Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mid-morning mug: Are Darwinists running out of insults and profanity?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, biochemist Michael Behe published an article in Quarterly Review of Biology, titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” arguing that “the most common adaptive changes seen … are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.”

So, not only must the long, slow process of Darwinian evolution create every exotic form of life in the blink of a geological eye, but it must do so by losing or modifying what a life form already has.

This, apparently, got evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s recent attention:

Anyway, Behe reviews the last four decades of work on experimental evolution in bacteria and viruses (phage), and finds that nearly all the adaptive mutations in these studies fall into classes 1 and 3. We see very few “gain of FCT” mutations. Although this is not my field, the review seems pretty thorough to me, and the conclusions, as far as they apply to lab studies of adaptation in viruses and bacteria, seem sound.

It looks as though Coyne must now actually take Behe’s argument seriously.

Of course, he should have a long time ago, but for years Darwinists were happy to let trolls lob insults and profanity. Somewhat the way a deadbeat curses the bank officer who knows he hasn’t got the goods.

Comments
tgpeeler: "So molch, all you need do is show how information can be created apart from language, free will, rationality, intentionality, and mind." I do? And why would I need to do that? I didn't make any claims. KF did. He is the one who needs to support his claim. "Haven’t we been down this road before??" Yes, I remember starting down this road with you once, until you broke out in profanities. And after reading your 68 in response to LarTanner, I am sure I wouldn't have to wait long to be blessed again in like spirit. So no thanks, I'll pass. I prefer productive conversations.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
molch says "Sure, that’s what OOL researchers are working on. However, your claim seems to be that, because a complete, plausible model organism and evolutionary pathway has not been suggested to date, that it CATEGORICALLY CANNOT happen. Is that indeed what you are saying?" Kuppers says in "Information and the Origin of Life" that "The question of the origin of life is thus equivalent to the question of the origin of biological information.” So molch, all you need do is show how information can be created apart from language, free will, rationality, intentionality, and mind. Oh, and only using the laws of physics. Haven't we been down this road before?? So, yes, categorically, the laws of physics cannot create life, ever.tgpeeler
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
molch,
Wow, are you saying you have found a way to know all the possible shapes life could take? Do tell!
What already exists as life is a good starting point. You're welcome to have fantasies about other life, I can't help that fancy.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Clive: "You’re talking about categories of configurations within physical environments, which doesn’t require positing the first organism to know which physical environments exist" It requires to know WHAT you are configuring (DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, fatty acids,.....???), and which physical environment is applicable at the time and place in question. "Once you understand what is necessary for life, indeed, indeed" Wow, are you saying you have found a way to know all the possible shapes life could take? Do tell!molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
molch,
However, your claim seems to be that, because a complete, plausible model organism and evolutionary pathway has not been suggested to date, that it CATEGORICALLY CANNOT happen. Is that indeed what you are saying?
Once you understand what is necessary for life, indeed, indeed.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
molch,
that would obviously depend on the model KF suggests as a possible first organism.
Does it? You're talking about categories of configurations within physical environments, which doesn't require positing the first organism to know which physical environments exist.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Clive: "What “categories of configurations” do you have in mind in respect to KF’s post" that would obviously depend on the model KF suggests as a possible first organism.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: "The only relevant empirical data we have is the world of unicellular organisms. That world tells us that cells of order 100 – 300 k bits of DNA storage do not carry out the fulls et of chemical operations of life and parasite off more complex living cells. The fully functional cells in nature start out at 600 – 1,000 k bits, and the lower end is the point where knocking out genes leads to disintegration of viability." which tells us that modern day unicellular organisms are most likely not good candidates for models of the first organisms. Are you claiming that organisms we observe currently are the only type of organism that could possibly have existed? "What those who advocate evolutionary materialism need to empirically establish, is how such an entity could arise by blind chance and mechnical necessity, in any reasonable environment." Sure, that's what OOL researchers are working on. However, your claim seems to be that, because a complete, plausible model organism and evolutionary pathway has not been suggested to date, that it CATEGORICALLY CANNOT happen. Is that indeed what you are saying?molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
p.s. I did the math after the fact on the number of books I have probably read. Ten thousand is certainly on the high side. Closer to six or seven thousand would probably be more accurate. Regrets for the casual error. Although if I count comic books I read as a kid, ten might not be far off... :-)tgpeeler
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
LT says "GEM’s argument in Item C seems to amount to COMPLEXITY, therefore NO EVOLUTION. It appears to be an argument from personal incredulity based on the idea of teleology. That is, the result of the process is really unlikely and the chances of getting to that specific result are almost infinitesimal. Yet, this is post hoc thinking, if I’ve represented GEM correctly." I don't believe you have. In fact, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong. The argument is not "I can't imagine how something this complex could arise by chance and time so it must not have." The argument is "we ALWAYS find mind behind information in every aspect of life so it bears thinking about that biological information may also be caused by mind." What, pray tell, is so difficult to comprehend about that? A couple of problems for you are: you can not come up with one example of (human) information that does not involve language (symbols and rules), free will, rationality, intentionality, and mind. Not one. Second, there is not one example of information in the animal world that does not involve the use of symbols and rules. If you are an intellectually "serious" (that is you strictly obey the laws of rational thought)naturalist/materialist/physicalist (in my experience there is no such animal) then you must deny the existence of free will, rationality, intentionality, and mind. Indeed, you have no explanation for language, either. You cannot, by means of physical laws, explain how symbols are arranged so as to mean something. You cannot, by means of physical laws, explain free will. You cannot, by means of physical laws, explain intentionality. In other words, the intellectually serious naturalist can't explain Jack S. about anything that matters to human beings. Your fakery (that you can) is breathtaking. You, who reject the very existence of everything that makes information possible, by means of information presume to inform rational, serious people that time and chance and the laws of physics can account for everything. Why can't you see the insanity of this? You can apparently deny everything that makes information possible, while using information in order to make that denial, without your head exploding. I can't connect to that but perhaps that's just me. p.s. The argument from "personal incredulity" can be perfectly valid. I'm sure you use it all the time. Let's say I offer you a foolproof way to beat the lottery. All you have to do is give me 50% of your "certain" winnings up front. Gonna jump on that deal? Didn't think so. I have personally seen hundreds of thousands of books, millions, even, and probably read over ten thousand. I've never seen one yet that did not have an author. Therefore, I think I am perfectly justified to be incredulous when any intellectual poseur comes along and trots out the nonsense that biological information, which is orders of magnitude more complex than human generated information, can be explained by "natural" causes. What a joke. I am entitled to my incredulity. Indeed, I am forced by an overwhelming mass of evidence and the relentless authority of reason to be incredulous. When you come across one book, just one book, without an author, let me know and I'll start paying serious attention to what you have to say. Until then, not.tgpeeler
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
F/N 3: I should point out that computer languages are languages. This is especially evident when we see symbols and rules for their assignment, and in particular rules for data representation through meaningful clusters of symbols [i.e. codes] and for procedural steps such as initiation and halting [think, start, continuation and stop codons]. If you look at machine codes in particular, you will see that the elements are primitive: load, store, transfer, start, stop, etc. I suggest onlookers look up Abel's discussion on the cybernetic cut, here. We have never yet seen a machine code -- as well as the associated implementing architecture, machinery and organisation -- spontaneously assemble itself out of blind chance configurations and mechanical necessity. Nor, on the relevant issues of isolation of islands of function in config spaces, is such likely to happen. Routinely, we see such entities being designed, developed and implemented by intelligent, deeply knowledgeable designers. In short, this is yet another instance of how FSCI is an empirically reliable signature of intelligence. One we have every epistemic right to take seriously until and unless those who would overthrow it can provide an empirically observed counterexample.kairosfocus
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Molch. The observed cell embraces a metabolic system, and an associated self-replicating facility that encodes for the metabolic entity as well as the machinery used in self-replication. 1,000 bits is 128 bytes, or about one longish sentence worth of information. As one who has designed and implemented microprocessor based discrete state controller systems, I can assure you that 128 bytes is a very short compass of information indeed; vastly inadequate to set up a system that will initialise itself, then functoin to control its behaviour in its environment and then code its own structure and the algorithm to replicate it. The only relevant empirical data we have is the world of unicellular organisms. That world tells us that cells of order 100 - 300 k bits of DNA storage do not carry out the fulls et of chemical operations of life and parasite off more complex living cells. The fully functional cells in nature start out at 600 - 1,000 k bits, and the lower end is the point where knocking out genes leads to disintegration of viability. So, I am not merely asserting arbitrary assumptions at all, as can be confirmned by looking at the discussion in the note linked in the LH column before making strawmannish dismissive remarks. What those who advocate evolutionary materialism need to empirically establish, is how such an entity could arise by blind chance and mechnical necessity, in any reasonable environment. We already know that intelligent designers can do the sort of work, indeed Venter's recent work -- to name just one case -- shows that intelligently designed life forms are not just possible but actual.kairosfocus
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
F/N: Mr Paley was far deeper than his detractors. Indeed -- having first heard of him through his detractors -- I was at first astonished to see that in his Ch 2 he did in fact extend the discussion of the watch to the case of a self-replicating watch. Somehow, that never makes it into the strawmannised dismissals of Paley. His conclusion, aptly, is that a watch that has the additional facility of self-replication is a deeper wonder and testimony to high art and ingenious design than an ordinary watch. The living cell is a self-replicating automaton, and has in it many, many mechanisms and even components that dwarf the ingenuity and complex functionally specific organisation and information of a watch. Such FSCI, and especially digitally coded FSCI, is an empirically well substantiated signature of design. Indeed, absent a priori impositions, objectors to the inference from FSCI to design, cannot provide an observed case of an entity storing at least 1,000 bits of such FSCI that we have seen being made that is not the work of an intelligent designer. Of this routine fact we have literally billions of cases starting with the Internet, or just posts in this thread. And, in the light of the von Neumann self-replicator, he is right. (Cf Section a here on Paley, and section B on the von Neumann self-replicator.) Also, observe how insistently Mr Tanner resorts to the worn out device of dismissing what he imagines is a "mere" analogy. First, even Wiki has to concede that analogy is the foundation of practical, empirical and inductive reasoning, so to dismiss analogies is to saw off he branch on which we all sit. Selective hyperskepticism, reducing itself to self-undermining absurdity. Second, the DNA, mRNA, Ribosome, tRNA system in teh cell is an INSTANTIATION of a code --thus, language- based, digital, algorithmic, step by step information system that is at the heart of cell based life. (Indeed, above, Mr Tanner was compelled to acknowledge this.) The aggregate complexity and specific, functional organisation of that system scream design to all but those who are deafened by a priori commitments to denying what would overturn their comfortable, amoral materialism. As already discussed, just the stored information in the system is far in excess of anything that blind chance and necessity could credibly achieve on the gamut of he observed cosmos, across its working life. And, to infer an unobserved underlying multiverse opens the point that this is metaphysics and so other alternatives have a fair right to a seat at the table of comparative difficulties, as well as the obvious point that the cosmos bakery that cooks up subcosmi like ours is at least as much a functionally specific, complex organised information rich entity. So, the design issue has not been evaded.kairosfocus
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
molch,
Importantly, what almost all directions of OOL research seem to have in common is the absence of “random search among all possible configurations” assumptions – simply because no realistic environment ever allows all possible configurations, and will almost certainly favor and disfavor certain categories of configurations over others…
What "categories of configurations" do you have in mind in respect to KF's post?Clive Hayden
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Mr Tanner: Sorry, but you and your ilk have now forfeited the right of civil discussion, through insistent slander, vulgarity and abuse. I do not find above a retraction of and apology for the key, invidious comparison you made [or for your false allegation of routine censorship at UD, belied by the very presence of the comment just above]. Let me remind you of that invidious comparison, which is laced with the sort of now habitual new atheist hostility that is setting out to rip our civilisation apart:
The Creationist Is/Ought is an argumentative bait-and-switch. You think you're getting a straightforward argument but what you're getting is evangelism. The evangelism can be of the soft-shoe variety, as with Dembski, or it can be more of the Torquemada sort, as with a character called "GEM of The Kairos Initiative," . . .
You have stated that you do not know me. That is indeed true, but you know about me that I am a Christian, and on that you were willing to smear me through instantly inferred guilt by invidious association with a man who was a servant of a tyranny. A man whose principal occupation, the inquisition, was courageously denounced in his own time by the two leading saints of the church in Spain. (Less saintly people took such a view of him that he had to be escorted on his travels by a troop of 50 soldiers.) Thy speech bewrayeth thee, not thine accent, but here thy tone of insistent hostility and incivility. Your claim to not having ill-will towards me as a Christian is patently false. False by virtue of failing to do the duty of care of basic respect and fairness. Further false, by virtue of insistent compounding abuse and refusal to acknowledge, correct and retract then apologise for wrong and harm. Compounded by attempts to smooth over and make light of such. Truly sad. And yet, somewhere, you instinctively know that this is not good enough. You too, find that you are subject to moral government. Thus, your very conscience is telling you that you are the subject and creation of a Lawgiver who desires that we live by the right and the good and the true. By the kind grace of God, there is yet hope for you. So, I invite you to climb out of the mud, smoke and poison of the trifecta fallacy, and return to the pale of civility. Onlookers, as to any matters of actual substance Mr Tanner may wish to raise, I am content to rest on the above, and on the already linked, more extensive 101 level discussion, with the survey of origins science that starts here. Good day, Mr Tanner. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
F/N: Those looking for further discussion of the just above may want to start with the 101 survey here, a component of a work in progress course.kairosfocus
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
LarTanner @ 60: well said!!! If I may add a piece of my own observation to help interpret what I think GEM is talking about in his point c: "c - Given the implied complexity and the fact that even so small a set of digital, coded, functionally specific information as 1,000 bits sits in a configuration space of 2^1,000 ~ 10^301, the whole observed cosmos of ~10^80 atoms across its lifespan and changing state every Planck time could not credibly undergo enough states to sample 1 in 10^150 of that space. That is, a random walk search of that config space rounds down to no search." From previous experience with GEM's posts, he seems to assume that the first organism that was capable of self-replication must have contained at least "1000 bits of digital, coded, functionally specific information", and that this organism spontaneously arose through a "random search" of all possible configurations. IF that is indeed what he means here, he needs to justify this assumption. However, I am uncertain where such a justification could possibly be derived from, since OOL research (of any sort, including from ID adherents) to date has not presented any models for a clear candidate of a first organism, to my knowledge. But maybe I am wrong and GEM knows of one, which would be exciting indeed! Importantly, what almost all directions of OOL research seem to have in common is the absence of "random search among all possible configurations" assumptions - simply because no realistic environment ever allows all possible configurations, and will almost certainly favor and disfavor certain categories of configurations over others... If that is not what he means, I am at loss myself, and maybe he himself can clarify...molch
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
KF (59), Thanks, truly, for the post spelling out the chain of reasoning for your claim that a contingent cosmos implies a necessary being. All of the "personal stuff" has been a distraction, but I hope to have addressed the whole matter in a post here, that you are invited to read. I bear you no ill will; indeed, I don't know you at all. In what follows, which is also at my blog, I have tried to comment on my concerns with your long post. Unfortunately, my post too will be very long. I hope you find it worthwhile.
a – The genetic code (yes, CODE, as in, LANGUAGE) based DNA – > mRNA – > Ribosome + tRNAs – > protein chaining process is precisely a case of discrete-state, code-based information system processing, i.e. instantiation not metaphor or analogy. (This, at length, LT had to concede.)
Let me point out that code and language are not necessarily equivalent, at least linguistically. To a linguist, and this is partially my training, true language is (i) a mode of communication; (ii) it has semanticity, in that its signals have meaning; (iii) it has a pragmatic function; (iv) it has interchangeability, which is the ability of participants to both send and receive messages; (v) it has cultural transmission, in that users can learn the language system from other users; (vi) it has arbitrariness, in that the form of the signals is not logically related to their meaning; (vii) it has discreteness, which is the property of having complex messages built up out of smaller parts; (viii) it has displacement, which is the ability to communicate about things not present in space or time; and (ix) it has productivity, which is the ability to produce ans understand any number of messages, including messages never expressed before and expressing novel ideas. Codes typically represent languages and have no syntax or structure of their own. GEM's use of code and language here require serious justification on his part. Are these terms denotatively appropriate or are they human convention for nicely approximating a conception of how genetic processes function? GEM continues:
b – Moreover, this digital information system is a key part of a self-replicating entity that also interacts with and acts on its environment, i.e the cell indeed instantiates the generic von Neumann type self-replicator. c – Given the implied complexity and the fact that even so small a set of digital, coded, functionally specific information as 1,000 bits sits in a configuration space of 2^1,000 ~ 10^301, the whole observed cosmos of ~10^80 atoms across its lifespan and changing state every Planck time could not credibly undergo enough states to sample 1 in 10^150 of that space. That is, a random walk search of that config space rounds down to no search.
GEM's argument in Item C seems to amount to COMPLEXITY, therefore NO EVOLUTION. It appears to be an argument from personal incredulity based on the idea of teleology. That is, the result of the process is really unlikely and the chances of getting to that specific result are almost infinitesimal. Yet, this is post hoc thinking, if I've represented GEM correctly. However, I must admit that I am not quite certain about what GEM is saying here. The numbers and terms like "configuration space" are out of my daily ken. Moving on:
d – So, chance, the other source of highly contingent outcomes [natural selection filters simply cut off lower or non-functioning sub populations so, it does not create configurations] is not a credible explanation for such an information system. Intelligence routinely produces objects and systems that exceed this threshold, e.g. this post.
Of course, natural selection is not the whole of evolutionary processes at all. I give an overview of evolution here. GEM then says:
e – Credibly, life is designed. [And by an intelligence, and in a cosmos that sits at a finely and complexly balanced operating point that facilitates such C-chemistry cell based life, i.e the cosmos is also credibly designed. Something very much like God is credible.]
Whoa, we have gone far into "ought" territory here in Item E. What does "designed" mean? How did we get from very complex in Item C to "designed"? GEM needs to show his math here. We are in no position at this point to deal with other terms such as "intelligence" and "God."
f – Of course, I raised the issue of an implication above. It turns out that LT up to the point where I corrected him, seems to have conflated the act of inferring — which is subjective — with the fact of implication. But, once we have some claim P, that cannot be true and another claim Q is false, then P = > Q, i.e. IF P is so, THEN Q must also be so. (For instance, if I am typing this post then I must be alive, intelligent, purposeful and able to speak and write English.)
GEM misses my point, I think. Implications rely on assumptions about P and Q, and these assumptions need to be examined along with the premise of implication. GEM's example, for instance, doesn't imagine that GEM actually may not know not a lick of English at all and is instead typing from an English exemplar. If GEM is merely copying a sheet of paper from another source, then a critical element of the implication is flawed. Similarly, GEM's claim that a contingent universe implies an intelligent creator cannot simply be accepted at face value. I'm not accepting the implication just yet because I'd like to "peek under the covers," as it were. And when we peek, we find some serious gaps and flaws, as I have already demonstrated above. We go forward with GEM:
g – Of course, there is an “I” — a subject — who makes the inference just above; but, once it is well warranted, it is a fact that stands on its own merits. It is objectively true.
I'm not sure what these assertions of the "I" and objective truth are supposed to mean or do. It seems as though GEM is trying to suggest that his implication of a creator (or a credible creator) is objectively true. But the implication is unsupported and the assumption of objectivity is nonsensical at this point.
h – And, chains of thousands or millions of such implications are routinely used in math, science and technology, as well as management and daily life, so we just as routinely hang a lot more than our hats on implications and well-warranted inferences to such implications.
This unsupported assertion glosses over the fact that sitting around dreaming whether life is designed has little resemblance to the practical application of reasoning and implication. This item provides no support for the main argument.
i – To object to an implication because it is an implication or because a subject infers it — because one does not like where it points, is thus selective hyperskepticism: making a question-begging and inconsistent objection that would not be made in a materially similar case of comparable warrant where one agrees with the conclusion.
I question the implication more than object to it. You, GEM, have the burden to show the implication is both valid and sound. So far your points have failed to meet this burden; this, unfortunately, is a fact.
j – Of course, the context of the objection was the inference from a contingent cosmos to a cause of that cosmos, and onward to the existence of a non-contingent, necessary being as the ultimate ground for the observed credibly contingent cosmos. k – This brings to bear a now common objection to reasoning on cause and contingency. To that the classic, simple example of a fire is a sufficient counter:
1: A fire has a beginning, it needs to be sustained in existence [it needs fuel heat and oxidiser in an exothermic chain reaction], and it may go out. 2: A fire is contingent, i.e its beginning and existence depend on things beyond it. (There are circumstances on which it can and will exist, and there are circumstances where it cannot exist.) 3: That is it is caused, has sufficient factors that allow it to spring into existence, and has necessary factors that if absent will block its beginning or cut off its existence. 4: Such factors are termed: CAUSES. 5: A sufficient cluster of causal factors will trigger and sustain a fire, and absence or removal of a necessary factor will prevent its beginning or make it go out. 6: Just so, our observed cosmos credibly had a beginning, and has been sustained in existence to today. It is contingent, was caused, and is caused. 7: But, an actualised infinite regress of causes (as was pointed out above, cf 44) is absurd, so the chain of causes that led to our cosmos terminates. 8: Once we have a contingent cosmos, we have a root cause that is self-sufficient, i.e it is not contingent, does not depend on other causes, and cannot go out of existence due to want of a necessary causal factor. 9: We have just described what philosophers call, a necessary being. 10: The real issue is which candidate for this is the best, e.g. a wider deeper material cosmos out of which sub-cosmi bubble up from time to time at random, or an intelligent, purposeful designer.
I think the reasoning here is flawed when you try to got from a fire on Earth to the very beginning of space-time in our universe. I think the points I make to tgpeeler are relevant here:
Let me ask, though, whether you find terms such as “past,” “cause,” and “first” problematic in the context of the origins of the universe. Are these terms, as we are using them here, appropriate and applicable to the origins of the universe? When it comes to our universe, we have a scientific case for claiming that we can explain it without having to go outside of it. For a very high-level, 101, explanation of what I’m saying see Sean Carroll’s video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU. One of the arguments I’ve made to Kairos is that when going “outside” our universe, we are hard-pressed to extrapolate from the present (e.g., as you say, “things are changing in the present”) to a past as far back as the very origins of our universe. So, I think most everything that you or I could possibly say about a “first cause” would not only be uncertain, but I might wager it would be wrong (including this statement I just made). But now I’m speculating wildly, too. I said before that we have a scientific case for the universe creating itself from nothing (I think this is close enough to the famous statement from Hawking’s recent book). I’m saying it’s a great or even a good case; I’m only asserting that there is a case. This much I think is indisputable. So, I have your case and I have Hawking’s case. I think the question at this point is how should reasonable people evaluate the two cases against each other (and other cases, as may be appropriate). Taking a neutral stance toward both cases, we need to know what criteria to apply in determining the quality of cases and the comparative evaluation. My intuition is that this is as far as any of us can go.
GEM continues:
l – But already, we have reason to believe our cosmos is designed, so a designer is plainly the more credible cause; unpalatable though that may be to LT and ilk.
Unfortunately, we don't really have such reason to believe our cosmos is designed. You've given no definition of design and you've not really addressed any competing theories in any detail, so how could they possibly be undercut?
m - Similarly, once we see that we are morally governed creatures, it is credible that we are under moral law and a Lawgiver
Assuming that we see and understand what "morally governed" means. Paley would be proud to see the watchmaker analogy coming in here. GEM finishes with the expected claim:
n - The best overall candidate is a Creator-God who as to his character is good.
If you say so, but I disagree, and I don't think you or anyone else has shown it. I don't know where the discussion goes from here, but I think it can move forward significantly.LarTanner
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
F/N: Rounding off, we can go back to a survey of responses to the main objections LT made to an overall summary case for generic theism. [Kindly, cf. my 101 summary here (including a survey on first principles of right reason and the way one has to deal with a cumulative case) and the specific response on the problem of evils here.] Namely, we respond to objections that: (i) LT does not like the cosmological inference from a contingent cosmos to a necessary being, (ii) he does not like to hang his hat on implications, and (iii) he thought that the description of the nanomolecular technologies of the cell in terms of digital, algorithmic information processing systems constituting a von Neumann self-replicating automaton -- cf here, esp sections a and b -- was a "metaphor." Above [and in the linked], it was shown that: a --> The genetic code (yes, CODE, as in, LANGUAGE) based DNA --> mRNA --> Ribosome + tRNAs --> protein chaining process is precisely a case of discrete-state, code-based information system processing, i.e. instantiation not metaphor or analogy. (This, at length, LT had to concede.) b --> Moreover, this digital information system is a key part of a self-replicating entity that also interacts with and acts on its environment, i.e the cell indeed instantiates the generic von Neumann type self-replicator. c --> Given the implied complexity and the fact that even so small a set of digital, coded, functionally specific information as 1,000 bits sits in a configuration space of 2^1,000 ~ 10^301, the whole observed cosmos of ~10^80 atoms across its lifespan and changing state every Planck time could not credibly undergo enough states to sample 1 in 10^150 of that space. That is, a random walk search of that config space rounds down to no search. d --> So, chance, the other source of highly contingent outcomes [natural selection filters simply cut off lower or non-functioning sub populations so, it does not create configurations] is not a credible explanation for such an information system. Intelligence routinely produces objects and systems that exceed this threshold, e.g. this post. e --> Credibly, life is designed. [And by an intelligence, and in a cosmos that sits at a finely and complexly balanced operating point that facilitates such C-chemistry cell based life, i.e the cosmos is also credibly designed. Something very much like God is credible.] f --> Of course, I raised the issue of an implication above. It turns out that LT up to the point where I corrected him, seems to have conflated the act of inferring -- which is subjective -- with the fact of implication. But, once we have some claim P, that cannot be true and another claim Q is false, then P => Q, i.e. IF P is so, THEN Q must also be so. (For instance, if I am typing this post then I must be alive, intelligent, purposeful and able to speak and write English.) g --> Of course, there is an "I" -- a subject -- who makes the inference just above; but, once it is well warranted, it is a fact that stands on its own merits. It is objectively true. h --> And, chains of thousands or millions of such implications are routinely used in math, science and technology, as well as management and daily life, so we just as routinely hang a lot more than our hats on implications and well-warranted inferences to such implications. i --> To object to an implication because it is an implication or because a subject infers it -- because one does not like where it points, is thus selective hyperskepticism: making a question-begging and inconsistent objection that would not be made in a materially similar case of comparable warrant where one agrees with the conclusion. j --> Of course, the context of the objection was the inference from a contingent cosmos to a cause of that cosmos, and onward to the existence of a non-contingent, necessary being as the ultimate ground for the observed credibly contingent cosmos. k --> This brings to bear a now common objection to reasoning on cause and contingency. To that the classic, simple example of a fire is a sufficient counter:
1: A fire has a beginning, it needs to be sustained in existence [it needs fuel heat and oxidiser in an exothermic chain reaction], and it may go out. 2: A fire is contingent, i.e its beginning and existence depend on things beyond it. (There are circumstances on which it can and will exist, and there are circumstances where it cannot exist.) 3: That is it is caused, has sufficient factors that allow it to spring into existence, and has necessary factors that if absent will block its beginning or cut off its existence. 4: Such factors are termed: CAUSES. 5: A sufficient cluster of causal factors will trigger and sustain a fire, and absence or removal of a necessary factor will prevent its beginning or make it go out. 6: Just so, our observed cosmos credibly had a beginning, and has been sustained in existence to today. It is contingent, was caused, and is caused. 7: But, an actualised infinite regress of causes (as was pointed out above, cf 44) is absurd, so the chain of causes that led to our cosmos terminates. 8: Once we have a contingent cosmos, we have a root cause that is self-sufficient, i.e it is not contingent, does not depend on other causes, and cannot go out of existence due to want of a necessary causal factor. 9: We have just described what philosophers call, a necessary being. 10: The real issue is which candidate for this is the best, e.g. a wider deeper material cosmos out of which sub-cosmi bubble up from time to time at random, or an intelligent, purposeful designer.
l --> But already, we have reason to believe our cosmos is designed, so a designer is plainly the more credible cause; unpalatable though that may be to LT and ilk. m --> Similarly, once we see that we are morally governed creatures, it is credible that we are under moral law and a Lawgiver. n --> The best overall candidate is a Creator-God who as to his character is good. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
Onlookers: I think I should make a nightcap comment. Let us notice how Mrs O'Leary titles her post and how she concludes it, as she discusses how Mr Coyne has at length responded to Mr Behe's latest paper without the usual sliming dismissal out of hand:
Mid-morning mug: Are Darwinists running out of insults and profanity? . . . . It looks as though Coyne must now actually take Behe’s argument seriously. Of course, he should have a long time ago, but for years Darwinists were happy to let trolls lob insults and profanity. Somewhat the way a deadbeat curses the bank officer who knows he hasn’t got the goods.
The slander-driven side track attempt by LT and ilk reflect this problem, what it means to live in a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals culture of side-tracking from substantive issues, mischaracterisation and ad hominem-driven polarisation, demonisation and incivility. I don't think that LT and ilk truly understand the matches they are playing with. When reasonable discussion consistently meets with the sort of slander that seeks to invidiously associate being a Christian with the tactics of a Torquemada, and with the intent to tyrannise over and burn accused heretics -- notice there has been utterly no expression of remorse or regret for such an outrage [and not anything like a recognition of the costly contribution of Christians to the rise of modern liberty] -- they are sowing the seeds of secularist hostility, closed minds and hearts and outright hate that (if unchecked and unexposed) historically leads to persecution, violence and worse when those steeped in such a polluted mental atmosphere gain power. Certainly, that is the too often repeated lesson of the past 100 years. As over 100 million ghosts remind us. Before closing, I therefore draw our attention back to my last major remark on the substantial matters, at 44 above. Let us address the substantial matter on the merits, and let us understand, from Plato in his The Laws Bk X, 360 BC, the type of challenge and the type of disruptive, amoral radicalism we are facing: __________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> ___________________ Let the damage Alcibiades did to Athens warn us about the matches that are being played with. G'night all GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
PS: Muramasa, I cross checked the thread, and it seems the connexion there is the attorneys, specifically too. Pardon my error of memory.kairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Muramasa: You will see that some comments have been manually put up [and of course out of order so the exchanges -- including use of vulgarity and suggestion of wanting to burn at the stake or the like -- that warranted them are not apparent], subsequent to my complaint here that they were vanishing mysteriously. (Now, the posts that I raised questions about were up, in thread, then "vanished." The format they now re-appear in, over LT's handle, is likely because Blogger sends posts to the owner's email box -- this I know from my own experience with Blogger. These were likely clipped from the email box and put up.) In short, it is because they discovered that I had been parallel posting here that they have manually intervened. The substantial post no 36, which LT was complaining about, is above. (I have found that routinely, as someone who has had posts moderated here [for various reasons, some mysterious to the point where at one stage I had a working relationship with the troubleshooter at Akismet; Hi M . . . ], a comment post about the post in mod, may not be posted if the substantive post is put up; which seems reasonable. I have no knowledge of other substantive posts by LT. Thougth on his behaviour at his own blog, I understand why he remains in automatic mod here. UD's mods can speak for themselves on the specifics of their policy.) You will observe that the slanderous association with Torquemada and the later vulgar reference are still there, as is an accusatory comment about whether I have wanted to burn people at the stake. Now, I think you will also see that at no point des LT respond seriously to my pointing out thsat torquemada's behaviour was not even reasonably typical of Spanish Catholics att he time, including how two leading sints in Spain at the time, objected seriously, and how Las Casas actually projected God's destructive judgement on Spain for her crimes in the New World. And, discussion of comparative difficulties worldview issues is not at all even remotely associated with thumbscrews, racks, and bundles of dry branches. LT has yet to seriously account for such an invidious comparison, but instead has tried to make light of it. On your final matter, you are correct, BB refers to the lawyers of the rapists who shred the dignity of rape victims, not the rapists themselves; this time around (note my correction in the original thread on that subject). That loose reference, you aptly catch. In fact, in the original case BB twisted the above cited remark on the turnabout accusation fallacy, to say in effect I associated him with rapists. As the above linked shows, at 333 in that thread I spoke to a sleazy rhetorical tactic used in that thread, and noted its most infamous use. That is how I corrected him, 16 months ago. His claims that I have abused him are in fact a further example of turnabout attacks. What I have consistently done, is to point out cases of the now all too common trifecta rhetorical tactic of red herring distractors, led to strawman caricatures, soaked in ad hominems and ignited, resulting in polarisation, confusion and the like. Those who use that tactic will often try to turn about the matter by claiming "you hit [back] first," i.e the compounding turnabout accussation. Indeed, in one of BB's remarks at the LT blog, you will see just such a turnabout attempt. For, he tries to twist the term "turnabout" or "turnspeech" -- terms which I did not invent -- into an implied admission of starting the problem. This is, of course, yet another turnabout, one that tries to play the you provoked it, you are a hypocrite cards. but in fact, until LT made the invidious comparison the issue of polarising slander did not come up. In fact, my remarks on the trifecta fallacy and subsequent turnspeech were occasioned by LT's grossly slanderous invidious association with Torquemada. I also raised the question that his claim of censorship was so serious that he needed to substantiate it within 48 hours [and I refused to post such an unsubstantiated claim at my own blog, noting on it and why]. So far, he has turned up an in-moderation comment, and when the moderated comment in the main came up here, he then proceeded to suggest that I had specially intervened here with the Blog Mods, which I pointed out I did not in one of the formerly vanished comments. He also went on to make the invidious suggestion that I wanted to basically burn objectors at the stake. AND NOTICE THE PREDICTABLE EFFECT OF ALL OF THIS TRIFECTA TACTICS: WE ARE DISCUSSING A POLARISING SIDE ISSUE THAT YOU CAN HARDLY ADDRESS WITHOUT BEING DRAGGED INTO THE MUD, WHILE THE MAIN MATTER STANDS IGNORED. However, the attitude of projecting an invidious association with Torquemada, unsubstantiated claims of censorship and burning at the stake etc is so serious that I felt I had little choice but to deal with it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
KF:: It looks like your comments are back up at Larry Tanner's blog. Apparently the post lengths were greater than that allowed by the blog software. Since you were kind enough to point us over to that blog, I am hoping that you can clear up something. You state (post 47): "He tried to reinforce the Torquemada false accusation by LT, through claiming to onlookers that I had slanderously associated him with rapists. This is wrong, and inexcusable." Here is what he actually said: "You complain about an implied association with Torquemada yet when you debate people who disagree with you you use that very tactic yourself - you once tried to associate me with lawyers who blame rape victims for the crime, yet the result of my complaint about this offensive and uncivil comment was more abuse from you, appeals to moderators and eventually my bannation from UD." I believe that your first post is in error and warrants an apology.Muramasa
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
tgpeeler (41), Thanks for focusing on the heart of the argument. If there are issues at my blog, I'm afraid I cannot be much help. Before now, I've never been aware of any issues. I know, however, that Blogger has some limit on how long comments can be. You present a nice case. Let me ask, though, whether you find terms such as "past," "cause," and "first" in the context of the origins of the universe. Are these terms, as we are using them here, appropriate and applicable to the origins of the universe? When it comes to our universe, we have a scientific case for claiming that we can explain it without having to go outside of it. For a very high-level, 101, explanation of what I'm saying see Sean Carroll's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU. One of the arguments I've made to Kairos is that when going "outside" our universe, we are hard-pressed to extrapolate from the present (e.g., as you say, "things are changing in the present") to a past as far back as the very origins of our universe. So, I think most everything that you or I could possibly say about a "first cause" would not only be uncertain, but I might wager it would be wrong (including this statement I just made). But now I'm speculating wildly, too. I said before that we have a scientific case for the universe creating itself from nothing (I think this is close enough to the famous statement from Hawking's recent book). I'm saying it's a great or even a good case; I'm only asserting that there is a case. This much I think is indisputable. So, I have your case and I have Hawking's case. I think the question at this point is how should reasonable people evaluate the two cases against each other (and other cases, as may be appropriate). Taking a neutral stance toward both cases, we need to know what criteria to apply in determining the quality of cases and the comparative evaluation. My intuition is that this is as far as any of us can go. -------------------------------- Kairos, I've made my apology here. If you don't accept it or like it, then too bad. I see no good reason to make changes to the posts at my blog.LarTanner
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
F/N 4: Pardon a for the record: here is where I previously had to correct BB before, for the very same errors and unwarranted accusations.kairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
BA, Mrs O'Leary, CH et al: Please forgive me for having to use UD as a bulletin board that I know will hold the comments. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Jon Actually, what I see is my last response, after the original response of earlier this AM vanished. (FYI LT, I was able to get and annotate a screen shot of the vanished comment from my history. Looks like actually several comments I submitted that were "saved" at blogger have vanished, inclduing the one where I pointed out what is at 43 above, and also where IIRC I apologised in any case for being sharp enough in terms to offend. That apology remark appears at my own blog on the 16th.) That is there still. BB having tried further ad hominems, I responded briefly to him; which should be comment no 6 at LT's blog. Just to make sure, I copy it here -- and BB, FYI my remarks are both there and here to make sure that things will appear somewhere, and stay there. It is: ______________ >> As a matter of fact, BB, my responses here -- including the main one yesterday [that should apear as a two-parter, and then with a link to UD where it appears in entirety after odd things here] -- have been consistently vanishing mysteriously. I have cross-posted at UD, and have given the link to this blog. It is however, quite plain that something is very wrong here. G'day 7:24 AM >> ________________ You will see that BB complains that he and LT cannot respond here, to which I have responded. All of this, of course neatly smears me and even more neatly distracts from the substantial issue that should be on the table, there and here. Sad. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Looking back at Mr Tanner's blog, and the above it seems that in fact several remarks of mine have been deleted at his blog. This of course sets me up as a strawman to be pummelled. Doubtless, his self-exculpatory excuse is the claim that UD "censors" so he is only "fighting fire with fire." In that regard, it is highly significant that at least one of the vanished remarks points to the fact that the substantive post in question sits above as no 36. (His screen shot that is his "proof" of UD's censorship is about the same substantive post, which obviously was in delayed moderation, not dumped as censored.) Sad, and revealing.kairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
/lurking F/N 2: My remark that, only a few minutes ago, was comment no 4 at the Tanner Blog, has vanished. We can take that as pretty close to proof of censorship by Mr Tanner. Have you cleared your cache? I still see the comment there.jon specter
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
F/N 2: My remark that, only a few minutes ago, was comment no 4 at the Tanner Blog, has vanished. We can take that as pretty close to proof of censorship by Mr Tanner. My onward response there is: _______________ >> Onlookers, Corrective comments yesterday and today by the undersigned have vanished, even though registered as "saved" and originally displaying in the comment thread here. (But a few minutes ago, the comment thread had four comments displayed, now it is back down to three.) That is beginning to look not so good, especially as Mr Tanner has maintained his assertion of "censorship" at UD, even though the substantial comment he made is no 36 in the thread there. Again, my substantial response to Mr Tanner is here [46 above], and that to BB is now here [47 above], both at UD. GEM of TKI 5:54 AM >> _______________ At least, the record stands here.kairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply