Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The Supernatural

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day.

Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

1: Science depends on measuring supernatural effects

We call these observable, reliable and measurable effects physical laws, forces and universal constants, but those terms are misleading, much like referring to “chance” as a causal agency. Those terms do not represent causal objects or energies we can point at, but are rather descriptions (or models) of observed patterns of behavior of matter and energy for which there is no known or observable cause. The names of these patterns and models are used as if they apply to causal things, but this is a conceptual error. When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event. Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.

What is the “natural world”?

The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants. However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena. These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and  (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology –  forces, constants and laws).

The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.

2: Science & rational debate depend upon faith in the supernatural

Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.  Logically, this means humans must have a capacity that transcends thought as the mere product of happenstance chemical interactions.  IOW, scientists must have faith that humans have the capacity to override whatever thoughts interacting chemicals happen to produce and instead force them down correct, truthful paths from an assumed objective viewpoint. Such a transcendent observational and willful capacity is necessarily supernatural, as the natural is only capable of producing whatever happenstance thoughts and “wilfulness” interacting chemicals happen to produce.

Rational debate depends upon the same assumption; that humans have some kind of non-physical agency which can supervise and override physical thought processes down paths which are correct according to abstract principles which are considered objectively binding. Such an agency is unseen and would necessarily have the power to intervene in the natural patterns producing thoughts and generating conclusions.

It is only by faith in such a supernatural agency and in the supernatural authority of abstract principles accepted as objectively valid that we can expect to be able to overcome the happenstance course of physical cause and effect in the course of our rational and scientific endeavors.

3: Everyone directly experiences the supernatural daily

Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.  We don’t know how to make various cellular or chemical reactions occur that are necessary for motion and thought. Somehow, without any technical or mechanical knowledge at all, with no understanding of how to initiate or control any of the various chemical and mechanical resources, simple intention can operate what is probably the most highly advanced and complex piece of equipment in the universe with amazing precision. Like a ghost inhabiting a doll out of a movie, our will alone can set physical forces in motion, control them, and stop them on command – no physics, chemistry or mechanical knowledge required whatsoever.  It is precisely like magic.

Furthermore, our will can instantly access any of virtually countless memories without any understanding whatsoever of how the memory process works or how the data retrieval process works.  We can simply intend to write or say something on a subject and gain immediate access to a seemingly never-ending stream of information corresponding to our intent. We can imagine things that do not even exist in the real world, our minds effortlessly rendering a massive virtual reality for us to experience as we daydream or sleep-dream. We cannot see this agency; we cannot explain how it can immediately differentiate from innumerable, variant intents to magically set billions of cellular processes and chemical interactions on a precise course to find memories, find or generate thoughtful, relevant information, or direct our body to precisely achieve a limitless variance of actions.

We experience this self-will as transcending mere physical causation from a higher order of existence, being able to direct the matter and energy of our bodies at will.  We have power over our physical and mental nature exactly like a supernatural ghost in a machine, capable of the most wondrous and amazing feats of physical complexity, creativity and computation without any understanding of how any of it is physically initiated, maintained or controlled.

——————————

That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.

Comments
@rvb8 your #22 'Science deals with the manegeable. And by manageable I mean testable, the empirical. Your ‘uncaused cause’ is exactly beyond natural (supernatural) and therefore logically out of bounds. And if it is not ‘out of bounds’ I should be allowed to ask, ‘what caused the first “uncaused” cause?‘' Of course, it's 'out of bounds' to your scientism, rvb8. As is the transcendent nature of thought, itself, in relation to matter.Axel
November 15, 2016
November
11
Nov
15
15
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
rvb8, it wouldn't be first cause if it too had a first cause. A most concordant oxymoron, esteemed Mung.Axel
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
I see you're on top form again in your post, #21, esteemed Mung.Axel
August 19, 2016
August
08
Aug
19
19
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
William J Murray's celestially-magisterial exposition seems so insightful to me, I find myself laughing all the time as I read it. The three headings, especially the first and third, are like hammer-blows to the heads of our muddle-headed, meathead friends, did they but wish to understand the pellucidly obvious and unequivocal falsity of materialism. I don't say/ask this profanely : God help any atheist who tries to take on William J Murray. Please. rvb8 just received a 'taster' for his pains, towards the top of the thread ! 'Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.' As a matter of interest, perhaps, I believe Aldous Huxley, in his essay, The Perennial Philosophy, referred to this phenomenon - like the rest of us, without quite realising its supernatural causation - as the 'autonomic intelligence'.Axel
August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
William J Murray's celestially-magisterial exposition seems so insightful to me, I find myself laughing all the time as I read it. I don't say/ask this profanely : God help any atheist who tries to take on William J Murray. Please. rvb8just received a taster for his pains, towards the top of the thread !Axel
August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Artie: ID rests on the claim that intelligence is somehow fundamentally outside of the rest of physical processes (that is, that “law+chance” and “intelligence” are mututally exclusive). This is tantamount to a claim of mind/body dualism. So, either ID is claiming to have somehow solved the ancient philosophical mind/body problem (which it hasn’t), or ID is based on an unsupported metaphysical assumption. ID makes the claim implicitly every time it contrasts “law+chance” with “intelligent cause”. If mind/body dualism is false (which it may or may not be) then this dichotomy is false.
Let’s assume that the intelligence ID refers to stems from a material brain. Would it not be proper to distinguish between what a material brain can produce and what raw materials can produce? As in, a material brain can intelligently design an IPhone but raw materials and chance cannot? As in, a material brain can produce CSI, but raw materials and chance cannot? This distinction looks perfectly scientific to me. So, if life on earth can only be explained by intelligent design, then one must conclude that somehow a material brain has produced it. And if the universe is shown to be intelligently designed, then one must conclude that somehow a material brain has produced it.Origenes
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Artie @125: You seem to be immune to the fact that ID theory is only about pattern recognition and not about any supposed designer. Even if human design is the only intelligent design we know, it still affords us an example to work with and extrapolate from. ID theory doesn't claim to be able to identify all cases of ID. If you're going to insist that ID is about the designer, then you are arguing a straw man. BTW, there is a theory by a rather prominent physicist (John Wheeler) that humans did design life and actually the universe.
SETI scientists are searching for civilizations of biological entities on temperate, water-containing planets with high encephalization quotients and that have existed long enough to have developed advanced technology like ours. Have you ever read anything about SETI (besides reading the “I” in their acronym)
Yeah, Artie. But I don't ignore the "I" in their acronym because it is inconvenient. Everything you have said above means, in short, that SETI is looking for an ET species intelligent enough to have developed technology we could discern as such via a narrow-band frequency transmission. Let's say that there is a non-physical intelligence that communicates via mind (not brain)-produced narrow-band frequencies, Artie. Let's say that SETI finds the frequency and decodes the message. What is SETI going to do, disqualify the signal and code as non-intelligent because it doesn't come from a physically embodied entity with measurable encephalization quotients? There's a reason it's not SETL, Artie. They cannot actually look for and find physical ET life out there (not yet, anyway); all they can actually hope to find is a signal that indicates intelligence - whatever form that intelligence may take. The rest of that is simply cover against SETI being labeled an ID enterprise, which it clearly is.William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
as to "Artie, Magna Charta, Arcartia Bogart. Methinks I smell a weasel." Yep for whom the bell tolls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bahqIFf4i8Ybornagain77
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
WJM @ 120:
Human design is posited as the only known example of ID and the effects ID produces, so examples of human ID are hardly “irrelevant” when it comes to potentially identifying the hallmark traits of intelligent activity.
The problem is that one example cannot define an abstract class, unless all members of the class are the same as your example (and obviously humans cannot be the Designer of Life). It is unscientific to speak of some set of entities that are said to be "intelligent" without providing some specific inclusion criteria for that set. In other words: Whatever caused first life shares at least one trait with human beings: they both can produce CSI (obviously). But what other characteristics do humans share with the cause of first life? Can we infer the cause of first life had conscious intentions, beliefs and desires? Or that it had a general intellect, learned new abilities over time, used mental imagery, made plans in advance of implementation, and so on? No, there is no empirical justification to infer any of these things.
3. Categorically false. ID theory makes no such claim.
ID makes the claim implicitly every time it contrasts "law+chance" with "intelligent cause". If mind/body dualism is false (which it may or may not be) then this dichotomy is false.
4. You’ll excuse me if I don’t accept you as Dembski’s proxy, and if I dismiss your appeal to various authorities as nothing more than a diversionary tactic. Make your own case here as best you can.
I'd be more than happy to provide his quotes; I was just surprised you weren't familiar with his ideas. But no matter, I am indeed making the argument myself. and @122:
One wonders if Artie knows what the letters in SETI stands for?
SETI scientists are searching for civilizations of biological entities on temperate, water-containing planets with high encephalization quotients and that have existed long enough to have developed advanced technology like ours. Have you ever read anything about SETI (besides reading the "I" in their acronym)?Artie
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Artie, Magna Charta, Arcartia Bogart. Methinks I smell a weasel.AnimatedDust
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
To go beyond the bounds of ID proper, beyond the falsifiable design inference, and to speculate as to what that prior Intelligence that created life on earth (and created the universe for that matter), and what our relationship to that prior intelligence might be, I hold that the evidence from Big Bang cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, Biological Life, and Paleontology gives very strong indication that we, of all creatures on earth, are uniquely made 'in the image' of that Creator of life and the universe. Basically, I hold, from the scientific evidence itself, that the Theist is more than justified for his belief that he is 'made in the image' of God and that the atheist is, once again, left with deep unanswered questions that go contrary to his materialistic assumptions. First off, if a person believes the Big Bang does not give at least some indication of the existence of a 'prior' Intelligence that existed before man came onto the scene, then that person is clearly holding onto some very unreasonable biases against God:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’
To accentuate the evidence for a beginning of the universe, there is also the evidence from fine-tuning of the universe that further bolsters the Theistic claim that a 'prior' Intelligence was required for the Big Bang:
"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially." Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townes "If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage (preeminent Astronomer)
Moreover, in a finding that is very suggestive that the Intelligence behind creating the universe is the Christian God in particular, and not some other god, Quantum mechanics has revealed that we do not live in a universe that is, at its foundational basis, made of material particles, (as the materialists believe), but that we instead live in a universe that is 'information theoretic' in its foundational basis.
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
This 'information theoretic' finding is very supportive of the Christian claim of the 'Word', of the 'Logos', of John 1:1 being at the root of all reality:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
No less than Anton Zeilinger himself pointed out this 'coincidence':
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
As well, besides the universe, life itself is found to be 'information theoretic' in its foundational basis:
Information Enigma (Where did the information in life come from?) - Stephen Meyer - Doug Axe - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g Complex grammar of the genomic language – November 9, 2015 Excerpt: The ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher –,,, - per science daily
Moreover, to solidify the inference that the Christian God created all life on earth, besides classical information, 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information/entanglement is now found along the entire length of DNA, (and proteins):
"What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
It is important to emphasize that quantum non-locality simply refuses to be reduced to within space and time causes:
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
And again, like the 'information theoretic' foundation found for the universe by Quantum Mechanics, the finding of non-local quantum information at the most foundational level of life, in DNA, is very supportive of the "Logos" theology of John 1. Particularly the claim in John 1:4
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
Moreover, despite an 'explosion of research' trying to explain the origins of human intelligence, it is found that human beings alone "mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities"
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
It is hard to imagine a more convincing 'scientific' proof that we are made 'in the image of God', than finding that both the universe and life itself are 'information theoretic' in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information. I guess a more convincing 'scientific' evidence for the claim that we were 'made in the image' of God' could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of any compelling 'scientific' evidence supporting a claim that is as outlandish as that claim?
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1119619634717635/?pnref=story
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Natalie Grant - Alive (Mary Magdalene) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44
bornagain77
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
One wonders if Artie knows what the letters in SETI stands for?William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Artie: SETI scientists make abundantly clear that they seek alien life forms – technologically advanced civilisations – and if they ever find a signal, will infer something similar to us.
Even if true, these expectations are expectations and nothing more. That's not rigorous science. Alien life forms could be anything — “unspecified ‘intelligence'”.
Artie: But SETI is not a scientific discipline, it is a search.
SETI is the science that searches for evidence that directly tests a hypothesis. Science is a search.Origenes
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Artie @115: 1. You are confusing what IDists say wrt the implications of ID theory with ID theory itself. ID theory itself says nothing about the identity or nature of any supposed designer; it only about recognizing patterns that signify that some form of intelligence was involved in the design/configuration of the phenomena. 2. Human design is posited as the only known example of ID and the effects ID produces, so examples of human ID are hardly "irrelevant" when it comes to potentially identifying the hallmark traits of intelligent activity. I've already explained to you that you have an incorrect understanding of the claims of ID theory; it fully understands that ID could be considered an "explanation for everything" - even that which appears natural, which is why it formally takes a back seat to natural explanations and only advances itself when observed phenomena bear the hallmark qualities of known, human ID which differentiate it in principle from all other known naturally occurring phenomena. 3. Categorically false. ID theory makes no such claim. 4. You'll excuse me if I don't accept you as Dembski's proxy, and if I dismiss your appeal to various authorities as nothing more than a diversionary tactic. Make your own case here as best you can.William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Magna Charta said:
William at 108, I think we are stguing at cross purposes here. I am talking about whether ID as a whole is falsifiable, which it clearly is not, and you are arguing that ID on a structure by structure basis is falsifiable, which it clearly is. I am just saying that ID as a concept is ultimately unfalsifiable.
ID "as a whole" is not falsifiable because we directly know it to be a fact - we, as humans, intelligently design things that otherwise cannot be accounted for by nature. Evolution "as a whole" is not falsifiable because we know for an experiential fact that things change over time and that species pass variances down to their offspring. There is no reason to argue against either concept - they are both trivially true. The only question worth debating is if certain phenomena are best explained as the result of naturalistic evolution or if they require ID as part of the explanation.
For example, if the idea of the soul (mind/conciousness) by ID is falsified, this does not falsify the proposal of the brain by ID. If the brain by ID is falsified, this does not falsify the idea that the neurons are the result of ID. And so on, all the way back to the origin of the universe.
Similarly, if it is shown that ID is required to explain certain biological features, that doesn't mean that natural evolutionary processes cannot fully account for many other features. There have been several genetic variations shown to be entirely within the probabilistic range of naturalistic evolution to acquire. Similarly, some rock formations are well within the range of nature to produce; others, like stonehenge, fall outside of that range and the particular arrangements and structure and placement of the stones points to an intelligent design.
But, to be completely honest, the same applies to natural evolution.
It's good to see that you understand this about your argument.
Even if we can falsify ID involvement in everything from the big bangs to the evolution of the most advanced organism, the cat, we still could not falsify ID as the trigger for it all.
Sure you could, by showing that natural processes are up to the task or that the features do not bear the hallmarks of ID.William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Origenes @116,
Why don’t you join the SETI forum and explain to them that it is “scientifically meaningless” when SETI detects a designed radio signal from outer space?
SETI scientists make abundantly clear that they seek alien life forms - technologically advanced civilisations - and if they ever find a signal, will infer something similar to us. This is why they employ astrobiologists rather than philosophers and theologians - because they are extrapolating from life on earth, and not inventing a category of beings that extend beyond what we know. But SETI is not a scientific discipline, it is a search. So far they have found no signs of alien life forms at all.Artie
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
William at 108, I think we are stguing at cross purposes here. I am talking about whether ID as a whole is falsifiable, which it clearly is not, and you are arguing that ID on a structure by structure basis is falsifiable, which it clearly is. I am just saying that ID as a concept is ultimately unfalsifiable. For example, if the idea of the soul (mind/conciousness) by ID is falsified, this does not falsify the proposal of the brain by ID. If the brain by ID is falsified, this does not falsify the idea that the neurons are the result of ID. And so on, all the way back to the origin of the universe. But, to be completely honest, the same applies to natural evolution. Even if we can falsify ID involvement in everything from the big bangs to the evolution of the most advanced organism, the cat, we still could not falsify ID as the trigger for it all.magna charta
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Artie: But if that is not what is meant, then there is no specified meaning at all, and saying something is “designed” is scientifically meaningless.
Why don't you join the SETI forum and explain to them that it is "scientifically meaningless" when SETI detects a designed radio signal from outer space?Origenes
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
WJM @ 114, Thank you for the replies. 1) Of course I understand that ID never says what it means by "intelligent designer" or "design" - that is why I have been referring to an "unspecified 'intelligence'". Most people mean "a being that is conscious, sentient, has free will, and has a general intellect" (rather than something that merely produces CSI without conscious intent or understanding). If that is what is meant, then ID has no evidence that such a thing exists, which is why Dembski makes it plain that ID can support no such inference. But if that is not what is meant, then there is no specified meaning at all, and saying something is "designed" is scientifically meaningless. 2) The allusion to sciences that infer human activities, such as forensics and archeology, are irrelevant unless ID proposes that a human being somehow created life on Earth. We know that human beings can produce CSI - the question is, what else can? ID makes up the term "intelligent designer" to include human beings (and perhaps other animals), and also and other thing(s), but fails to suggest what that/those other thing(s) are or what characteristics they may share aside from the assumed ability to produce the phenomena in question. Because ID fails to specifically characterize what "intelligence" is and fails to say what is supposed to have been responsible, it cannot be evaluated against evidence - there is no phenomenon that cannot be "explained" by invoking an unspecified intelligence. 3) ID rests on the claim that intelligence is somehow fundamentally outside of the rest of physical processes (that is, that "law+chance" and "intelligence" are mututally exclusive). This is tantamount to a claim of mind/body dualism. So, either ID is claiming to have somehow solved the ancient philosophical mind/body problem (which it hasn't), or ID is based on an unsupported metaphysical assumption. 4) You are apparently unaware that Dembski's position is that ID cannot infer a conscious mind as the cause of living things. He makes this point very clearly in several of his books and papers. Since Dembski is one of the founding and most widely-read authors of the ID movement, I'd think his views would have been known here. In any case, if you are interested in the truth of what can and cannot be validly inferred by ID, it would behoove you to read Dembski. You may also want to read Thomas Nagel, James Shapiro, Stuart Kauffman, and other authors who, like me, think that evolutionary theory is fundamentally incomplete and suggest something else was primarily responsible for the origin of complex biological systems. These authors - including Dembski - take the evidence as far as it goes, which tells us that evolutionary theory fails. But unlike people here, apparently, we take it no farther.Artie
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Artie said:
Not one of the arguments I’ve made here are considered or refuted in the UD FAQ page.
This proves you haven't read it - or at least, have failed to understand any of it.
ID is not supported as “the best explanation” for the origin of life, biological complexity, etc, for two reasons. First, there is no confirming evidence that intelligent life forms (or intelligent non-life forms) existed before life on Earth.
From the FAQ, @22:
22] Who Designed the Designer? Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present.
Had you read the FAQ, you would have understood that ID theory is not about finding or even postulating any particular "designer", nor about showing that any designer was present at the time. ID is only about determining if an object or phenomena itself shows qualitative signs of having been designed.
Second, there is no way to disconfirm any entailment or prediction of ID, because the hypothesis of an unspecified “intelligence” is compatible with any possible observation.
ID theory doesn't have a hypothesis of an unspecified intelligence. An unspecified intelligence would be an implication of a positive finding of "best explanation via ID" wrt some object or phenomena, but it is not (as answered above) an intrinsic part of the theory itself. Archaeologists, forensic investigators and cryptologists use a basic ID filter all the time to determine whether or not something is best explained via natural or happenstance causes, or are best explained via some deliberate, unspecified intelligent agent. After there is a determination of best explanation, then a different sort of investigation goes on from there in order to find the identity of the intelligent agent responsible for the thing in question. ID theory is like the methodology a forensic investigator uses to determine if a fire was deliberately set or if a death was a murder. It is not the forensic investigator that must then find the identity of the arsonist or the murderer; that is a separate investigation conducted by other people using other techniques. I've already outlined how the actual claim that ID is the best explanation for a thing can be disconfirmed; by showing natural processes up to the task even in principle, or by showing how the claim of ID evidence is conceptually mistaken - IOW, showing how the effect is not comparable in principle to the known effects of human ID but is more comparable to naturalistic effects. ID is really a very modest claim and is relatively easily disconfirmed as best explanation. For example, many photographs of the surface of Mars have been claimed to show the effects if ID - like the so-called face or pyramids. Examining the structures from different light angles was really all it took to disconfirm the apparent specificity of the patterns that originally may have indicated ID.
Finally, even William Dembski has repeatedly denied that ID can support the inference to a conscious mind as the designer of life.
Even if true, what difference does it make what William Dembski said?William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
First, there is no confirming evidence that intelligent life forms (or intelligent non-life forms) existed before life on Earth.
So?
Second, there is no way to disconfirm any entailment or prediction of ID, because the hypothesis of an unspecified “intelligence” is compatible with any possible observation.
So?Mung
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
Not one of the arguments I've made here are considered or refuted in the UD FAQ page. Here is what I've said: ID is not supported as "the best explanation" for the origin of life, biological complexity, etc, for two reasons. First, there is no confirming evidence that intelligent life forms (or intelligent non-life forms) existed before life on Earth. Second, there is no way to disconfirm any entailment or prediction of ID, because the hypothesis of an unspecified "intelligence" is compatible with any possible observation. Finally, even William Dembski has repeatedly denied that ID can support the inference to a conscious mind as the designer of life. What are your responses, WJM?Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
For onlookers: Artie is simply regurgitating anti-ID tropes, misinformation and mischaracterizations long since addressed in depth for the record in the UD faq page here. Before making arguments concerning ID, one might first acquaint themselves with what ID theory actually asserts and what it does not, and with already addressed common - if erroneous - arguments against ID.William J Murray
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Origines @ 105,
Artie: You cannot say one theory is falsifiable but not false, simply by saying one could prove some other false theory true. Ori: Where does Bornagain claim that?
BA says that ID can be falsified by showing some non-intelligent process can produce complex form and function. That is not a falsification, as I've explained repeatedly. If that was considered a falsification, we could support multiverse theory by saying it is falsifiable but has never been falsified. How can multiverse theory be falsified? By demonstrating how how life arose in a single universe! This is perfectly analogous to what BA proposes to show ID is falsifiable - it's nonsense.
In short: if we can explain by means of a regularity or chance, then design is automatically precluded.
This assumes that intelligence - including human intelligence - does not proceed according to regularity and chance, which is a philosophical rather than a scientific position. As far as empirical science goes, "design" (conscious thought) vs. "regularity/chance" is a false dichotomy.
Your response to Bornagain doesn’t make any sense. There is no “disproving one theory” which “somehow proves another”. That’s not what the design inference is about.
I was using shorthand here; you are correct that these theories are not "proven" but only supported (or not) by empirical evidence. The point here is that the idea that ID is falsifiable because one could show some other theory to be better is not what "falsifiable" refers to at all. What is required is some entailment or prediction that can be compared to the world. For evolution, if we put a population of dogs in an environment where food was only available 5' off the ground, and immediately successive generations of this population were born with long necks, that would be a falsification of evolutionary theory. It would be consistent with ID, however. If new species arose in a single generation it would falsify evolutionary theory, but not ID. If new species arose over millions of years it would be consistent with evolution - and it would still be consistent with ID. Nothing can, in principle, be inconsistent with ID, because ID says nothing whatsoever about what this unspecified designer cannot do. That is why ID is not scientific.Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
WJM @104,
You cannot “falsify” ID
Ah, we agree on something! Excellent. [Repeat this kind of trolling commentary and I'll remove your comments from this thread. - WJM.]
...because we know ID exists in the universe at least in human beings, and we know ID can produce things that nature without ID cannot with any reasonable probability.
Here you make the mistake of reifying "ID". As far as empirical science goes, "intelligence" is not a thing per se. Rather, it is invariably a property of living things. You may speculate that other, non-living things (gods, ghosts, etc) exist that also exhibit this property of intelligence, but these things are not presently accessible to empirical inquiry. So it is confused to say "ID" does this or that. "ID" doesn't produce things, human beings (and other animals) do.
The question is only if ID is the best explanation for some particular phenomena...
Abduction is not, as you seem to think, simply a contest among unsupported hypotheses to see which is the least unsupported. In science, there must actually be confirming evidence. There is no confirming evidence of intelligent life forms (much less intelligent non-life forms!) existing anywhere else but on Earth, and so there is no confirming evidence for ID.
Artie, keep your commentary respectful and in the interests of civil discussion.
I'd be most happy to, but ... [You participate in my threads at my pleasure, Artie. Conduct yourself accordingly. Life isn't fair. Try and keep that in mind.- WJM]Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Magna Charta asks:
Can you think of anything that could falsify ID other that a step-by-step explanation, with physical evidence, of every change made in every lineage, regardless of how small, including the formation of the universe we live in, with an explanation with evidence of every atomic reaction?
You have an erroneous conception about what ID claims, as I have pointed out. All that is required for ID to be falsified as the best explanation for a phenomena under question is to show natural processes up to the task in principle and within the bounds of scientific probability. For example, one doesn't need to prove natural processes capable of generating every snowflake or every crystal formation. biologists have shown that many evolutionary traits are indeed well within the probability bounds of known natural processes to generate, mostly by breaking or disabling currently functional genes. Sure, an intelligence might have been involved, but that is not the best explanation (as per ID theory and it's falsifiability) considering such hereditary mutations are well within the probabilistic bounds of known, natural evolutionary processes. Please try to understand this; ID falsifiability and justification is already used, when scientists examine things to see if nature or ID is the best explanation for some object/artifact, such as in archaeology. There are aspects of biology which ID theorists challenge. They argue that ID is the better explanation - not merely because nature has not been shown sufficient, but because such features show positive signs of intelligent design, such as features arranged in a specified, pattern not determined by the physical nature of that medium that transmits specified information towards an exterior function or apparent purpose. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "omnipotent god" theological argument Artie is substituting for what ID theory actually claims.William J Murray
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Artie:
Origenes: .... ID has committed itself to the design inference and therefor can be falsified.
No it can’t. Name one thing that an unspecified “intelligence” is incapable of doing. (you can’t)
Non responsive. To answer your question: no I cannot. What you fail to appreciate is that, by committing itself to the design inference, ID has made itself falsifiable as best explanation. It modestly takes the third seat as a mode of explanation, granting regularity [natural law] and chance, first and second seat, respectively.Origenes
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Artie, keep your commentary respectful and in the interests of civil discussion.William J Murray
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Artie: You cannot say one theory is falsifiable but not false, simply by saying one could prove some other false theory true.
Where does Bornagain claim that? Certainly not here:
Artie:
Bornagain: Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period.
I anticipated your response, and tried to explain to you that disproving one theory does not somehow prove another.
Bornagain is talking about the design inference, to which ID has committed itself — see #100. In short: if we can explain by means of a regularity or chance, then design is automatically precluded. Your response to Bornagain doesn't make any sense. There is no "disproving one theory" which "somehow proves another". That's not what the design inference is about.Origenes
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Magna Charta @93:
This may be true, but it still would not falsify ID. for example, if it were shown that the flagellum arose by all natural processes, this would only falsify ID as its direct cause. But it would still be on the table for all other complex biological structures. And even if it were falsified as the cause of all complex biological structures, it would still be on the table for the cause of the conditions that allowed for biological evolution.
You cannot "falsify" ID because we know ID exists in the universe at least in human beings, and we know ID can produce things that nature without ID cannot with any reasonable probability. The question is only if ID is the best explanation for some particular phenomena, such as various biological features. No, we cannot disprove that ID had anything whatsoever to do with the origination of the feature, but that is not what ID theory claims nor how it is stated. ID theory claims it is the best explanation for certain features, and offers falsification for that claim (that it is the best explanation for a feature or phenomena) if any natural cause can be shown sufficient as cause within reasonable parameters of probability. ID theory holds natural causes to be the default best explanation if natural processes are shown sufficient. For example, it may indeed be a bare possibility that descent with random mutation & natural selection could have generated complex, functional, novel genes, but a bare possibility may not enough to make RM+NS the best explanation.William J Murray
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply