Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Evolution in a Box”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a proposal from a friend of mine for Darwinalia, Inc. With some additional work, it may have commercial possibilities.

Evolution in a Box

Comments
Aris: I hope you come back... In looking through your posts, it’s pretty clear you’ve created a false dichotomy ("x instead of y" is a common form in your writing). Consider, for example: "human beings at a certain point in their history started looking for natural explanations to phenomena instead of relying on faith and divine authority..." or "If human beings continued to insist that, for instance, electricity was not a natural phenomenon with a natural explanation, but instead it was the creation of a supernatural entity, they would not have been able to understand..." I myself do not for a moment think that electricity is, as you say, the "creation of a supernatural entity," as if by praying I could somehow get God to turn on the lights for me. Thus, this whole line of argument seems to be, if not an intentional a straw man, a profound misunderstanding or misrepresentation of ID. What you call a "natural phenomenon" I would simply call rule-governed. And this rule-governed nature of the universe is what makes science possible. Thus, people can study & understand the principles that govern, for example, electricity, and consequently develop applications like, for example, computers. These principles apply equally to me and to you regardless of our world views. And so, every scientific endeavor from the polio vaccine to the Hubble telescope has been accomplished because the people working in the field have adhered to this principle of methodological naturalism. The problem with neodarwinism, however, is that there is an additional requirement of epistemological naturalism, thus introducing philosophy into their science. And so one of the common objections that ID advocates raise against the prevailing neodarwinist orthodoxy is that they don’t play by the same rules that they insist their critics follow. For example, you say: "Because of this a posteriori knowledge we are prone to look for similar patterns in other things (such as life on Earth) that we do not already know were designed." I can respect the view you have articulated here: we don’t know; the jury’s still out. I also don’t know in any absolute sense. I have evidence for my world view and have become personally convinced, but I don’t--and no one can ever--know absolutely. Not so the typical neodarwinist. Consider, for example, Dawkins, who says: "So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion." He, in spite of obvious appearances, definitively knows that the universe is the product of naturalistic processes. And what has brought him to this conclusion? Is it the rigors of objectivity and the scientific method? Hardly. He "knows" this, because it is the faith he started with, because he would be apostate if he were to reject it, and becasue his a-priori naturalism demands it. And this is faith, not science.SteveB
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
And, yes, I still wait on #'s 40 and 47 patiently.nostrowski
September 26, 2005
September
09
Sep
26
26
2005
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Let me give you an example from life: You take your car to a mechanic to be fixed. A good mechanic will observe how your car behaves, open the engine up, take things apart, experiment with different configurations, switch parts, etc. A good mechanic will be open minded and will try an unconventional part and consider a suggestion that seems radical about connecting some wires a different way, etc. However, would you take your car to a mechanic who was “open minded” to the point of expanding car repair to include prayer, crystals, chanting, and other activities that do not fall within what we understand as the parameters constraining mechanics (i.e. to work with the engine as a natural object)? Why can't you have a discussion on the merits (or the lack thereof) of ID without reference to prayer, crystals, chanting, exorcising priests, ghosts, goblins, gremlins, ad nauseum? Why the continual deflections? For, if they are not deflections, they are, dare I say it, the snarkiness of which you accuse others. Do you see evidence of biological design? Yes or no? And specifically, without your penchant for coarse analogies, why or why not?nostrowski
September 26, 2005
September
09
Sep
26
26
2005
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Aris: You ask people to imagine what's behind their computer in the way of knots as an example of chance. Yet, these knots have a high probability of intelligent causation. When this dawns on you, you then decide that earthquakes threw peripherals hither and yon to randomly generate knots. This is a complete departure from your original premise and, thus, comedic in value. Is it my fault your original example was asinine? And as for snarkiness, physician heal thyself. Meanwhile, you have yet to answer how the presumption of design specifically closes off investigation and analysis. I asked in post #40 and #47. Or are these questions not up to the mighty war god's celestial standards?nostrowski
September 26, 2005
September
09
Sep
26
26
2005
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Aris: Lots to say; too little time. Here’s a quick response, with more later if I have the time. You say, for example, "Science deals with what is observable..." and later, "The strength of science is indeed its limits," and again, "what is not reasonable is to pretend that science asks teleological questions." I agree completely. Indeed, if standard, garden-variety neodarwinism were actually to submit to these limitations, I think we wouldn’t have an argument. Furthermore, if this is the standard, neodarwinism is by definition not scientific because it speculates about what is not observable, and draws conclusions that are explicitly teleological. A cursory reading of either Sagan or Dawkins makes this abundantly clear. I can dig up some quotations if you need me to. In short, the good news: I largely agree with your definitions of science. The bad news: neodarwinism, by the standard you have defined, is not scientific. More details later if I have time. -sbSteveB
September 26, 2005
September
09
Sep
26
26
2005
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Wow Aris, you have a lot more free time than I do! I'd like to repond but likely won't be able to do so right away. Stay tuned.SteveB
September 26, 2005
September
09
Sep
26
26
2005
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Hey, not fair! Aris was supposed to respond to me first.Mario A. Lopez
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Aris: I do not agree — and I’m quite confident that no mathematician would disagree with me — that knots are not complex. Sure, some are simpler than others, but the topology of knots is rich and varied. Let me point out that I think we need to distinguish between the "mathematical description" of a "knot"--which, indeed, is complex--and the actual occurence of a knot--which may, or may NOT, be complex. So let’s say an archeologist finds an ancient gaggle of reeds, all tangled and knotted up in elaborate ways. He has to decide whether this knot was designed by someone for a specific purpose or whether it was the product of natural forces. Could it be the product of some reeds that got tangled up by wind, earth movement, or some other natural force? He doesn’t know just by looking — and in this case the archeologist has information about knots that we do not have about life. Let me put it in syllogism form: 1. Knots can be complex objects 2. Knots can be complex objects created by force applied by an intelligent entity or undirected, unintelligent natural events 3. Therefore, because a knot is a complex object, it does not follow that it was designed by an intelligent entity and not a natural event I’m not certain which one of these premises you disagree with. But if you accept the premises, you have to accept that complexity is not a necessary (and definitely not a sufficient) condition for concluding that an object is an artifact of intelligent design. You may argue that other factors combined with the perceived complexity of an object indicate intelligent design, but complexity in and of itself does not. The problem I perceive in your syllogism is that premises (1) and (2) are somewhat indistinguishable--that is, premise (2) is simply a more amplified version of premise (1). Therefore, there is no conclusion to draw, but, rather, a question to be asked. The question is--based on what is written in (2): can we tell if a "knot" has been designed or not (no pun intended)? My answer would be along these lines: the "reeds" in question have, based on their biological characteristics, would have some number of "natural" positions. For example, if the reeds were interwoven slightly, this could be the result of the wind blowing or of animals trodding it down. Now the "number" of "natural" positions that would not be "complex" because there are only so many of them. Now, if the archeologist does, indeed, find the reeds in a "complicated" pattern, then, based on the "weaving pattern" observed, the "number" of possible positions would now be much higher. If this "number" were sufficiently high, then the number of possible configurations would be high, and hence a large "probability space." Thus, in this case, the "complexity" is high enough to perhaps distinguish between chance, i.e., random, forces causing the configuration, or whether the cause of the knotting was design. However--and this is a very big "however"--the "probability space" in this example is very likely not sufficiently large enough for the archeologist to have a high degree of confidence in the answer he arrives at. For example, the total possible number of configurations might be in the order of a billion. That seems high, but it isn't extremely high; whereas, for example, for a protein, on the other hand, the probability space would number in the order of 20^300th power--unbelievably large. It's the largeness of this probability space that ID takes advantage of. So, in other words, for ID to function properly, the probability space--and hence the complexity--must be very, very high. Thus, we can, on our own, make determinations between what we consider "complex" and "not-complex", and, then, subsequently, to what is "designed" or "not-designed". But we're doing this on our own. And........a "false positive" is possible; whereas, in ID, the possibility of a "false positive" is eliminated. Hope this has been helpful.PaV
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
jboze3131: "dodgingcars, you said that before i could. you cant argue that christianity was anti-science then bring up scientists you want to show as examples of true science who were THEMSELVES christians as examples of how the argument doesnt hold up!" The fact that someone can be a Christian and also be a scientist is as relevant as whether someone is a scientist because he parts his hair on the right and not the left. The history of science is very well documented, and this inference is factually as wrong as anything can be. There is absolutely no evidence that Galileo's or Copernicus's "christianity" had anything to do with their achievements. Quite the contrary. They both had to go against Christian dogma and the Christian church, under the threat of arrest, torture and death, to propose a heliocentric universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth revolves around the sun!! Religion in general, not just Christianity, are inherently anti-science because they rely on authority to provide answers to questions about life, the universe and everything else. Science acknowledges no authority except the preponderance of evidence, experimental results, etc. No accommodation can be made between the infallibility of a Pope and a Pat Robertson and the scientific method. I don't know where some of you find your information. But if you insist that Christianity was the cause of science, or that it at least was a positive influence, then you should be able to answer a few simple questions and enlighten me: 1. The first scientific advances took place in ancient Greece, especially among the pre-Socratic philosophers of Ionia. They came up with a basic atomic theory, realized the Earth was round -- and later on a Greek librarian even managed to measure the circumference of the Earth to within a few meters. These were pagans. How come, since scientists have to be Christians according to you? 2. Scientific advances all but disappeared for almost 14 centuries, between the Hellenistic period and the 16th century or so. How come, since that was the period when the power and dominance of the Christian church was at its zenith? 3. How come science flourished again right about the time when ancient Greek texts were rediscovered in Europe and Christianity was splintered by the Reformation? What's the connection here?Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
SteveB: "It seems to me that asking these sorts of questions and following the evidence where ever it might lead is not, as Avis claims, committing intellectual suicide, but is in fact just the kind of attitude that any good scientist should bring to his/her work. It's obvious to me that there aren't any scientists posting here. Some of you may be engineers, programmers, technologists, and so on, and some of you may be proficient with the tools of science such as mathematics. However, practicing scientists know that the magnificence of science, the reason it has been more successful that any other human endeavor in advancing knowledge is because it operates within very strict parameters (study the observable, provide natural explanations, experiment). The strength of science is indeed its limits. To ask science to "open up" is to destroy it. Let me give you an example from life: You take your car to a mechanic to be fixed. A good mechanic will observe how your car behaves, open the engine up, take things apart, experiment with different configurations, switch parts, etc. A good mechanic will be open minded and will try an unconventional part and consider a suggestion that seems radical about connecting some wires a different way, etc. However, would you take your car to a mechanic who was "open minded" to the point of expanding car repair to include prayer, crystals, chanting, and other activities that do not fall within what we understand as the parameters constraining mechanics (i.e. to work with the engine as a natural object)? I don't think so. Yet many people are asking science to commit suicide by going beyond the physical and toward the metaphysical (it is worth noting that science flourished when it detached itself from philosophy and became "natural philosophy.") I expect that you're going to argue that nobody here mentioned anything about prayer, crystals and chanting and I'm using a strawman argument. I do hope nobody here believes in any of the stuff. My point is that when you "open" up a discipline beyond the parameters that define it, you open it up to nonsense. It is happening right now with medicine, with all the bogus alternative therapies that are being taken seriously. There is no bridge between science and theology, and attempts to force one between them will flood both.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
SteveB: "But the computer–or any other complex technological construction–is a useful analogy. One of the teleological arguments that I find compelling is that because such complex systems exist and we know they are the result of intelligent design, it is reasonable to at least ask the question that complex systems in nature (everything from the blood clotting cascade to the precise interaction of cosmological bodies) could also be designed." Three points. 1. It is reasonable to ask the question as to whether complex systems in nature could have been designed. What is not reasonable is to pretend that science asks teleological questions, that is questions about purpose and objective ("end" would be the closest translation of the Greek "telos.") Science deals with what is observable, and scientists can infer apparent relationships between and within natural phenomena, such as causation, correlation and coincidence, by examining events that have taken place. However, while you and I in the ordinary course of events assign "purpose" to our experiences, this is not an inference scientists can make. They comment on how something works, but why something works the way it does is beyond science. For instance, anyone who was trained in the sciences and actually understands evolutionary theory, would never argue that the "purpose" of the eye is to see. He would merely observe that the eye sees and proceed to describe how it sees and how it probably developed into a seeing thing. 2. It is normal to try and find analogies in life because it helps us make sense of the world. It is a natural human tendency that helps us survive -- one experience with large pointy teeth can teach us that things that look like large pointy teeth are dangerous. However, comparing human artifacts to non-human artifacts are terrible analogies because they are so misleading. You see, we already know that a computer or any other complex technological construction is a human artifact. We also know that Mount Rushmore (Behe's favorite analogy) is a human artifact, etc. etc. Because of this a posteriori knowledge we are prone to look for similar patterns in other things (such as life on Earth) that we do not already know were designed. The temptation here is to jump into the conclusion that any similarity between the two must be due to similar origins. The inference however is not justified. Where man-made machines and living creatures are similar, the explanation is rather obvious: In the process of artification humans, much of the time, copied whatever already existed. So, to make a plane we made things with wings because we had already seen birds with wings. What design similarities actually prove is that we designed human artifacts after looking at nature, another obvious point. The natural objects humans used as models had already existed. 3. Furthermore, man-made machines and living creatures are simply not similar in any fundamental way. Biologists -- those who actually study biological constructs and are familiar with them -- will almost to a man (or woman) tell you that the similarities between the design of human artifacts and biological systems are superficial (it's not by accident that the proponents of ID with academic credentials are not biologists; sure, there are a few, but only a few). Where laymen see precision, biologists see haphazardness that often works despite fundamental structural flaws.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
SteveB: "So, computer science is not really science, or maybe–just maybe–is it possible that real science can be conducted outside of the constraints imposed by a naturalistic epistemology." Science is by definition the quest for natural explanations to phenomena. Speculation about metaphysical explanations is philosophy; reliance on supernatural explanations is religion. Neither philosophy nor religion have advanced human knowledge about nature to a point where we can harness natural materials and forces and use them as building blocks and energy, and to make machines out of them. Never, ever. Only science has.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
SteveB: "So, computer science is not really science, or maybe–just maybe–is it possible that real science can be conducted outside of the constraints imposed by a naturalistic epistemology." Science is by definition the quest for natural explanations to phenomena. Speculation about metaphysical explanations is philosophy; reliance on supernatural explanations is religion. Neither philosophy nor religion have advanced human knowledge about nature to a point where we can harness natural materials and forces and use them as building blocks and energy, and to make machines out of them. Never, ever. Only science has.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
SteveB: "But computers—at least all the ones I use in my work as a software analyst—have nothing to so with "natural phenomena," but rather are all about intent, analysis, design and construction–all by intelligent agents. Now, maybe Aris will disagree with me, but this is so completely obvious that it’s not worth trying to justify." Obviously computers are not assembled by "natural phenomena" but by intelligent agents. This is not in dispute. However, to repeat my point above, even if it should be obvious by now, the analysis of "natural phenomena" as products of nature and the quest for natural explanations, increased our knowledge of how the universe works to a point that we managed to create machines that work on natural principles we understand and can manipulate.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
SteveB: "Not hard to see the contradiction here. Leaving aside the straw man swipe about exorcising priests and the like, he insists that all of science is about "natural explanations for phenomena" and then cites the computer, created by the "process [that] is science." There is no contradiction. You quoted me out of context, and thus you managed to misconstrue what I said. (It is actually fascinating, because it is giving me an insight as to why we're having such a hard time communicating. Stay with me here and I'll do my best to deconstruct what happened.) Let's go to tape: I said that, "I trust that we can agree that computers are not the product of prayer, or the creation of exorcising priests, or of any supernatural entity of any sort. They are merely the product of a process that started a few hundred years ago. Obviously that process is science." I never said the computer was in any way "created" by science instead of computer engineers as if science is an entity capable of making things (I know what you're thinking: I just "admitted" that computers were designed by computer engineers and therefore I have to accept ID. Not so fast... read on). What I said was that the computer was the product of a process which is obviously science. This is not mere semantics. What my sentence means is that technological wonders like computers exist because human beings at a certain point in their history started looking for natural explanations to phenomena instead of relying on faith and divine authority (e.g. exorcising priests; this was hardly a strawman) for answers as to how the universe works. By looking for natural explanations, they to learned how to manipulate natural forces and we ended up with the industrial revolution, the development of machines, and eventually a machine called a computer. If human beings continued to insist that, for instance, electricity was not a natural phenomenon with a natural explanation, but instead it was the creation of a supernatural entity, they would not have been able to understand and harness and control electricity and use it as a source of energy and eventually use it to power computers. Ergo, the computer, just like every other technology, is the practical application of natural explanations to phenomena. The quest for natural explanations is science. There can be no other "form" for science. The quest for supernatural explanations is mysticism, not science.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
PaV: "Having low complexity means that we’re not dealing with CSI (complex, specified information). Hence, we REJECT the ‘design hypothesis.’ Ergo, "knots" are NOT designed; so we don’t go looking for a ‘designer.’ I do not agree -- and I'm quite confident that no mathematician would disagree with me -- that knots are not complex. Sure, some are simpler than others, but the topology of knots is rich and varied. My point is simply that when you encounter a knot you do not know whether it is was intelligently designed or whether it was the product of a natural event that applied force on its strands. The fact that it is not difficult for a natural process to create a knot, does not make the knot simple, but should make us wonder whether it is reasonable to conclude that everything that looks designed, is actually designed. I trust you'll agree that when we're looking at life on Earth -- as well as other historical events -- we're essentially archeological detectives. So let's say an archeologist finds an ancient gaggle of reeds, all tangled and knotted up in elaborate ways. He has to decide whether this knot was designed by someone for a specific purpose or whether it was the product of natural forces. Could it be the product of some reeds that got tangled up by wind, earth movement, or some other natural force? He doesn't know just by looking -- and in this case the archeologist has information about knots that we do not have about life. Let me put it in syllogism form: 1. Knots can be complex objects 2. Knots can be complex objects created by force applied by an intelligent entity or undirected, unintelligent natural events 3. Therefore, because a knot is a complex object, it does not follow that it was designed by an intelligent entity and not a natural event I'm not certain which one of these premises you disagree with. But if you accept the premises, you have to accept that complexity is not a necessary (and definitely not a sufficient) condition for concluding that an object is an artifact of intelligent design. You may argue that other factors combined with the perceived complexity of an object indicate intelligent design, but complexity in and of itself does not.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
nostrowski: "Note that Aris didn’t find it necessary to invoke the dextrous earthquake theory originally. It was only when her/his example began to fall apart that the dextrous earthquake occured." Indeed, I seem to have made a mistake in my original use of the knot analogy: I mistakenly assumed that that most people would know that there are several disciplines that devote study to knots, from archeology to mathematics. There have been many scholarly works written in the last few years about knots, the complexity of knots, the history of knots, etc. Knots are not merely something boy scouts mess around with. I should not have made the assumption that everyone knew how interesting knots can be, and I should have prefaced my comments with an introductory paragraph. With that out of the way, can we now concentrate on my argument?Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
nostrowski: "Aris doesn’t know what Aris doesn’t know rendering any debate with her/he superfluous. She/he is a walking, talking contradiction and quite the unintended comedian" Not a single word as to why my argument was claptrap or a contradiction or even why I'm supposed to be a comedian. Just a statement dismissing my argument without offering a counter argument or pointing out any flaws -- or even why it's supposed to be funny so that we can all have a good laugh. Please! This is not useful at all. Repeatedly copying and pasting large sections of my text out of context and then yelling, "Contradiction!" does not prove a contradiction.Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
I almost gave up on this thread. It became rather tiresome to try to have a debate with people who seemed more interested in calling me names (I've been called boorish, pedantic, etc.) than presenting their ideas in an clear fashion. While I am indeed dismissive toward certain ideas I consider buffoonish, I don't think I called anyone here by any derogatory name. In any case, I'm glad I came back. I hope the thread is not dead. I think crandaddy has it exactly right, and we should all heed his advice. And I'm quite gratified with PaV's and SteveB's intelligent approach to debate. It's a welcome change to see people who can properly construct an argument -- and without any snarkiness to boot. BTW: Aris is a male name, the original name for the Greek God of war (it can also be spelled as "Ares"). Having the name of a god does give one perspective...Aris
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
We are indebted to Aris for articulating the view held by those working from a set of naturalistic assumptions. He says for example that "intellectual suicide is really when someone gives up on natural explanations for phenomena and hence on science itself." (post 43—emphasis mine) But previously, he said, "Anyone who posts here does so using a computer. I trust that we can agree that computers are not the product of prayer, or the creation of exorcising priests, or of any supernatural entity of any sort. They are merely the product of a process that started a few hundred years ago. Obviously that process is science." (38) Not hard to see the contradiction here. Leaving aside the straw man swipe about exorcising priests and the like, he insists that all of science is about "natural explanations for phenomena" and then cites the computer, created by the "process [that] is science." We are told by Aris (and many, many others, over and over again) that science is all about naturalism. But computers—at least all the ones I use in my work as a software analyst—have nothing to so with "natural phenomena," but rather are all about intent, analysis, design and construction--all by intelligent agents. Now, maybe Aris will disagree with me, but this is so completely obvious that it’s not worth trying to justify. So, computer science is not really science, or maybe--just maybe--is it possible that real science can be conducted outside of the constraints imposed by a naturalistic epistemology. But the computer--or any other complex technological construction--is a useful analogy. One of the teleological arguments that I find compelling is that because such complex systems exist and we know they are the result of intelligent design, it is reasonable to at least ask the question that complex systems in nature (everything from the blood clotting cascade to the precise interaction of cosmological bodies) could also be designed. It seems to me that asking these sorts of questions and following the evidence where ever it might lead is not, as Avis claims, committing intellectual suicide, but is in fact just the kind of attitude that any good scientist should bring to his/her work.SteveB
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
[...] [...]L’Arrêt demort » Blog Archive » How to build a man ?
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
nostrowski: you and I know the triteness of the example; and you and I would not think of using EF on such example; but, in the end, using it should point out to Aris that the EF, in fact, does work. Onwards!PaV
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
PaV: Perfect. But, my limited candlepower admits of only this: It's a knot in a computer cable. It serves no function. It is not intelligently designed, but intelligently caused. Unless of course the theoretical earthquake disconnects my monitor cable, ties it in a knot, and reconnects it to my monitor am I likely to be wrong. It doesn't need to pass the CSI test because it doesn't pass the laugh test. No one, to speak specifically to Aris's example, would either assume a computer cable knot was intelligently designed, think it looked intelligently designed, or believe it the product of chance, for minus the offending and highly dextrous earthquake it is most certainly (and merely) intelligently caused. This is the context in which she/he presented the example and this is the context in which she/he is wrong. to wit: However, if you get behind your computer or home theater system and try to untangle the gaggle of cables and wires that reside there, you’ll always find some that have tied themselves in often elaborate ways. You didn’t tie the knots, and unless you think that knot-tying gremlins visit houses at night to mess with people’s cables (i.e. ID), the cables tied themselves by chance. Note that Aris didn't find it necessary to invoke the dextrous earthquake theory originally. It was only when her/his example began to fall apart that the dextrous earthquake occured. This is because Aris confused the chance of unintended consequence (an intelligent agent rolling, say, a die or unknowingly tangling a cable) with the spontaneous chance of Darwinian evolution in which, to his/her knowledge, no intelligent agent was ever involved.nostrowski
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
If one took the high road, David, they'd be unlikely to meet Aris.nostrowski
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Aris writes: "By a random, natural event that repositions the peripherals. Let’s say the house comes apart in an earthquake and one component goes one way and another another, and so on. The gaggle of cables that’s holding everything together will end up intertwined in knots, and the knots would be the result of a natural, chance process without anyone designing or implementing them." The way ID works is this: these "knots" seem to occur very easily; that is, they're common. Being common implies that the probability of their occurence is relatively high (all of us, I'm sure, can attest to this). Having a 'relatively high' probability of occurence implies having very low complexity. Having low complexity means that we're not dealing with CSI (complex, specified information). Hence, we REJECT the 'design hypothesis.' Ergo, "knots" are NOT designed; so we don't go looking for a 'designer.' Q.E.D.PaV
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Goodness! This is quite a heated debate, or should I call it a battle? I can't help but feel at least partly responsible since it was in response to my last post that Aris made his first. I'm not going to point fingers at anyone, but let's try to be civil. Lively debates are good, but it's hard to change anybody's mind if their heart's set to believe in something. If worse comes to worse, just agree to disagree. Just remember, the best way to get your point across is to take the high road. Davidcrandaddy
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Aris doesn't know what Aris doesn't know rendering any debate with her/he superfluous. She/he is a walking, talking contradiction and quite the unintended comedian: By a random, natural event that repositions the peripherals. Let’s say the house comes apart in an earthquake and one component goes one way and another another, and so on. The gaggle of cables that’s holding everything together will end up intertwined in knots, and the knots would be the result of a natural, chance process without anyone designing or implementing them. And with this sorry claptrap she/he feels superior? Let's say a drunken elephant walked into a bar.nostrowski
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
dodgingcars, you said that before i could. you cant argue that christianity was anti-science then bring up scientists you want to show as examples of true science who were THEMSELVES christians as examples of how the argument doesnt hold up! its been pointed out many times by many people- many societies were advanced to a similar point, yet the only nations where science started and flourished were the christian nations. men of god wanted to learn how the things their god created worked, and its what drove them to study the world around them. the bible makes it clear that man is to use his brain, to study his surroundings, to worship with his head and his heart (and worship to some includes the scientific endeavors). im surprised i didnt see a bogus claim that christians thought the earth was flat (they didnt- even the ancients realized the earth was a sphere). i read an amazon.com review of one of dembski's books where the reviwer made that bogus claim and he kept saying "ID-iots" and "ID'iotic", etc. the reviewer makes a false claim that has been debunked time and time again, but dembski and those who support his ideas are the "ID-itots". amazing how absolutely clueless some can be. (what's worse, the people who rated the review as "helpful"). ignorance abounds. as for aris- your motives are totally relevant. why should anyone even reply to anything you have to say when every comment contains an attack on those who dont share your views? you say that youre just trying to get honest answers, but youre really just here to make attacks, call names, and belittle. you say youre exasperated with the combination of arrogance and ignorance some people exhibit, but you dont realize youre talking about yourself. you cant come in to a post, attack and talk down to people in every comment, then complain that YOURE tired of arrogance and ignorance! you cant say- 'here, i have some honest questions, but let me stipulate one thing: im the one who has science on my side...you, on the other hand, have only fairy tales and nonsense, and youre all anti-science. but please, answer my questions the best you can with your small ID-ridden brains.'jboze3131
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/christianscience.shtml http://www.biblicalchristianworldview.net/Incarnation-Modern-Science.htmlMGD
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
"Galileo and Copernicus about the wonderful support their scientific ideas received from the Christian church. " Umm.. They were both Christians. So was Newton and many other famous, intellectual, and intellegent scientists. Many were interested in science and they way thing worked because of their faith!dodgingcars
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply