Uncommon Descent Contest 19: Spot the mistakes in the following baffflegab explanation of intelligent design theory

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 26, 2009

Contests}

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

In a review in First Things by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth, we are informed – on the mag’s cover – that Dawkins “gets a gold star” for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Indeed, he does get the gold star from reviewer Hart. Hart is full of praise for Dawkins, though daintily demurs at his hardline atheism. But he is a total, unwavering convert to the greatest scam ever conceived in the history of biology, that Darwinism – a conservative aspect of wild nature that trims out life forms unsuited to an ecology – actually has vast creative powers.

I can’t yet seem to find the review on line, but that was not for lack of trying.

Now the contest: Here’s what Hart has to say about design in nature:

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.

Commenters, for a free copy of Expelled, can you spot the mistakes in the quoted passage above? I mean, actual mistakes, as opposed to “He isn’t making any sense.” There is enough of the former, but you will find plenty of the latter too, I am afraid.

Here are the contest rules. Most important: No more than 400 words.

Also: If you won a previous contest quite recently and your prize is late, it is most likely because our post office here has four days off at this time of year, and I can’t do a thing about that. If you won a long time ago and never got your prize, write me at oleary@sympatico.ca

Note: This contest has been judged. Go here for more.

Comments

If you are going to use the word "natural" then that is contrasted with "artificial". Now humans may be natural in that we exist in nature and anything that exists in nature is considered to be natural. In that context Stonehenge is natural. However we know Stonehenge was not constructed by nature, operating freely- ie wind, erosion, glaciers, etc (blind and undirected processes). In that sense Stonehenge is artificial. So the bottom line is an intelligent cause is one borne of intent/ purpose, is directed and requires something beyond nature, operating freely. And it can and does exist in nature.Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 36, Thank you for your polite and direct response. —-Mustela Nivalis to Jerry: “If we’re going to make any progress, you’re going to have to define what you mean by “natural process.” From what I can gather, and please correct me if I misunderstand you, you are saying that your choice to lift a rock is not natural (for some definition of “natural”). Is that correct?” From an ID perspective, the term natural has no scientific meaning unless it precedes the word, “cause.” Thus, a natural cause refers either to a repetitive law or chance or a combination of the two. In that context, an intelligent cause, by definition, is a non-natural cause. That should be obvious. Actually, it's far from obvious. I've read a fair bit of the available ID literature and no one has stated it this clearly (although it does appear to be presumed by some authors in some cases). It's fine and understandable for terms to be used in specialized ways for communication within a particular discipline, but it's important to identify when a term is being used in that way rather than in the vulgate. —-“The second problem is that you are assuming your conclusion, namely that intelligence is somehow not “natural.” You are confusing an argument with a definition. A definition is an equal sign and is effective only if it is circular; an argument goes somewhere and is effective only if it is not circular. I do, however, see a problem with setting "intelligent" against "natural", even as a term of art. The connotations of the antonyms of "natural" (e.g. "non-natural", "unnatural", "supernatural", etc.) represent a lot of rhetorical baggage. "Non-intelligent causes" is far less confusing than "natural causes" and doesn't give the impression of assuming the conclusion. —-“All intelligence of which we are aware is the product of complex physical brains, all of which operate according to known physics and chemistry.” Defend that statement with reasoned evidence. Just to give you a leg up, that was an argument, not a definition. The word “product” made it an argument. I'm not sure what you mean by your last two sentences, but I don't see anything particularly contentious in noting that all intelligences of which we are aware are associated with physical brains, nor with noting that those physical brains have been investigated and found to operate according to known physics and chemistry. Which of the two statements do you feel needs more support? —–“There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural.” Do you realize how nonsensical that statement is? No. If I thought it were nonsensical, I wouldn't have written it. For Darwinists, everything short of the “supernatural,” is “natural,” whether it refers to a mountain slide or an act by an intelligent agent, and that is the definition that they impose on the world, ignoring ID’s precise and well-thought-out definition of “natural causes.” How, then, could there be evidence that humans are anything but natural if everything is natural? Defining humans to be other than natural isn't the answer. If you mean to suggest that intelligence can exist absent a physical substrate, you need to provide objective, empirical evidence for your claim. (If I am ascribing a position to you that you do not hold, please correct my misunderstanding.)Mustela Nivalis_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Jerry said " The laws of physics or the four basic forces. Are there any other? All the laws of chemistry, geology, aerodynamics, fluids etc. are essentially due to the four basic forces. I violate them all the time. Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity." Wait, what? How does picking up a rock "violate" gravity? There is still a force applied by gravity on the rock whether it is just sitting there or you pick it up. I have no idea what you think gravity is, but it doesn't seem you understand it.TempHut_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

jerry at 35, “”The impression is that you couldn’t back up what you said, you engaged in ad hom to avoid the discussion.” When you do not want to discuss something with jerks, one does not have to continue. I have endeavored to be extremely polite while posting here. Please describe exactly how asking for a clear definition of your terms and an honest recognition of your assumptions (some form of dualism, evidently) constitutes being a "jerk."Mustela Nivalis_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Collin, This was discussed here a couple years ago. Go to the search link above and put in Loennig.jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

"I told you I came here to learn what it is. I am in the process of doing that. How then, can you ask me to tell you something I don’t yet know?" If someone is interested in what I think about ID, here are four links to long comments made about ID and look forward to any feedback either pro or con. 1 . https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326046 There are three consecutive comments in the post. 2. What ID is interested in. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-commenters-win-one-for-the-gipper/#comment-299358 3. Why ID science is no different that regular science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029 4. What every ID debater should declare when he debates ID. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 I am not sure if everyone here agrees with these points of view but I believe that anyone who publishes favorably on ID agrees with most of it. At least I have not seen anything in writing they have written that disagree with these positions.jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Here is Retroman's comment to my explanation about the difference between ID and science based on the examination of natural laws: "Jerry… uh, he’s right. Picking up an object is not “overriding a natural law via an intelligent action.” Picking up the object is wholly within the natural law and doesn’t violate it in the least. It’s sort of… incomprehensible to say otherwise" This comes across as a reflexive criticism with the derogatory "uh" to emphasize how stupid the comment was. Then to add the "sort of.. incomprehensible to say otherwise" to say up his inability to understand what was going on. This is an example of critical thinking? For the anti ID person, a couple put downs I admit is their example of critical thinking. No thought that the explanation had merit and that the shallow irrelevant comments used against it were inappropriate. I am sorry but the real joke here is that someone with these empty responses claims he has the ability of critical thinking.jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Slightly off topic. I love this article: http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdfCollin_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

---Retroman: "I told you I came here to learn what it is. I am in the process of doing that." How would asking for a formal definition of "bafflegab," illumniate your mind of the subject of intelligent design?StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
I still maintain that the age of the earth > 100 million years was a reasonable hypothesis but I am not going to argue the toss.
It is a requirement, not a prediction. IOW Darwinian-type processes require vast eons of time in order to get the diversity observed from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms. Also the earth being older than 100 million years does not support the premise that the diversity observed arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
* You never responded to my second offer – that the mechanism for inheritance would be particulate, not blended.
It doesn't have anything to do with the challenge. You do understand the challenge, don't you? (it appears you do not, judging from your responses)
* For a large number of significantly different taxons (e.g. mammals and birds) – but not necessarily all – fossils will be be found that are similar to a common ancestor (they are of course most unlikely to be the common ancestor)
Evidence for common ancestry is NOT evidence for a mechanism. IOW once again your "hypothesis" does not address the challenge.
* For those types of species that fossilise easily there will be cases where a fossil record shows a gradual change from plausible historical ancestors to the current species (whales, horses etc are examples)
Does not address the challenge and is refuted by the evidence.
* That microevolution takes place e.g. if a population is subject to natural selection pressure then the gene pool will eventually respond to increase the fitness of the population (there cannot be macroevolution without microevolution)
Does not address the challenge- it the MECHANISMs that need to be tested.
* If you wait for random mutations and apply artificial selection that you can make significant changes to the phenotype
1- How do you know they are random? 2- It also depends on how you define "significant changes". Once again: “We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.” Anyone?Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

---Retroman: "Not true. What I strive to be is a strong critical thinker, as opposed to a weak critical thinker. If you are striving to be a strong critical thinker rather than a weak critical thinker, why did you begin your foray into the subject matter by disrupting the theme of the thread with a demand for a precise definition, history, and etymology of the word, "bafflegab?"StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
* For those types of species that fossilise easily there will be cases where a fossil record shows a gradual change from plausible historical ancestors to the current species (whales, horses etc are examples)
1- That has nothing to do with eithr natural selection nor random mutations 2- The vast majority of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates. Yet there isn't any of that gradual change you are talking about.Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, You still didn't answer the challenge. Do you understand English? “We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.”Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

#41 Joseph - I stopped offering hypotheses because of the vitriol I get from you in response. But at a risk of further insults: * I still maintain that the age of the earth > 100 million years was a reasonable hypothesis but I am not going to argue the toss. * You never responded to my second offer - that the mechanism for inheritance would be particulate, not blended. In addition you could add - * For a large number of significantly different taxons (e.g. mammals and birds) - but not necessarily all - fossils will be be found that are similar to a common ancestor (they are of course most unlikely to be the common ancestor) * For those types of species that fossilise easily there will be cases where a fossil record shows a gradual change from plausible historical ancestors to the current species (whales, horses etc are examples) * That microevolution takes place e.g. if a population is subject to natural selection pressure then the gene pool will eventually respond to increase the fitness of the population (there cannot be macroevolution without microevolution) * If you wait for random mutations and apply artificial selection that you can make significant changes to the phenotype And so on ... I dare say a biologist could offer many far more sophisticated hypotheses to be tested.Mark Frank_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Jerry said: "When a person makes such a comment it is as I said, revealing. If they were interested in learning or a critical thinker they would have seen the obviousness in the proposition that intelligence can contravene natural processes. A critical thinker would have nodded in agreement but maybe said it needed further elaboration." So your definition of a critical thinker "is someone who agrees with you but wants you to elaborate further." That, my friend, is the textbook example of a weak critical thinker. You do understand that devil's advocate/Socratic questioning is a method employed in CT, correct? Further, you also understand that two critical thinkers can disagree, correct? Finally, you also understand that one can be blind to one's own biases and cognitive hindrances, so that the first possibility that a strong critical thinker should be open to is that he himself is wrong, don't you? "They would have been critical of the shallowness of the responses which speciously argued that to contravene the natural processes an intelligence has to create new natural processes for this intervention. Instead you criticized me and not the others." So again, I am not a critical thinker because I didn't side with you immediately. I don't think you know much about what critical thinking actually is, alas. Joseph said: "If you want to learn about ID I suggest reading the pro-ID literature such as “Signature in the Cell”, “The Privileged Planet”, “The Design Matrix”, “Nature, Design and Science”, “Darwin’s Black Box”, “Not By Chance”, “The Design Revolution”- well that would be a good start." Thanks for the suggestions. "But coming to a blog to learn about something- that is just plain wrong." What? Why? Blogs can teach people lots of things. Endoplasmic m said: "So let’s begin again. Why don’t you give us your “neutral” summary of what you think ID is, and I will give you my “neutral” correction of your perception." I told you I came here to learn what it is. I am in the process of doing that. How then, can you ask me to tell you something I don't yet know?Retroman_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Joseph: We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.
The Lederberg Experiment established random mutation as an important mechanism of evolution.Zachriel_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

In the meantime: “We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.” Anyone?Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Retroman:
Anyway, I came to this site to learn more about ID.
That is a bassackwards way of doing that. If you want to learn about ID I suggest reading the pro-ID literature such as "Signature in the Cell", "The Privileged Planet", "The Design Matrix", "Nature, Design and Science", "Darwin's Black Box", "Not By Chance", "The Design Revolution"- well that would be a good start. But coming to a blog to learn about something- that is just plain wrong. You should come to a blog ready to discuss that which you have learned from the literature.Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Returning to the scene of the crime.
jerry: All the laws of chemistry, geology, aerodynamics, fluids etc. are essentially due to the four basic forces. I violate them all the time. Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity.
No matter how smart you are, no matter how complicated the mechanism, no matter how much willpower you summon, no physical laws are violated when you pick up your pencil. Including gravity. Including the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Indeed, the Second Law is the result of attempts to engineer around inherent limitations associated with Energy and Work.Zachriel_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Retroman, What does your perception of someone being a weak critical thinker have to do with whether or not ID is true. If you were really a neutral as you claim to be, you would be trying to bring clarity to the discussion, rather than re-enforcing person weaknesses. Perhaps you should as others whether your perception is a fair representation of what ID is. So let's begin again. Why don't you give us your "neutral" summary of what you think ID is, and I will give you my "neutral" correction of your perception.EndoplasmicMessenger_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

"Anyway, I came to this site to learn more about ID. When ID advocates call people jerks, it just leads me to believe that they are weak critical thinkers." When a person makes such a comment it is as I said, revealing. If they were interested in learning or a critical thinker they would have seen the obviousness in the proposition that intelligence can contravene natural processes. A critical thinker would have nodded in agreement but maybe said it needed further elaboration. They would have been critical of the shallowness of the responses which speciously argued that to contravene the natural processes an intelligence has to create new natural processes for this intervention. Instead you criticized me and not the others. Even after this obvious point was explained further Instead of inquiring, you were again fault finding. As I said, you revealed yourself. And critical thinking is not part of what you revealed. A critical thinker would have torn apart the shallowness of the objections to my point. If you were interested in learning, as I said you would have taken a completely different tack. In 4 1/2 years I have seen this faux approach used several times. So don't think you are the first to try it. I cannot even say good try, because someone with critical thinking skills would have faked it better.jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Jerry said: "People reveal themselves very quickly here and I doubt you are a neutral party. Your initial comment and follow up comment gave you away. If you were neutral you would have proceeded much differently." Not true. What I strive to be is a strong critical thinker, as opposed to a weak critical thinker. Weak critical thinkers used the skills of critical thinking to criticize and attack ideas they disagree with, while giving their side a pass. Strong critical thinkers use the skills of critical thinking on all ideas, even ones they might feel sympathy towards. So in saying "I gave myself away" because I didn't state something that you automatically agreed with, or I didn't leap to your defense, or something such, all you reveal is that you don't strive to be a strong critical thinker. You don't subject your own ideas to critical examination. That's all I was asking for-- that ALL ideas (Darwinian and ID) be subjected to equal scrutiny and be equally defended by good argument. So you see, I am eminently neutral, probably more neutral than most here. The only side I am on is the side of logic and good argumentation. Anyway, I came to this site to learn more about ID. When ID advocates call people jerks, it just leads me to believe that they are weak critical thinkers.Retroman_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

----Mustela Nivalis to Jerry: “If we’re going to make any progress, you’re going to have to define what you mean by “natural process.” From what I can gather, and please correct me if I misunderstand you, you are saying that your choice to lift a rock is not natural (for some definition of “natural”). Is that correct?” From an ID perspective, the term natural has no scientific meaning unless it precedes the word, “cause.” Thus, a natural cause refers either to a repetitive law or chance or a combination of the two. In that context, an intelligent cause, by definition, is a non-natural cause. That should be obvious. ----“The second problem is that you are assuming your conclusion, namely that intelligence is somehow not “natural.” You are confusing an argument with a definition. A definition is an equal sign and is effective only if it is circular; an argument goes somewhere and is effective only if it is not circular. ----“All intelligence of which we are aware is the product of complex physical brains, all of which operate according to known physics and chemistry.” Defend that statement with reasoned evidence. Just to give you a leg up, that was an argument, not a definition. The word “product” made it an argument. -----“There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural.” Do you realize how nonsensical that statement is? For Darwinists, everything short of the "supernatural," is "natural," whether it refers to a mountain slide or an act by an intelligent agent, and that is the definition that they impose on the world, ignoring ID's precise and well-thought-out definition of "natural causes." How, then, could there be evidence that humans are anything but natural if everything is natural?StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

""The impression is that you couldn’t back up what you said, you engaged in ad hom to avoid the discussion." When you do not want to discuss something with jerks, one does not have to continue. The comments were being obstructive so it became obvious it was a waste of time. I have been discussing this topic for over 4 years here and reading this site for awhile before that. I have seen all the stupid arguments and tricks used so why do I have to continue a useless conversation. People reveal themselves very quickly here and I doubt you are a neutral party. Your initial comment and follow up comment gave you away. If you were neutral you would have proceeded much differently. You then assume I had no response and could possibly embarrass me if I refused to comment. But sort of begs the question and doesn't deal with why did I bring what I did up if I had not seen it played out many times before and knew the logical answers to the objections. But when people make asinine comments it is time to stop. At that point I have won the argument. Here is an answer to someone who made a ridiculous statement about natural and unnatural a couple weeks ago and it applies here as well. ------- "There is no contradiction in what I have said unless you and the rest of us here want to use the term unnatural to include events in our world that include the operation of intelligence. Most would not want to do this. It so happens that natural and unnatural may not be exhaustive as the use of our grammar would normally indicate. Are the operations of an intelligence unnatural but we often use the term natural to indicate what happens using the laws of nature only. So there is a gap here between the normal usage of the terms “natural” and “unnatural.” Generally most of us use the term “naturalistic” to mean processes flowing under the forces of physics which would include all of chemistry which is probably a subset of physics. Then there is other uses of the term where it would include processes operating under the forces of physics once some initial and boundary conditions have been set up by an intelligence. A good example is building a river bed to divert a river in a different direction but then leaving it alone. Maybe another example would be to build a system with extremely complicated built in constraints and parts and then let it operate according to the laws of physics and chemistry which I have said is a subset of physics. Such a system could be biological matter. It could be something else designed by an intelligence such as a garden or a farm that proceeds according to the built in initial conditions and boundary conditions. Sometimes gardens need intelligent intervention but other times not so. For the later case look at various places people have planted wild flowers to enhance a landscape and then just left them alone or seeded a lake with trout which is not a garden but a similar concept. So are there any processes that are neither natural and not unnatural. I would say to make things easier to communicate that processes that involve the intervention of an intelligence would be such a case. So assume that is how I use the terms. If you want to quibble, be my guest but you have to accommodate the distinctions which I think you already understand. Your feigned non understanding is always suspect as you always quibble with the non relevant. You are too consistent to be honestly seeking understanding. Maybe this should start a discussion on how we should use the terms natural, unnatural and intelligent processes. Certainly we do not want to call intelligent process unnatural but while they are perfectly natural are they what biologist mean when they say that evolution proceeds under naturalistic causes only. I am sure you understand this and I do not think I have made any contradictions. But maybe there should be more precise use of the terms in the future but again as I said I doubt anyone misunderstood what was meant including yourself." ------ So the intervention of an intelligence prevents nature or natural laws from playing out how they would if the intervention did not happen. And this intervention only has to happen once for it to possibly make major changes in the direction of a process. It is not an on going procedure or operation that can be examined by experiments or testing. But it can be analyzed and assessed using the tools of science.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Ignoring this isn't going to make it go away. It just further exposes your ignorance: My 2 cents- Intelligence is that with can create counterflow- that is it can do what the laws of nature alone cannot. See “Nature, Design and Science” by Del Ratzsch. But anyways if one disagrees with jerry- "Intelligence does not follow natural laws..." then please present some contradictory data or admit you are just on some sort of egg hunt.Joseph_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Jerry, no offense, but this is what the above exchange looks like to a neutral party: You declare something that several people disagree with. They call you in it, give decent explanations as to why they feel you are wrong, and ask you to clarify or concede. You: "You guys are jerk Darwinists. This isn't worth discussing with Darwinists like you." The impression is that you couldn't back up what you said you you engaged in ad hom to avoid the discussion.Retroman_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

" I’m sure we can have a more productive discussion." I cannot imagine such an event. If you want productive discussion, maybe retire to a closet and talk with yourself. Possibly then you will come upon something in the course that merits discussion. Till then have a nice time.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

jerry at 29, I'm afraid I see no content to which to respond. If you'd care to define your terms and refrain from simply assuming dualism, I'm sure we can have a more productive discussion.Mustela Nivalis_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

'The second problem is that you are assuming your conclusion, namely that intelligence is somehow not “natural.” ' Now we are getting into the surreal. Intelligent Design is now naturalistic evolution. You are moving us into such Alice in Wonderland discussions that it disqualifies you as a serious commenter. What could be the origin for such a comment that focuses on such irrelevancies. I will appeal to what another anti ID commenter brought up just a few days ago for the source of his comments, namely, Hanlon’s razor or Heinlein's Razor. I think nearly every anti ID comment falls under this rubric and this discussion is no different.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

jerry at 25, “That’s not the case at all. When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you’ve eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics.” Let’s not get inane here. You have just over rode a natural process by imposing an intelligent action. If we're going to make any progress, you're going to have to define what you mean by "natural process." From what I can gather, and please correct me if I misunderstand you, you are saying that your choice to lift a rock is not natural (for some definition of "natural"). Is that correct? If so, there are two immediate problems with your position. The first is that your claim to "violate natural law" is inaccurate. As I noted above, no laws of physics were harmed in the lifting of the rock. The second problem is that you are assuming your conclusion, namely that intelligence is somehow not "natural." All intelligence of which we are aware is the product of complex physical brains, all of which operate according to known physics and chemistry. There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural. Now, you may be able to somehow distinguish the actions of intelligent agents from non-intelligent causes, which would be interesting. I've yet to see a reliable mechanism for doing so, but I'm open to the possibility. That would not change the fact that intelligent agents are a proper subset of natural agents, however.Mustela Nivalis_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply