Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID as ‘Science of God’ (aka Theology)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A piece of mine has been just published in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) excellent Religion and Ethics website.

It provides a larger context for my own theologically positive approach to ID, which I realize is not everyone’s cup of tea.

However, like Gregory Sandstrom, I welcome johnnyb’s intervention, which raises the issue of which companies an ID supporter would invest in (or not). I personally find the choices a bit on the Rorschach side of plausibility — i.e. it tells us more about the beliefs of the proposer. So Eric Holloway is happy to regard ‘gamers’ as ‘human’ in a way that has not been contaminated by the AI ideology of Kurzweil et al., so he doesn’t see their ‘gamer’ status as already inching in the direction of the Singularity. Whatever…

I don’t believe that such neat distinctions can be maintained under close scrutiny. Perhaps Kurzweil has slippery sloped us to a place where we don’t want to be, but attempts to draw a sharp distinction between ‘human’ and ‘artificial’ beg too many questions without further elaboration. There are people — I think of Susan Greenfield, the Oxford chair in neuropharmacology — who believe that gaming is re-wiring people’s brains so as to de-humanize them. I think she’s bonkers, and have said so publicly, but her attitude is emblematic of people who believe that you’ve left humanity even once you become a gamer. So where to draw the line? I don’t think there is a principled line to draw here. Anyone who believes otherwise is bound to kill the ID project with a moralism that comes from somewhere other than ID.

If we’re honest, the anti-ID people are right about one thing: Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein. To be sure, these beliefs cover quite a wide spectrum but so far there is little appetite to discuss positive visions of ID, for reasons that range from the perceived privacy of religious belief to the fear of public opprobrium from a wider secular culture. My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.

Comments
F/N: The fact that we so often use GCAT to describe DNA should suffice to show how close the two codes are; BTW, that DNA was coded strings was recognised since 1953 by Crick, as his letter to his son of Mar 19 documents. And if you are objecting to coded prongs of different height etc, look at auto-play pianos, braille, Yale-type keys and locks [think about the interaction of key prongs, pins and the rotating cylinder], cams and the von Neumann proposal to code digital info using prongs of diverse standard height in his suggestions for a kinematic self replicator. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
GS: Pardon a typo, state of the ART. Similarly, it is not in your gift or mine to change what GA has written, we may only assess it. He/his school uses the term, and that in context includes intelligent action. Demonstrable fact out there, which shows how broadly "evolve" is often used. I have seen it used to denote successive states of systems governed by differential or difference equations that are dependent on the initial conditions and dynamics. We need to be aware and insist on case by case clarity. Debating terms is a side issue. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
I agree. Get with the program Gregory. It's your idea, you do the follow up. You have been pampered in your anti-intellectual environment for so long that you can't differentiate between activity and accomplishment. Articulate your vision and develop a workable paradigm and you will learn that creating something real is a far different thing that speculating on a daydream.StephenB
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
"Technological evolution describes successive states of the are as inventors provide improvements, and sometimes breakthroughs." Not coherent. Proper English please. I reject 'technological evolution', remember? Convince me otherwise, if you can. "As for WmAD, he obviously encountered TRIZ somewhere along the line and sees a synergy with the idea of life as a technology that is warranted on the design inference starting with OOL." Dembski's apparent 'synergy' between 'technological evolution' and 'Origins of Life' is nowhere made clear. Could you cite a source for this 'synergy' please? Human-made code differs substantially from non-human-made code. That is, unless one pre-supposes some kind of affinity, such as could be found in the doctrine of imago Dei. But most ID proponents deny that has anything to do with their empiricistic view of ID theory. Fuller is saying, "Get with the program". Resistence persists.Gregory
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
GS: I did not devise the pervasiveness of widely varied usage of terms like "evolution," and, given GA's marxist context, "contradiction" to denote conflicts that may require tradeoffs or may with genius be transformed to get a win-win. Technological evolution describes successive states of the are as inventors provide improvements, and sometimes breakthroughs. Neither you nor I have a privilege -- if we do duties of care -- to ignore material factors. As for WmAD, he obviously encountered TRIZ somewhere along the line and sees a synergy with the idea of life as a technology that is warranted on the design inference starting with OOL. There are patterns of invention that obtain for things that work with matter, energy, functional organisation of parts and information. It is the latter two issues that, for things of sufficient complexity, are where intelligence becomes the most effective way to "get there." So, it should not be surprising that the sorts of challenges we are meeting and the solutions we come up with are sufficiently similar to the natural world to give pause. The code based self replication conceived by von Neumann BEFORE DNA was identified and decoded is a good case in point. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
"'evolve' has so many meanings that it is a word that it is not wise to load up with any one. I simply underscored that technology progresses and is transformed through inventions." - KF Re: multiple meanings of 'evolve' - we are surely agreed. Yet people, not just biologists or natural scientists, use the term regularly. My aim is to circumscribe the uses of 'evolution' to its proper domain(s). Are you on-board with that? Likewise, KF, 'progress' has multiple meanings. I disagree with both Altshuller and Dembski that technology should be said to 'evolve.' Dembski didn't study thousands of patents like Altshuller, and simply agrees with TRIZ's 'technological evolution' language because...I'm not sure why. Do you know why, KF? Are you claiming intelligent design, as you see it, refers to both human-made technology and to origins of life, biological information, humankind, etc.? If so, then what is an example of something that is *not* intelligently designed in your view? I must admit, your involvement of technology is closer to a 'positive vision of ID' than anything put forward by others so far at UD that I've seen.Gregory
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
PPS: You asked my view. It is, in theological terms, that we are living out of Rom 1 and Deut 8, on borrowed time. Absent widespread repentance and reformation leading to cultural renewal of miraculous character [as has admittedly happened before], we are sliding over the cliff that Plato highlighted in The Laws Bk x so long ago now. Remember, he was writing after the Athenian collapse, with Alcibiades as exhibit no 1 on implications of the nihilism and ruthless agenda-driven factionism that avant garde evolutionary materialism opens up. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to relive it. It is Marx -- yes, Marx -- who said, first time, as tragedy, thereafter as farce. The French Revolution, Nazi Germany and the USSR are the tragedy, we are the somehow sad Alinsky-ite farce. We will not even learn from LIVING MEMORY history. Churchill is spinning in his grave fast enough to drive a power plant. On just one scenario, three Iranian EMP bombs -- 100 mi or so up over Ohio, France and Moscow, I guess -- will be enough to draw down the curtains on the madness.kairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
PS: I think you need to again consult context, including the point that he evidence of the digitally coded algorithmic functionally specific info in cell based life (including int he self replication system) points to life being a technology. I have above, in outline, pointed out the statistical miracle implied in asserting or assuming that chemicals in a warm little pond, volcano vent etc somehow just spontaneously organised into a living cell. With extremely high confidence we can see that this is an unobservable on blind chance and necessity, on the gamut of our cosmos. So, givne that we have excellent inductive reason to see such FSCO/I as a strong sign of design, that is a warranted inference. In part to evade this, there is a metaphysical, speculative resort to a quasi-infinite multiverse, which only succeeds in showing (a) the objection is at root an exercise in metaphysical speculation without empirical observational support -- not scientific (which requires empirical testing/observation of claimed facts), (b) that the evidence of cosmological design is also material. Note the significance of the John Leslie lone fly on the wall swatted by a bullet discussion. What is clearly driving he resorts is the institutional domination of a priori evolutionary materialism, and accommodations made to it. Absent such an a priori, and absent its institutional dominance, the design inference would be a no-brainer. This is multiplied by the self-referential incoherence of such evolutionary materialism, which renders it necessarily false on philosophical- logical grounds in light of the mind-/rationality- discrediting implications of its own origins narrative.kairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
GS: "evolve" has so many meanings that it is a word that it is not wise to load up with any one. I simply underscored that technology progresses and is transformed through inventions which are cumulative and are -- remember, GA studied thousands of PATENTS to deduce his principles -- the product of inventors, who are intelligent designers. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
Thanks for addressing the question: "Technological evolution, here [in TRIZ], is of course by intelligent design in light of principles of improvement." - kairosfocus This is an important recognition, because elsewhere people are claiming 'intelligent design' is the study of biological and cosmic origins. Now you're saying that you believe technology can 'evolve' by 'intelligent design.' Does anyone here see the gap of reasoning in that this situation presents? [And I'm not saying KF is wrong because that *is* what Altshuller meant re: TRIZ.] One person who supports ID says it's about 'meaning of life,' 'origins,' "Where do we come from?" "could chance and necessity alone have produced life, species, and man?” etc. Yet, another person, just as much a proponent of ID, just as much an 'ID people,' speaks of 'intelligently designed' technologies. The two positions cannot both be correct at the same time. And while one speaks of a fantasy discovery, indeed it would be a revolution which would change human history forever, that is, if science *proved* that life is purposefully designed and is therefore *meaningful* (which personally, I already believe), the other is grounded in everyday human experience, in the 'lifeworld' of societies and people, who use 'intelligently designed' technology on a daily basis. Again KF, I'm not a materialist, not a naturalist, only a reductionist when reduction is necessary, not an atheist. Won't you (re-)consider that "positive visions of ID" are indeed possible if we consider nature as 'divine technology' and as beings created in imago Dei try to "think God's thoughts after him"? If so, welcome to Humanity 2.0! "Our [Western] civilisation is mortally wounded and absent a miraculous reformation, is sinking frighteningly fast." - KF Obviously this is a 'doom and gloom' approach. I guess I'm more 'cornucopian' than K.F. Look on the bright side, friend!Gregory
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
“why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” – Steve Fuller Still, there are no respondents…
Actually, you didn’t want to talk about it, remember? Our existence (as intelligent agents) leaves a physical footprint in matter. It has very unique material characteristics. We can observe them. Those physical characteristics are the same ones that are observed to be the proximate cause of all the molecular organization in every living thing on earth. Perhaps you should stop your human extension powerpoint long enough to gather same data.Upright BiPed
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
--Gregory: "(Note: did you realise, StephenB, that you tell people they are ‘confused’ or ‘confusing’ more than anyone I’ve read on the internet?!)" How else can I respond to someone who thinks the following sequence of characters was designed? dqoeiveiiopdke9eu oeiwovodhe dideiwhie What else can I say about someone who claims to have a vision for ID but cannot articulate it except to repeat the claim that it exists in his head?StephenB
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
GS: I will note on a few points, for clarification: 1]101, Forensic science is a science of human-made things (e.g. murders). It is a science for the legal system, for courts of law . . . It is certainly not a natural science, as IDM-ID claims to be by focussing on Origins of Life and Biological Information (OoL&BI). You’re quite obviously conflating two different categories The objection falls flat. for instance in elementary physics we often study things like coiled springs or crash carts etc. Are these therefore irrelevant to "natural" objects? Not at all. Similarly, the issue pivots on what mechanical necessity does: produces regular, low contingency outcomes under given closely similar initial conditions. High contingency under similar initial conditions is due to chance or choice; e,g consider dropping a die under closely similar conditions 200 times. If we see a near-flat distribution across the six values in no particular order, that is consistent with a fair die playing out by effectively chance -- amplification of insensible effectively uncontrollable differences thanks to eight corners and twelve edges. But if they came up 6 every time, or in a code translatable into the opening words of this post, we would for cause infer extreme loading or some as yet mysterious intervention, i.e. design. Because the number of possibilities of 200 tosses, 6^200 (~ 4.27*10^155) is such that a genuinely chance result -- per sampling theory -- with all but certainty will not capture such a special, complex specific pattern. But, as long as design is POSSIBLE, that would not at all be so nearly impossible to observe. so, the reasonable person in the first case would infer an extremely loaded die, and in the second, a hidden means of manipulation. All of this is reasonable. And likewise, in OOL we are looking at a gated, encapsulated, metabolising automaton using digitally coded strings, algorithms etc. On the same sort of sampling expectations, such is not reasonably observable on the gamut of the observed cosmos on chance contingency and blind necessity. In short it is the rejection of the design inference which now clearly pivots on an a priori refusal to entertain the possibility of a designer. Notice, for life on earth, we have made no demand that would necessarily go beyond a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter. For origin of major body plans, the degree of FSCO/I dwarfs that for OOL. 2] “why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” – Steve Fuller. Still, there are no respondents… What are you talking about, other than seemingly erecting strawmen and refusing to examine the double point I have again made above? We see cases of non-human intelligences creating FSCO/I, e.g beaver dams and related works. We see that the particular class of greatest interest, digital code and algorithm based computational and cybernetic systems, it is not humanity as such but specific knowledge and fairly specialised skill that are vital. You will not get such a system by putting components in the wrong hands. 3] 99: This is the United States of America that you’re speaking of, isn’t it? That is the ‘culture’ you are referring to, aren’t you? No, I speak of Western Culture at large. Our civilisation is mortally wounded and absent a miraculous reformation, is sinking frighteningly fast. 4] ‘transforming the third world’ and ‘solar system colonisation’ according to ‘intelligent design,’ new ‘energy systems.’ It’s not OoL or OoBI, but hey, that’s a start! Different paradigms point in different directions. Biotech is a commonplace. What I am interested in is self replicating machine clusters, energy systems in place of metabolisms, and creation of secondary "intelligences," for which the beaver gives me hope. Industrial civ 2.0 leading to 3rd world transformation and solar system colonisation 5: I’m assuming then that you acccept the idea that ‘technology evolves’ according to TRIZ (i.e. Genrich Altshuller). Do you accept ‘technological evolution’ as does William Dembski, K.F., or not? Technological evolution, here, is of course by intelligent design in light of principles of improvement. I have no in-principle to such. But the concept of chemical evo to get to cell based life and onward complex body plans strictly on blind chance and mechanical necessity looks very very shaky, once one takes off a priori materialist blinkers. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
“Stop blowing smoke and provide this life-changing paradigm that will take ID to the next level.” - StephenB Maintaining ‘Theomimesis’ will take ID to the next level, guaranteed. “why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” – Steve Fuller Exactly. It shouldn’t. Our intelligence should be taken as a follower, a servant, a learner of a larger guiding intelligence, which we strive to obtain the understanding of. e.g. God ID as ‘Science of God’ makes perfect sense to those who understand there is much more to Life than what can be observed or even currently tested for.John W Kelly
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
“why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” – Steve Fuller
Because it gives us knowledge of cause and effect relationships. That is how we reach design inferences, via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships-> ie knowing what nature, operating freely can produce vs knowing what takes some added agency to produce. If every time we observe X and the cause is always some agency AND nature, operating freely can't do it, then when we observe X without knowing who, how, nor why, we can still infer some agency was involved. And then we investigate in that light. Ya see a design inference changes the investigation. And it ain't no subtle change.Joe
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Forensic science is a science of human-made things (e.g. murders). It is a science for the legal system, for courts of law (can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict?). It is certainly not a natural science, as IDM-ID claims to be by focussing on Origins of Life and Biological Information (OoL&BI). You're quite obviously conflating two different categories (human intelligence vs. non-human intelligence) by invoking it, StephenB. "You are again confusing the cause/effect relationship with the detection of the cause, which begins by observing the effect." - StephenB Right, and this is because I've closely studied one of the greatest theorists of 'Effects' in human history, a giant, visonary of 20c, while you and the IDM have studied...who exactly? Who is the big 'effects' theorist of the IDM that could in any way compare with McLuhan? Stephen C. Meyer continually refers to Charles Lyell's dictum: "The present is the key to the past." Is that all you've got? (Note: did you realise, StephenB, that you tell people they are 'confused' or 'confusing' more than anyone I've read on the internet?!) Who said anything about taking "ID to the next level"? IDM-ID might be stuck in this same paradigm (level) for decades, the way it currently avoids talk of 'designing,' avoids talk of 'designers/Designer(s),' and offers no "positive visions of ID," which Fuller is politely asking for in this thread. That holds very little explanatory power, very little hope for the future and depends almost wholly on 'implications' for any interest. Thanks to KF for at least attempting a 'positive vision'! “why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” - Steve Fuller Still, there are no respondents... p.s. in his primitive example, both [a] and [b] were 'designed' and (most likely) also typed into computer by StephenB (or his dog or cat - [b] was most surely by his cat! ; ).Gregory
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
--Gregory: "StephenB, you’re committing ‘observationism’ – the idea that ‘observation’ determines everything. Sure, observation is one part of (as you call it) ‘the process,’ but it is not everything.; You are again confusing the cause/effect relationship with the detection of the cause, which begins by observing the effect. A forensic scientist, during the process of making a design inference, does not discern a murder (design) from an accidental death (non-design) by beginning the process with the assumption of murder (design). He begins by observing the evidence and drawing an inference either to murder or accidental death. You simply do not understand the process, presumably because you do not want to. Tell me which of these two sentences was designed and explain to me how you arrived at your decision: [a] dqoeiveiiopdke9eu oeiwovodhe dideiwhie [b] Gregory will refuse to participate in the exercise. Take me through the process by which you make the determination--step by step. --"And I agree with John W Kelly’s support of Steve Fuller’s idea of ‘theomimesis’ as the true foundation of ID (whether theory or so-called ‘methodology’ = Explanatory Filter + ?). When it views nature as ‘divine technology,’ that is exactly what IDM-ID is hoping to do." Well, of course you agree with him. You instinctively agree with all thoughtless objections to ID. --"That is something the IDM via the DI has yet to satisfactorily confront, to any degree comparable with what Fuller is doing with transhumanism and Humanity 2.0. So, ethics and values and beliefs and meanings and purpose and plan and dream are non-IDM-ID, since IDM-ID (as StephenB and Timaeus represent it) is focussed strictly on ID-as-natural-science, when the presuppositions of (transcendental) Mind are clearly driving it." So, confront it yourself. You claim to be the expert. You know more than William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, or anyone else in the "IDM-ID" movement because you have told us so. So, we will turn to you, the true expert, to solve this awful problem over which you obsess day and night. If you can't do it, then who can? Surely, not me-- --surely not kairosfocus--surely not Timaeus. We do not wield that wonderful tool of Human Extension--that epistemological wonder that solves all intellectual problems. That is your gig. Why do you refuse to do that which you say can and should be done on a matter that you claim to understand better than anyone else? You're the man. Stop blowing smoke and provide this life-changing paradigm that will take ID to the next level.StephenB
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
"we see a culture all around us in grave endarkenment and spinning out into absurdity and suicide." This is the United States of America that you're speaking of, isn't it? That is the 'culture' you are referring to, aren't you? O.k. 'transforming the third world' and 'solar system colonisation' according to 'intelligent design,' new 'energy systems.' It's not OoL or OoBI, but hey, that's a start! "That ID should stand up for intellectual freedom of thought is not something to be ashamed of." Steve Fuller is a champion of academic freedom in the U.K. So then, K.F., are you willing to provide an answer to his poignant question: “why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?” "ID is related to TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving." I'm assuming then that you acccept the idea that 'technology evolves' according to TRIZ (i.e. Genrich Altshuller). Do you accept 'technological evolution' as does William Dembski, K.F., or not?Gregory
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
GS: It should be quite clear from the above, that there are no non-question-begging reasons to confine "intelligent" in relevant ways to "human." I have shown that design relates to relevant intelligence, not humanness. Beavers build dams of recognisable and appropriate classes, which requires considerable intelligence. I do not deny that this was programmed into the beaver's genome [and what a program that must be! wish w3e could reverse engineer it!], but that itself only points to beavers as secondary designers designed to fulfill a keystone ecosystems role of flood control etc. Similarly, form the other end, only certain humans are capable of designing a functional digital computer system, from electronics on up. As I can testify from experience, this requires a considerable body of specific intelligence focussed into particular knowledge and skill. It is certainly not synonymous with humanness. So from the two sides it is clear that humans do not exhaust the set of designers and it is evident that the design of complex digital computational systems is not based on being human but on having relevant knowledge and skill. So if we were to see anything else doing this we would have no reason to infer that this is not intelligent in the relevant way as not human. And you are erecting a strawman, based on begging the question I have just again corrected. We know that relevant intelligence is involved in design. We meet relevant cases that show the characteristic signs of designs. It is not merely the needle in a haystack inadequacy of chance and necessity mechanisms of any kind -- not merely Darwinian ones BTW -- that is the basis of the inference but the positive evidence of what produces such systems multiplied by correcting any tendency to try to equate intelligence with being human. Of course, rhetoric can be spun out endlessly on matters like that when horns are locked. That is not something that has to be proved. It is massively evident as we see a culture all around us in grave endarkenment and spinning out into absurdity and suicide. What is relevant is that we have good reason, for the reasonable to see there is an alternative, one that builds on glorified common sense, without materialist ideological question-begging; which is a significant problem as I documented. Which is important for a lot of people who do not know that science in our day has been in key parts taken ideological captive to materialism. They don't know the absurdities involved in that. So it is important to point it out, often enough for people to notice. My mom's rule of thumb was ten exposures to break through the filter psychology. For those who are not deeply programmed not to see. Some such will need the equivalent of cult de-programming, probably through the sort of massive collapse that broke Marxism and left the true believers and propagandists running for cover 20 years back. Sure, the sort of reasoning I am taking up is inductive, but that is true of any reasoning that tries to engage the world of experience and see patterns in it. That is what Newton pointed out 300 years ago. And he was right then and now to say that if we are reasoning like that we have no reason to let speculative metaphysical assumptions control our conclusions. Such as those the NSTA would impose, as well as the NAS, and many many others, some with force of law. That ID should stand up for intellectual freedom of thought is not something to be ashamed of. Or to be said a few times and then left behind, no, not int eh teeth of entrenched heavily funded ideologues who set up a high priesthood dressed up in the holy lab coat. And not just on origin of life or of major body plans. But to expose such censorship is not the actual science itself. The relevant science is quite simple: observe, note patterns, infer explanatory constructs, test, generalise on inference to best current explanaiton. No need to get into grand metaphysical debates when something so modest will do. And if someone sets out to squash you for using your free mind to do free science, then expose him for the intolerant bigot he is. Let him worry about being ideological and being caught out in it. We don't need to copy the errors of the materialists to move science ahead. Not on the strength of the evidence we have in hand. As for ID and the future, I have repeatedly pointed out my futurism. ID is related to TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving. If we can get something close to AI and if we ca get something that works as a self replicating machine that can hook up to an industrial Civ 2.0 modular package with associated energy systems, preferably fusion tech [Bussard looks interesting to me, and 74 days to Titan looks real real good if we can go there], we have a basis for transforming the third world and for solar system colonisation. In short the issues are there, once we can move. And the Rep Rap is a step to self replicators. G'day KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
"The a priori question-begging materialistic ideological impositions are blatant. So is the “supernatural explanations” strawman." Please stop beating around the bush, KF. I agree with your repeated opposition to materialist ideology and other related '-isms' (e.g. evolutionism and naturalism). I get it, o.k.? Most importantly: Where are these "positive visions of ID" that Steve Fuller is calling for? I've heard your beaver-building argument and it is not the same as speaking about 'human-made things'. Think digital world, think artifical intelligence, think prosthetics and human enhancements, think electronic consciousness, social media squared, heck, even think 'Singularity.' These things are all in a different category than the 'other designers' you are offering. "the pattern of inductive inference is not properly to humanity but to intelligence." You say that as what? As a human being. You cannot escape yourself; none of us (currently) can. Thinking reflexively will help to solve your pseudo-objectivistic posturing. Studying 'general intelligence' (though there doesn't appear to be so much of it in IDM-ID) is fine (in the abstract), but it is still done from a human perspective (in the actual and concrete). If all you're doing is looking backwards, if all you have to say is 'Darwinian evolution couldn't accomplish this' or 'mechanism H is not sufficient,' that won't win you any awards or break new ground. It'll just appeal to the same Creationist channels of 20c. You've got to come up with a 'positive vision of ID.' You've got to look to the future! That is the next step forward. How could you, how can we 'intelligently design' the future of humankind? This *must* become part of ID's agenda, otherwise it is an insiginficant claim of 'revolution.' This is what Steve Fuller is speaking about with his Humanity 2.0. And if we're talking about 'theomimesis,' building humanity's future based on similar 'designs in nature,' then why not?Gregory
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
GS: We have been over much of this ground before. OOL is generally studied in a scientific context and the scientific methods are well known. We do NOT merely observe the origin of human engineered systems. As has been discussed at length here recently [also cf this UD ID founds series post], beaver dams -- arch and gravity based on stream conditions, are a clear case of functionally specific complex organisation, which implies associated information. (It can be reduced to it by making a nodes and arcs reduction which can be coded in structured strings similar to the representations used for engineering drawing software.) In any case, we are fully entitled to infer that anything that can exhibit the sort of creative behaviours humans do that are deemed intelligent would properly be recognised as such too. That is, even if we did not have beavers etc in hand, the objection fails as begging as big question: it implicitly assumes that only humans are recognisably intelligent. In any case the pattern of inductive inference is not properly to humanity but to intelligence. For just one instance, not any and every human being can configure bits and pieces of copper, silicon, plasticised paper or glass fibre etc to make a functioning computer. Nope, only those of highly specific knowledge and skill. In short it is intelligence not humanity that is the proper target. When we look at the DNA-RNA-enzymes etc system and how it makes proteins, we see nanotech digital systems at work, using a different technology but implementing a plainly algorithmic digital system, One that is well beyond the credible reach of chance and necessity on the gamut of the observed universe. Absent the ideological a priori of evolutionary materialism, there would be no debate that we have here found a strong signature of design. So much so that question-begging redefinitions of science in the teeth of history and the principles uncovered by phil of sci investigations are having to be imposed to preserve the reigning orthodoxy by judicial fiat. If you doubt me, here is the NSTA of the US, on what it wants to teach kids in school in the name of science (backed up by courts a la Judge John "Copycat" Jones):
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]
The a priori question-begging materialistic ideological impositions are blatant. So is the "supernatural explanations" strawman. But, ever since Plato in the Laws Bk X 2350 years ago, the real issue has been inference to explanation on nature vs art, i.e. intelligence, on reasonable signs. But that is not ideologically convenient so a Creationist strawman is set up instead. At the level of the NSTA board, that is not merely irresponsible, it is something hey knew or should know. So, they are speaking that which is false in willful disdain of duties of care to truth and fairness; seeking to profit by untruth being taken for truth. There is a short, sharp little word for that, which is most painful but sadly apt. There sure is a lot of confusion and polarisation going around these days. But, in a few years, when the polarising, confusing poisonous rhetorical smoke of burning strawmen soaked in ad hominems clears, what has been going on will be quite plainly evident. Nope, ID does not need to try to impose a new ideological a priori on science, it only needs to expose and correct the one that is there. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
"Phil sets a context for sci, but sci does not normally spend its time debating phil questions." Right, they are two over-lapping, but not exclusive realms. So, Origins of Life in your views is strictly a scientific topic, question, problem, challenge, having *nothing* to do with philosophy? "we have on best explanation anchored on a broad and reliable base of observations, that systems exhibiting FSCI where we directly observe the causal process consistently come from choice, purposeful contingency, i.e. design." Systems "where we directly observe the causal process" are human systems. Systems where choice and 'purposeful contingency' are observed are human systems. Biological information is not a human system, neither is the Origin of Life and thus we don't observe the causal process there. "why should our intelligence be taken as a guide to intelligence in things we had nothing to do with creating?" - Steve Fuller Nobody has given a satisfactory answer to this at UD, nor even made an attempt.Gregory
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
GS: Pardon a note. Empirical observation is linked to concepts about the correspondence of our senses and cognitive abilities and the world in which we live. However, there is a sufficiently wide base of experience and a sufficiently general consensus that we can start from that as a datum In that context, we then use empirical observations as a progressive, open-ended constraint on theorising and modelling, i.e. while scientific investigations cannot guarantee truthfulness, we can require empirical reliability. That does allow us to falsify such theories as are empirically unreliable, and reduce to model status such as have limitations (e.g. Newtonian dynamics). It is in that context of inductive inference to best explanation as frame for theorising and discovery, as well as testing, that the design inference operates. Namely, we have on best explanation anchored on a broad and reliable base of observations, that systems exhibiting FSCI where we directly observe the causal process consistently come from choice, purposeful contingency, i.e. design. This is backed up by analysis of the needle in haystack challenge; similar to how the second law of thermodynamics is backed up. In this context we are entitled to infer that such FSCI is an empirically tested, reliable sign of design as cause. Where, in particular, we are talking about digital code, algorithms expressed in such codes, and the like. These things are well known on a vast base to be products of design. The shocker is that we are also seeing hem in the molecular foundation of cell based life. No wonder there is no empirically well supported wholly materialistic, blind chance and necessity account for the origin of life. Just so stories, hand-waving, appeal to statistical miracles and gross exaggeration -- it is beyond extrapolation -- of results that do not begin to approach the threshold of complexity joined to specific function. That is why SB can freely separate the scientific discussion from the more philosophical questions about how we get to such a mind in such a world. Phil sets a context for sci, but sci does not normally spend its time debating phil questions. We have a place to note the significance, but he main issue is as stated above. I trust this will help refocus the debates towards a more balanced context. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
StephenB, you're committing 'observationism' - the idea that 'observation' determines everything. Sure, observation is one part of (as you call it) 'the process,' but it is not everything. "Whatever beliefs that might have guided the creation of the process are not part of the process itself. The process itself begins with observation." - StephenB Life itself comes before observation and does not depend on it. As I highlighted in the Human Extension thread, A.N. Whitehead inverted 'extension' (read: 'creation') and 'process'. He believed you could have a process before an extension (or creation). You've similarly been fed by a fallacy, StephenB. "From an ID perspective, the purpose of examining the evidence is to test for “Intelligence” (the cause) in order to confirm “Design” (the effect). This requires an understanding of the Intelligence, not just an awareness of design." - John W Kelly Yes, exactly. And I agree with John W Kelly's support of Steve Fuller's idea of 'theomimesis' as the true foundation of ID (whether theory or so-called 'methodology' = Explanatory Filter + ?). When it views nature as 'divine technology,' that is exactly what IDM-ID is hoping to do. What IDM-ID still isn't doing, however, is working on a 'positive vision of ID' which would mean not just 'reverse engineering,' but also 'forward engineering.' That is something the IDM via the DI has yet to satisfactorily confront, to any degree comparable with what Fuller is doing with transhumanism and Humanity 2.0. So, ethics and values and beliefs and meanings and purpose and plan and dream are non-IDM-ID, since IDM-ID (as StephenB and Timaeus represent it) is focussed strictly on ID-as-natural-science, when the presuppositions of (transcendental) Mind are clearly driving it.Gregory
August 10, 2012
August
08
Aug
10
10
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
--John: "(Beliefs) They guide the very creation of the ID methodology, which is the same basic process used by SETI researchers archeologists, and forensic scientists." Whatever beliefs that might have guided the creation of the process are not part of the process itself. The process itself begins with observation. If you think that it begins with something else, tell me specifically what you think that something else is and provide concrete evidence for your claim. Describe, for example, any design detection process, provide the rationale for inferring the design, and explain the role that belief played in drawing that inference. --"Opponents of ID have awarenesses of design, but those awarenesses are merely illusions because an active designing intelligence, outside of the mind, doesn’t exist." Show me how you think that works. I designed the above paragraph. You are, I trust, aware of the design. Is it an illusion of a designed paragraph or is it a real designed paragraph? Does my active intelligence as the designer not exist because it is outside your mind or does your active intelligence as the design detector not exist because it is outside of my mind. Take me through it. --"Was/is “Theomimesis” the catalyst of ID methodologies? I believe so." Why do you think that "Theomimesis" was the catalyst of ID methodologies?StephenB
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
StephenB, When you say "faith-based methodology" in reference to examining evidence or conducting tests, are you referring to "Creationism"? "Everyone brings biases, prejudices and beliefs to the table." True. “They are irrelevant to the ID methodology, which is the same basic process used by SETI researchers archeologists, and forensic scientists.” False. They guide the very creation of the ID methodology, which is the same basic process used by SETI researchers archeologists, and forensic scientists . "The purpose of examining the evidence is to test those “awarenesses” of design against reality—to find out if they are illusions or whether they are likely based in fact." From an ID perspective, the purpose of examining the evidence is to test for "Intelligence" (the cause) in order to confirm "Design" (the effect). This requires an understanding of the Intelligence, not just an awareness of design. Opponents of ID have awarenesses of design, but those awarenesses are merely illusions because an active designing intelligence, outside of the mind, doesn’t exist. "A DNA molecule contains Functionally Specified Complex Information. That is a fact and has nothing to do with the researcher’s mental preparation." But ID still asks the question: "Is it an 'intelligent' design?" Whereas another researcher's mental preparation may not allow him to do so. What all of this points back to is that there exists a line of inquiry (ID) that begins from an attempt to understand a form of guiding intelligence...not just an assumption of it. Everyone brings biases, prejudices and beliefs to the table, but it is those things that direct the development of empirically-based methodologies. Was/is “Theomimesis” the catalyst of ID methodologies? I believe so. “My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.” - Steve Fuller Yes!John W Kelly
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
--“John W. Kelly: "I believe it began with revelation, which could be considered a ‘faith-based’ methodology.” A methodology is simply a series of steps. It is a checklist to help the researcher discover what the evidence is saying. --“ The type of revelation that I’m referring to comes from a heightened mental awareness of the invisible workings of the visible world.” An awareness which reaches a point to where perception is directed into understanding. From that understanding, ‘truth’ is revealed, which in-turn produces a strong personal belief. From a directed effort that is based on a ‘vision’ of something that is ‘true’, an empirically based methodology arises. If the methodology is successful, it will confirm the belief, not the observation. The belief is Intelligent Design” Everyone brings biases, prejudices and beliefs to the table. They are irrelevant to the ID methodology, which is the same basic process used by SETI researchers archeologists, and forensic scientists. The purpose of examining the evidence is to test those “awarenesses” of design against reality—to find out if they are illusions or whether they are likely based in fact. A DNA molecule contains Functionally Specified Complex Information. That is a fact and has nothing to do with the researcher’s mental preparation. That is why Anthony Flew (and other atheists), who had the opposite “awareness” finally accepted the testimony of the evidence for design.StephenB
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Also I just want to say that science was at one time was the way to understand God's creation, but not God. Understanding God came from scripture.Joe
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
To Steve Fuller- Right now all IDists want is to have scientists conduct scientific research and be able to reach a design inference if the data and evidence so warrant such an inference. The point being is that the design inference has been taken off the table wrt biology and cosmology. And that is plain wrong given what we do know about materialism- ie it is untestable spewage.Joe
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
#86 Empirically-based methodologies like ID, for example, begin with observation. - StephenB There are physical forms that a person could point to and say they were ‘Intelligently designed’, but could they show the material ‘Intelligence’ of the design? No. So why is the word “Intelligent” even used in conjunction with the word “Design”? Is intelligence just assumed? How did the word “Intelligent” enter our vocabulary if noone has ever observed a piece of it? The word must be associated with something… #26 I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it. - John W Kelly I do not believe that the empirically-based methodology of Intelligent Design began with observation (unlike Natural Selection). I believe it began with revelation, which could be considered a ‘faith-based’ methodology. The type of revelation that I’m referring to comes from a heightened mental awareness of the invisible workings of the visible world. An awareness which reaches a point to where perception is directed into understanding. From that understanding, ‘truth’ is revealed, which in-turn produces a strong personal belief. From a directed effort that is based on a ‘vision’ of something that is ‘true’, an empirically based methodology arises. If the methodology is successful, it will confirm the belief, not the observation. The belief is Intelligent Design. (sorry if this post seems rough around the edges...it's way past bedtime.)John W Kelly
August 9, 2012
August
08
Aug
9
09
2012
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply