The distinction between intelligence, law, and chance is over two thousand years old, beginning with Plato’s “Laws.” If you can think of another kind of cause, you will be the first. So, it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption to bring to any dialogue. Science assumes many things less certain than that.

—-”As to brains and mind, I very much like the expression that ‘the mind is what the brain does’. Brains are an organ, a object, and mind is a process, the operation of the organ.”

There is no empirical evidence for, or any logical reason to believe, the assertion that the mind is a “process.” Quite the contrary, if the mind is anything, it is a faculty, just as is the brain is an organ. In any case, the point is that the Darwinist cannot discuss the two terms “mind” and “brain” while using the word “natural” in any meaningful way, except of course by claiming that mind “is” the brain or else that it is grounded in the brain, which is another way of saying that it isn’t a mind at all.

- “This is not an accurate representation of my views. I very much conceive of the universal nature of various patterns in nature. This is because I see the human mind as no more than an integral part of all of nature, rather than something natural imbued with some special powers ‘from the outside’.”

How, then, do you explain the origin of the design in an ancient hunter’s spear? Where did the design come from and how did it happen? You are trying to conflate the cause of wind, rain, and erosion, with the cause of intentional action. That is what happens when you characterize all these kinds of causes as “natural.”

—”If any, it is the dualists who struggle with conceiving of this unity. Universe, mind, matter, law and chance are all parts of nature, and as far as anyone can demonstrate there are no two kinds of intelligence, but just various types and degrees of a single phenomenon. As for ’supernatural’, I don’t think it means anything else but an imaginary explanation for the unknown – an empty label.”

In that case, perhaps you could serve yourself and your colleagues by defining the word, “natural,” because no one knows what the Darwinist means when he uses that term. While you may not agree with our definition of “natural,” you clearly know what it is.

– Stephen, I am not convinced of this dichotomy between law & chance on the one hand, and intelligence on the other hand. The nature of intelligence is still obscure, and I don’t think it is has been demonstrated at all that intelligence has another component other than law & chance in some form. Moreover, how do you deal with things like spiders building webs, or termites building colonies? Is there no intelligence there or are these things not natural? What about dogs? Are dogs unintelligent or non-natural? This distinction is fraught with problems.

My view is that intelligence comes in degrees, and at the lower end of the scale it is almost indistiguishable from what you would call ‘natural’, whereas at the higher end of the scale it looks rather different from law & chance. Yet, its nature (pun intended) remains unresolved, and assertng that anything more is involved than law & chance is a metaphysical claim that has been debated for millenia without any concrete results whatsoever.

StephenB: “Under those circumstances, the term’s meaning is precise enough to use as part of the rational discourse. On the other hand, when anti-ID partisans enter the arena, they look for ways to muddy the debate waters by ignoring ID’s scientific definition of “natural” and use their own formulation, which has never been defined. At best, they play on the dichotomy between “natural” and “supernatural,” even though they have never explained the meaning of one in the context of the other. That is why they don’t know what to do with words such as, “mind” or “brain.” For them, both faculties would have to be “in nature,” whatever that means, so there cannot be any substantial difference between the two.”

- As I explained, the terms’ meaning is not at all clear because the suggested dichotomy may not actually exist. As to brains and mind, I very much like the expression that ‘the mind is what the brain does’. Brains are an organ, a object, and mind is a process, the operation of the organ. There is no empirical evidence, but plenty of metaphysical speculation, to demonstrate that anything more is involved.

StephenB: “Further, and more importantly, they cannot conceive of the universal nature of the origins of various patterns in nature. If a human “mind” designs something and leaves evidence of complex-specified information, that is, for Darwinists, a natural event. Yet, if a “supernatural” mind, or for that matter, a Divine mind, designs a universe, leaving that same texture of complex-specified information, it is, for them, a supernatural event, which means, we are told, that we cannot compare the similarity between the patterns coming from the two kinds of intelligent agents because one is supernatural and the other is natural. That is the kind of illogical nonsense they give us. Calling it “methodological naturalism,” doesn’t make it any less illogical.”

- This is not an accurate representation of my views. I very much conceive of the universal nature of various patterns in nature. This is because I see the human mind as no more than an integral part of all of nature, rather than something natural imbued with some special powers ‘from the outside’. If any, it is the dualists who struggle with conceiving of this unity. Universe, mind, matter, law and chance are all parts of nature, and as far as anyone can demonstrate there are no two kinds of intelligence, but just various types and degrees of a single phenomenon. As for ‘supernatural’, I don’t think it means anything else but an imaginary explanation for the unknown – an empty label.

fG

You keep trying this non sequitur approach of yours.

So, then, you believe that ID would be equally furthered by yet another closet analysis of the kind you describe (a study conducted and interpretable within orthodox evolutionary biology, but privately reinterpreted employing ID’s conceptual framework), and by an ID researcher making an prediction that follows directly and necessarily from ID’s conceptual framework, one that would not follow from orthodox evolutionary theory, testing that prediction by means of a well designed study, and finding that the prediction was confirmed.

There is nothing particularly more powerful or dispositive about the second approach relative to the first.

Right?

I too enjoyed that article. My only complaint – it was too short.

I wasn’t in the slightest bit tired of reading it.

[A] Anything that begins to exist, must have a cause, [B] the universe began to exist, therefore,[C] the universe had a cause. That point is even less controversial that Tipler’s and his isn’t really controversial at all. Nevertheless, Darwinists come to this site and say either that [A] is not necessarily true, and, when refuted, change course and then declare that it is trivial and circular, which of course, it isn’t.

Even Hume and Kant, the two skeptics that led the way to our current malaise, and who, in many respects, provided the intellectual justfication for Darwin’s general theory of evolution, admitted openly that no rational person would ever declare that something could come into existence without a cause. Yet Darwinists come here regularly to challenge the point.

Thus, you are debating science with folks who don’t even accept the law of causality, one of the vital metaphysical foundations for science. When you finally pin them down with facts that lead to an intelligent cause, they simply deny that any such cause is necessary. When you finally pin them down with facts that show the statistical impossibility that naturalistic forces can create information, they begin to argue on behalf of common descent, which, as you know, is not even in dispute for most ID advocates. Or, they just go through the same old routine that something can come from nothing, failing to realize that if that was the case, science, rationality, and even reasoned discourse couldn’t exist. There is no way to argue against that kind of irrationality except to point it out from time to time.

I posted something the other day on the Gravity thread which should be a separate thread but which I believe got buried by the host of other comments posted,

It is by Frank Tipler and truth in science

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/o.....s/?print=1

Given the anti science objections to ID on this thread it would be appropriate to what has been discussed here.

That is the only activity that can provide dispositive scientific justification for preferring an ID explanation over others.:

Got to give you credit for persistence. You keep trying this non sequitur approach of yours.

First, there have been some studies already done in this vein. Studies that examine the limits of novel protein formation are such studies. Dembski and Marks work are also such studies.

Also every study which maps a genome is an ID study even though nearly all of the ones done are by people who would deny they are doing an ID study. ID has limited resources to do research by design of the academy. If someone said they were doing a study based on testing ID not only would they not get the study approved, but they would be ostracized by the science community. Just leave it that ID studies are being done all the time but are not identified as such.

Behe wrote a book called the Edge of Evolution and in it he shows how research already done can be used to support ID. So right now the best ID research is being done in the biology labs around the world in universities and big government labs. I think it kinda neat that all these anti ID people are carrying ID’s bags.

By the way we have been down these arbitrary illogical objections before several times so it is easy to point out the irrelevancy of your comments. You must get them from a template published on the internet some place which hasn’t been updated to make better sense.

The current scientific establishment is scared to death of ID. They feign ennui about ID but let it come up and they go ape s__t about it. If it was a nothing area, they would generally ignore it or even provide some funds to disprove it. But because they know of no way to disprove it, they try to oppress it. And they really goes nuts when they see their own research used to support ID. But in truth every research project they do must support ID which I find kind of ironic.

So when you make these objections we know what it is about. But keep trying, you may get somewhere some day.

“When ID advocates use the term “natural,” in a scientific sense, they are talking about “natural causes” as opposed to “non-natural” causes, such as law or chance. Under those circumstances, the term’s meaning is precise enough to use as part of the rational discourse.”

That, of course, is spectacularly wrong. What I should have said it this:

When ID advocates use the term “natural,” in a scientific sense, they are talking about “natural causes,” such as law and chance, as opposed to non-natural causes, such as intelligent agency.

Under those circumstances, the term’s meaning is precise enough to use as part of the rational discourse. On the other hand, when anti-ID partisans enter the arena, they look for ways to muddy the debate waters by ignoring ID’s scientific definition of “natural” and use their own formulation, which has never been defined. At best, they play on the dichotomy between “natural” and “supernatural,” even though they have never explained the meaning of one in the context of the other. That is why they don’t know what to do with words such as, “mind” or “brain.” For them, both faculties would have to be “in nature,” whatever that means, so there cannot be any substantial difference between the two.

Further, and more importantly, they cannot conceive of the universal nature of the origins of various patterns in nature. If a human “mind” designs something and leaves evidence of complex-specified information, that is, for Darwinists, a natural event. Yet, if a “supernatural” mind, or for that matter, a Divine mind, designs a universe, leaving that same texture of complex-specified information, it is, for them, a supernatural event, which means, we are told, that we cannot compare the similarity between the patterns coming from the two kinds of intelligent agents because one is supernatural and the other is natural. That is the kind of illogical nonsense they give us. Calling it “methodological naturalism,” doesn’t make it any less illogical.

That is why I, for one, ask them to use the word “natural,” only with reference to undirected evolution or with respect to that which was not caused by an intelligent agent. Of course, they continually refuse to do that because such a discipline would lend itself to the very kind of clarity they seek to avoid.

But there is no study that a non ID scientist would do that an ID scientist wouldn’t do.

That’s not enough. You need studies that an ID scientist would do that a non ID scientist wouldn’t do: those driven by predictions that arise from ID. As you say, “occasionally design some different studies.”

That is the only activity that can provide dispositive scientific justification for preferring an ID explanation over others.

I did not see your comment till I wrote mine. Have to go off to a Christmas concert in 5 minutes. Come back here later in the day because I posted something a couple days ago that got buried in the mass of comments that is very interesting and appropriate for its own thread.