

33

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

leo (#84): Much better, much better... You make some interesting points. You say: "Well, no. The nature of the designer does not change based on our respective belief systems. He is what he is. And that encapsulates exactly why I am frustrated by ID in it’s current incarnation. After detecting design, it asks no further questions. There seems to be no interest in asking what would seem the obvious, and compelling, questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how. For a scientific endeavour, that is spectacularly incurious." I agree with you, but only partially. I agree that the nature of the designer, and the modalities of design, are perfectly reasonable, indeed mandatory, scientifci questions. But I think you don't understand why ID at present has to restrict its main field of activity to affirm design detection. There are different reasons, all of them perfectly valid: 1) The principle that design can be detected in biological information is not a new, complete scientific model. It is, more correctly, a new paradigm, a new scenario, which can create room for many new scientific models. In other words, admitting the presence and nature of design is just the first step for a new conception of science. But if we don't take that first step, the new conception will never come, and our scientific thought will remain enslaved by the false assumptions of determinism and materialism. 2) Detecting design in biological information is something which can already be done, and it is effectively supported by known facts, and ever more supported by each new fact which is daily discovered. On the contrary, the nature of the designer and the modalities of design are at present scarsely clarified by known facts. Many aspects of those problems can certainly be discussed in the light of what we know, and we certainly are doing that here at UD. You will have certainly read many threads about front-loading or non front-loading, aliens or God, graduality or non graduality, common or non common descent,and so on. As you probably know, we have different views about many of those aspects, and that is completely right. ID is the first step. It is the step already supported by facts. The rest will come. But we can speculate as long as we want, if facts are not yet sufficient to give definite answers our discussion will remain, for now, mostly philosophical. That's the point we are at, for instance, about common descent. Some of us (most, probably) accept it. Some don't. Personally, I still have not a final opinion. Why? Because, in my opinion, our knowledge is still not enough to decide. So, you see, we are perfectly aware that some things, while being in principle in the range of scientific knowledge, cannot still be evaluated satisfactorily because we don't know enough facts, or because our theoretical models are not yet enough developed. But design detection is not one of those things. 3) Last, but not least, you seem to dismiss the obvious fact that the whole model of design inference, of ID, has been violently, and unreasonably, rejected by the official scientific world, and that indeed the same idea of design is treated as though it were an heresy. In this situation, fighting to have the true value of the ID model at least admitted and fairly discussed becomes a logical priority. The rest will come. You say: "ID supporters believe that theyhave a better approach to the life sciences. Fair enough. A better approach should lead to better results. Let’s get on with it." Frankly, are you playing naif? Aren't you aware that all the technical resources in biology are owned, managed and controlled by strict darwinists? Aren't you aware of how difficult it is even to publish something which even indirectly is in support of ID? The ID perspective can certainly help, immediately help science. But it has to be recognized as valid, and seriously applied. Just a couple of examples. Abel and Trevors have been doing a very interesting work on CSI measurement, even if they never refer to ID or to Dembski while using the same concepts. In their last paper, they really apply a method to measure CSI in proteins. Right or wrong, it is an interesting start. But the biological community has mainly reacted with critics and disdain, accusing them (and they are right!) of being too ID friendly! Second example: Dembski and Marks had started a very important critical work about genetic algorytms, and what was the reaction at Baylor? We all know... Remember, gathering the facts is the duty of every researcher, whatever his ideological frame. But interpreting facts is always done inside an ideological frame, be it darwinism, ID or any other. That's why plurality of interpretations is vital for science. Scientists are gathering facts. Most scientists, today, are darwinists. They own the resources, and therefore they are those who gather the facts. But the facts are not owned by anyone. Accusing IDists of not contributing to gather facts is like accusing poor people of not living in beautiful palaces. Give ID the resources, and you will see...gpuccio

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

03:19 PM

3

03

19

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

nullasalus: I must say that you have been quite measured and thoughtful in your responses to my criticism of the TE's. Inasmuch as you appear to be a quasi-TE, it would have been easy for you to take it personally; I am glad that you did not. To me, the key to nagivating through this mess is to watch carefully way TE's use and abuse key terms. It ain't pretty.StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

02:56 PM

2

02

56

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, "Heller and Dsouza both sign on the incredible proposition that the “design is inherent in the evolutionary process.” Yet the evolutionary process they describe is Darwinistic, which by definition reduces design to illusion, which is another word for nonexistent. According to them, God “designed” a “non-design” process. " If Heller has commented on Darwinism in any way, I've missed it - his dismissive attitude towards ID (which I, from the start, said may be due to misunderstanding) isn't enough to place him where you're placing him. D'Souza said outright that he thinks evolution is intellectually abused as a theory to support particular philosophical views. It's clear that he does not consider evolution or Darwinism to mean 'no design'. Yes, I'm sure others do use Darwinism to mean as much. I suspect one kinda-TE in particular (Ken Miller) means as much. But clearly D'Souza, possibly Heller, and certainly many other TEs hold a view of 'Darwinism' that is not 'no design'. If you want to argue that the very definition of Darwinism requires that there be no design, do so. My response would vary between disagreeing (because the presence or lack of design is a philosophical question, which according to TEs and many others, the science cannot address) and simply not caring (because arguing that TEs are illogical because they mean something different from 'Darwinism' than you think is acceptable is just too minor a point to bicker about.) "You mean that we can come to a gentlemanly agreement that Darwinism is real science and that ID is not. If those are your terms for a truce, I will pass. Besides, as I have pointed out previously, it is the TE’s who are on the offensive. Did you read Dsouza’s anti-ID article last week? All ID wants is its rightful place at the table, no more, no less." No, I mean that TEs and IDers can come to a gentlemanly agreement that they both disagree about the scientific status of ID theory (present and future), while cooperating insofar as philosophical presentations of the data goes, and hey - maybe even attacks on the philosophy-as-science presentations that are offered up for a more atheistic Darwinism, often. That requires fairly engaging the criticisms and reservations TEs have with ID. Arguing that they don't really believe in design when they repeatedly state that they do, and even provide arguments of how they view that design, helps no one. With the possible exception of Dawkins & co. " In saner times, such an approach might have worked. In truth, philosophical and theological knowledge surpasses scientific knowledge in significance. Unfortunately, the world we live in literally worships science even as it downgrades all other forms of knowledge. It isn’t fair and it isn’t true, but that doesn’t matter. Don’t forget how this whole thing got started. Philosophers and theologians were rightly pointing out that design is real. Darwin came along as said, “You are wrong, I’m doing ‘real science’ and all your fantasies are hereby refuted. Design is an illusion.” On that part, he was wrong, of course, but it didn’t matter. In any case, ID is science, so why should it not insist on being recognized as such." I'm not even arguing that ID shouldn't be recognized as science. I think ID is (in fact, must) engaging the 800lb gorilla in natural science that no one wants to go near - the theoretical extent of intelligence and what impact it could have on the natural world. That is the atomic bomb of "undesigned" naturalistic theories, and every scientific success we experience as humans further justifies - on several grounds - a theistic view of the world. I'm arguing that TEs are essentially on the same side as ID proponents and that the hostility between the two camps is unnecessary. What's more, it shouldn't bring a desire for intellectual retribution just because someone makes with a flippant remark. That should be criticized, but cooperation should be pursued. Second, you're (surprisingly) discounting philosophy. Insofar as Darwin (or anyone else) says that science shows design to be an illusion, they are not doing science. They are engaged in philosophy. Yes, they are employing scientific discoveries to justify their philosophies - but the result is still philosophy. The reaction should be to A) Point out where the science ends, and where the atheology begins, and demand the same separation that critics demand of ID proposals, and B) In the philosophical realm, pick up the science and start arguing the case for a Designer (Which a good number of the TEs are doing, and which more ID proponents need to do as well).nullasalus

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

01:09 PM

1

01

09

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

-----Leo: “It is not my position that design detection is impossible. It is my position that it is insufficient. And unambitious.” Insufficient for what? Adjectives without nouns are hard to follow. Are you saying that the [A] ID methodology works, but [B] ought to do more to help mankind? Or are you evading [A] by emphasizing [B] without conceding [A]. -----"I am asking it to determine means (as in method) not meaning." Well, if you are asking about methods, why are you fussing over what you perceive to be inadequate social contributions of the method, which is a totally separate matter? -----"Are you sure you want ID associated with apologetics?" Only two types of people do that, those who don’t understand it and those who seek to discredit it.StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

11:51 AM

11

11

51

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

-----"Sitting around debating knuckleheads like me is not a mark of genius. Going out and using knowledge to improve the world is." Liberating knukleheads from their knockleheadedness is a noble calling. In theology, we call it a "work of mercy."StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

10:16 AM

10

10

16

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

-----Leo: The point still stands. KF criticizes Gary for resorting to undiscovered laws to explain the origin of life, when his (KF’s) favored explanation resorts to an undiscovered designer. Your comment is not rational. There is a philosophical/theological discussion going on with a blogger who has chosen to de-emphasize the scientific component. ----- “Well, no. The nature of the designer does not change based on our respective belief systems. He is what he is. And that encapsulates exactly why I am frustrated by ID in it’s current incarnation. After detecting design, it asks no further questions. There seems to be no interest in asking what would seem the obvious, and compelling, questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how. For a scientific endeavour, that is spectacularly incurious.” That is because there are so many, like yourself, who deny that design detection is possible. Why try to explain the significance of a fact, while the fact is being denied? That would not be logical. It is also not logical to expect science to answer philosophical questions about meaning. -----“But the Darwinists are making a good show of trying to develop medicines and cure diseases. ID supporters believe that theyhave a better approach to the life sciences. Fair enough. A better approach should lead to better results. Let’s get on with it.” ID does not have a tough act to follow. Darwin’s theory of evolution has not contributed one positive thing to mankind in 150 years. All positive contributions to medicine have come from molecular biology and pharmacology. ID is only 15 years old. Try to make your case again in about 25 years after ID has been given the opportunity to conduct research without having its labs shut down by Darwinists.StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

10:11 AM

10

10

11

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Leo: "Jealousy is the tribue mediocrity pays to genius."----Fulton J. Sheen.StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

09:35 AM

9

09

35

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

-----“My response is that the TE position typically IS that design is clear and obvious - to reason. To understanding. If that is the case, then why do they embrace Darwinism which insists that design is “illusory.” -----“So right there, you have something that both IDs and TEs would likely regard as real, recognizable, and true - but at the same time, outside the scope of science to prove it. This divide is what’s going on with Heller, D’Souza, and likely others - they do see design. Reason leads them to understand nature as having a divine author. They do not think that this can be proven in the scientific realm, and they believe such a pursuit is a mistake that will confuse people or harm their faith.” Heller and Dsouza both sign on the incredible proposition that the “design is inherent in the evolutionary process.” Yet the evolutionary process they describe is Darwinistic, which by definition reduces design to illusion, which is another word for nonexistent. According to them, God “designed” a “non-design” process. -----“Now, I want to say - even if I’m far closer to TEs in belief, I have strong ID leanings. I believe that, even if it’s true that design/God cannot be demonstrated via science, science can (and in fact, does) bolster the philosophical argument dramatically. And I believe that science can be done under the ID paradigm, even if it’s model-based - effectively approaching nature with a commitment to design as an axiom to work from. But I think any hostility between the ID and TE camps is a mistake - and what’s more, it is not necessary. There’s room for disagreement, not to mention rational persuasion.” You mean that we can come to a gentlemanly agreement that Darwinism is real science and that ID is not. If those are your terms for a truce, I will pass. Besides, as I have pointed out previously, it is the TE’s who are on the offensive. Did you read Dsouza’s anti-ID article last week? All ID wants is its rightful place at the table, no more, no less. -----“Here’s my meager suggestion: Even many TEs mention that if ID isn’t fit for the laboratory, it’s fit for the philosophy classroom. Do not consider that an insult, or even bad advice. Think of how many times we see mainstream work published on this site, with mention of its relevance to ID. Can you imagine the persuasive power of taking the mainstream science, stripping the ‘Unplanned, unguided’ mantra that typically seeps into the papers (Which, I might add, is itself unscientific commentary), and presenting the data from the philosophical perspective of an ID proponent?” In saner times, such an approach might have worked. In truth, philosophical and theological knowledge surpasses scientific knowledge in significance. Unfortunately, the world we live in literally worships science even as it downgrades all other forms of knowledge. It isn’t fair and it isn’t true, but that doesn’t matter. Don’t forget how this whole thing got started. Philosophers and theologians were rightly pointing out that design is real. Darwin came along as said, “You are wrong, I’m doing ‘real science’ and all your fantasies are hereby refuted. Design is an illusion.” On that part, he was wrong, of course, but it didn’t matter. In any case, ID is science, so why should it not insist on being recognized as such.StephenB

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

09:31 AM

9

09

31

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

leo stotch: I find your comment to kairosfocus' post particularly unfair and unkind. You say: "And yet you have no problem proposing an undiscovered, disembodied designer as an opposing explanation" It's probably not even worthwhile repeating that to you, but just for sport: the ID model, as you probably perfectly know, is not proposing God. It is inferring a designer, consistently with observed characteristics of designed things. The designer can certainly be a God, if one believes that a God exists. If you don't believe that, you can choice any designer you like. At present, God's existence and/or nature is not an ID, or a scientific, issue. But I understand that, even if we repeat that truth a million times, people like you will always be ready to go on with their falsities as soon as they have an opportunity. You say: "and resorting to quoting Bible verses to drive home your point." Maybe you are somewhat a distracted reader, and missed kairosfocus' note: "Since this is in large part, a phil-theol discussion at this point, I would love to hear the TE view on say Rom 1:18 - 23:" In case you have also problems in interpretation of what is obvious, I will remark that kairosfocus, whose posts I have read many times, always with great personal satisfaction, has posted here at UD on multiple subjects: mostly on ID proper, and always strictly from a scientific point of view, but also, and generously, on philosophical, political, religious, theological, social issues. Each time, whether you agree with him or not, you will find that he is very consistent with the level of the discussion. In other words, even if that can appear strange to you, when we are discussing, as was the case here, the philosophical and theological aspects of TE, philosophical and theological arguments are perfectly pertinent, including quoting the Bible. In my last post here, commenting to garygagliardi, I made a similar note, and although it's not my habit to do so, I will cite myself: "My main impression, from your comments, is that you are mainly interested in the philosophical-religious implications of the question, and just avoid the scientific aspect. That’s OK with me, if we agree that your objections have really no scientific basis ... If we agree on that, I’ll try to reply to your philosophical and religious arguments (I am stating that explicitly, because here at UD I always try to stick to the purely scientific approach)." So, as you can see, many people here are very careful to distinguish between scientific arguments and philosophical or religious arguments. You don't seem to be so interested in that difference, as far as you can attack somebody. The same is true of the darwinists who attack Dembski for his theological writings (which he has always kept separate from his scientific ones), or just any IDist who has a religious faith. That kind of intolerance is the only truly intolerable thing.gpuccio

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

08:57 AM

8

08

57

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

DLH, "compared to Heller not understanding ID and/or trying to confuse the issue to where his “theism” is indistinguishable from atelic materialism in terms of practical evaluation of nature.)" kairosfocus, "If the cosmos as a whole and its contents up to and including us do not show “plain” and intelligible/”understandable” traces of design, but rather traces of chance + necessity only, then it logically cuts across Paul’s thinking at this point; which is of course a major part of his theology of the gospel. So, is Paul — on the view of TE’s — wrong? If so, why? If not, why not?" I'm quoting both of these, because I see a common thread between them. DLH mentions that Heller's theism, when practically evaluating nature, is no different from 'atelic materialism'. Kairos asks about plain, intelligible, understandable traces of design in nature. In both cases, it seems that the TEs are being charged with denying that design is clear and obvious. My response is that the TE position typically IS that design is clear and obvious - to reason. To understanding. But what keeps your average TE a TE (at least, so far) is the belief that this realization is the stuff of philosophy. It's not amenable to scientific arbitration. Think of it this way: Every TE I've come across believes in a real morality, and in objective values related to that morality. I'd assume many ID proponents would agree with them on this point. But who here would argue that morality can be measured scientifically? Who would suggest that 'Stalin was morally wrong to kill so many russians' is a hypothesis that can be falsified? So right there, you have something that both IDs and TEs would likely regard as real, recognizable, and true - but at the same time, outside the scope of science to prove it. This divide is what's going on with Heller, D'Souza, and likely others - they do see design. Reason leads them to understand nature as having a divine author. They do not think that this can be proven in the scientific realm, and they believe such a pursuit is a mistake that will confuse people or harm their faith. Now, I want to say - even if I'm far closer to TEs in belief, I have strong ID leanings. I believe that, even if it's true that design/God cannot be demonstrated via science, science can (and in fact, does) bolster the philosophical argument dramatically. And I believe that science can be done under the ID paradigm, even if it's model-based - effectively approaching nature with a commitment to design as an axiom to work from. But I think any hostility between the ID and TE camps is a mistake - and what's more, it is not necessary. There's room for disagreement, not to mention rational persuasion. Here's my meager suggestion: Even many TEs mention that if ID isn't fit for the laboratory, it's fit for the philosophy classroom. Do not consider that an insult, or even bad advice. Think of how many times we see mainstream work published on this site, with mention of its relevance to ID. Can you imagine the persuasive power of taking the mainstream science, stripping the 'Unplanned, unguided' mantra that typically seeps into the papers (Which, I might add, is itself unscientific commentary), and presenting the data from the philosophical perspective of an ID proponent?nullasalus

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

05:12 AM

5

05

12

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

StephenB: Eloquent, and devastating. I find it interesting that in a context where science -- rightly understood -- is an empirically anchored, open-ended, provisional search for the truth about the world we experience and observe, there is now a resort to proposed undiscovered laws to explain the origin of life. That leads to two points:

i: If "life" is written into the fabric of universal natural law, that is an astonishing quantum of organised complexity in the laws of the cosmos -- one that points to cosmological design, which in turn makes a big-C Creator a most plausible explanation. ii: There is a basic factor in the platonic chance-necessity-art trichotomy [though even Plato seemed to think it was immemorial in his day]. Namely, lawlike regularities are associated with outcomes of low contingency. We use law to explain, say, how heavy objects fall and eventually settle on say a table. But, when that object is a box full of dice, such regularities do not explain the high-contingency outcome of the sequence of digits made by the uppermost faces of the dice taken in turn. Contingency traces to chance or agency, reliably. And, if we have say 500 dice and we discover that the digits spell out a message in a suitable code, we see that we hve functionally specified, complex information that reliably traces to agency; as, say, I remarked on here.

In short, the inference to unknown law, runs into deep trouble. If it is so, it points to design of the cosmos. And, it has to be a law of contingency that bears complex, functional information. There IS an observed regularity on that -- intelligence. And, if instead, the common sense observation that mechanical necessity gives rise to natural regularities is instead correct, we need to be looking to distinguishing chance and agency in looking at say DNA. When we do that, we see that FSCI is a reliable marker of agency. That sounds like a factually challenged, logically incoherent position to me, garygagliardi. If that is not so, why? I am therefore struck by the three cornered debate that has developed, in particular the ID vs TE distinction:

According to ID, design is “perceivable” and can be “apprehended;” according to TE (your paradigm) design is merely “conceivable” and can only be “comprehended.” ID assumes that design can be taken in through the senses, or that it is “real” TE, like Darwinism, insists that design is illusory, except that it is “inherent in the evolutionary process.” The official TE position is this: God designed a non-design universe.

Since this is in large part, a phil-theol discussion at this point, I would love to hear the TE view on say Rom 1:18 - 23:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, 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.

I think this is a point where Paul exposed key constructs in his theology and philosophy to empirical test. If the cosmos as a whole and its contents up to and including us do not show "plain" and intelligible/"understandable" traces of design, but rather traces of chance + necessity only, then it logically cuts across Paul's thinking at this point; which is of course a major part of his theology of the gospel. So, is Paul -- on the view of TE's -- wrong? If so, why? If not, why not? Just curious . . . GEM of TKI PS: BTW, I found your "functionally complex specified information" an interesting formulation. Makes me think about TA's FSC vs RSC vs OSC.kairosfocus

April 5, 2008

April

04

Apr

5

05

2008

04:40 AM

4

04

40

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link