Richard Dawkins Makes a Fool of Himself

_{Barry Arrington

February 14, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Neil at 76
Way back, the daily appearance of the sun seemed like magic. Hence all those sun gods. Magic no longer needed.
Neil, there is no need to appeal to a visualization of olden people’s misconceptions. Biological ID is not based upon what we do not know; it’s based upon what we’ve found out over the past century or so, particularly what has been discovered in the past 50-75 years.
Snowflakes and sand dunes provide examples of apparently unguided novelty and complexity. (This is not a “proof” of anything, but it fairly informs my outlook.)
As you already well recognize, neither of these are examples of anything substantive in the debate. One is based upon order, and the other randomness. What each lacks (which would be germane to some of the issues at hand) is specificity.
Now, there are savants who can multiply 6 digit numbers in the blink of an eye. Seems like magic. I have “faith” that at some point neuroscientists are going to get a handle on it.
I agree with you that neuroscientist will likely tell us much more tomorrow than they can tell us today, and certainly there are many extremely interesting and difficult issues surrounding human cognition, but I can assure you, no one here sees “magic” in these examples you've offered.
If UB’s argument is the slam-dunk argument y’all are suggesting, it will surely in due time takes its high place alongside the laws of thermodynamics and the work of Shannon.
I have not characterized it in those terms. The semiotic argument is an evidence-based piece of a puzzle. Its strength is tied to the fact that it’s entirely coherent with what is demonstrated and observed. If it can be characterized in such terms, then that characterization is only validated by the reaction it has evoked in others. Otherwise, those terms are likely useless.
But I only see it being hauled out to try to bludgeon opponent-visitors as was done with Larry Moran.
I am not entirely sure it is possible to bludgeon Dr Moran with anything, least of which is material evidence from an IDiot. If you are speaking here of me putting Dr Moran on display (as a scientist) repeatedly placing his personal ideology above the material evidence, then I agree with you. I intended to do just exactly that, and did so.
And like LM, I have some idea when I don’t have the background to fairly assess a technical argument that relies on specialized language and concepts.
Being natural born symbol-makers, as human beings are, the semiotic argument is hardly difficult to understand. The only difficulty, it seems, is getting some of the critics to remove themselves from the observations when they attempt to attack it.
There are info-theory and microbio guys and gals out there who are deeply immersed in their subjects, and I’m happy to let them battle things out.
You are probably selling yourself short here, even if reasonably so, but in any case there are also experts who will tell you that there is design evident is the artifacts of nature’s workings. One can simply believe Paul Meyers and Richard Dawkins, or they can believe Michael Denton and Michael Polanyi, or they can do the work to try and inform themselves as best they can. You have chosen for yourself whom to believe, but that choice does not need to include the institutional demonization and misrepresentation of those who have valid material evidence to the contrary. That is a purely political response, not a scientific one. After all, those who deny design cannot support that denial through empirical science (otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this conversation).
In the meantime, I don’t see much discussion of “entailed objects” and “representational arrangements” and “semiotic systems” and “physical protocols” over at the Disco Inst, nor even much substantial discussion right here.
The semiotic argument does not emanate from the Discovery Institute, so perhaps that explains it. As for seeing it here, it has been put in front of a range of qualified scientists who (ostensibly) would like to challenge its validity. None have been successful to date, so additional challenges are what is called for.
And I have noticed that the internet is a place that grows a lot of wannabe philosophers.
If I have stepped outside my ability to articulate a coherent argument, then that will be evident in the argument itself. If the data presented is incorrect, then someone should be able to point it out. So far, having been specifically presented to several specialists, with hundreds or perhaps thousands of others looking over their shoulders, that has not happened.
And I believe the tactics of deception and obfuscation by your team are ubiquitous.
I know you are directing that comment to Scott, but I can assure you, there is nothing deceptive in what was presented - and I willing to bet that you know it.Upright BiPed_{February 17, 2012
February
02
Feb
17
17
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Neil,
Way back, the daily appearance of the sun seemed like magic. Hence all those sun gods. Magic no longer needed.
??? !!! ???
If UB’s argument is the slam-dunk argument y’all are suggesting, it will surely in due time takes its high place alongside the laws of thermodynamics and the work of Shannon.
That's a whole lot of post for not addressing any of the arguments.
And like LM, I have some idea when I don’t have the background to fairly assess a technical argument that relies on specialized language and concepts.
He illustrated using a music box and the word "apple." The wording is necessarily precise, but the the concepts are not all that technical.ScottAndrews2_{February 17, 2012
February
02
Feb
17
17
2012
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Scott, Way back, the daily appearance of the sun seemed like magic. Hence all those sun gods. Magic no longer needed. Snowflakes and sand dunes provide examples of apparently unguided novelty and complexity. (This is not a "proof" of anything, but it fairly informs my outlook.) Now, there are savants who can multiply 6 digit numbers in the blink of an eye. Seems like magic. I have "faith" that at some point neuroscientists are going to get a handle on it. If UB's argument is the slam-dunk argument y'all are suggesting, it will surely in due time takes its high place alongside the laws of thermodynamics and the work of Shannon. But I only see it being hauled out to try to bludgeon opponent-visitors as was done with Larry Moran. And like LM, I have some idea when I don't have the background to fairly assess a technical argument that relies on specialized language and concepts. There are info-theory and microbio guys and gals out there who are deeply immersed in their subjects, and I'm happy to let them battle things out. In the meantime, I don't see much discussion of "entailed objects" and "representational arrangements" and "semiotic systems" and "physical protocols" over at the Disco Inst, nor even much substantial discussion right here. And I have noticed that the internet is a place that grows a lot of wannabe philosophers. And I believe the tactics of deception and obfuscation by your team are ubiquitous.Neil Schipper_{February 17, 2012
February
02
Feb
17
17
2012
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Neil,
I have now read it. Sloppy meandering, loosely defined terms. Waste of my time. Word salad. It’s written not to illuminate, but to obscure and confound. Complexity as a weapon. A work of deception. Work of the devil, for which hell waits.
It was nothing of the sort. The post included several understandable examples of information and its transfer, and highlighted four material observations that apply in each case. After explaining all four observations and succinctly summarizing them in a single paragraph, it then points out that information transfer in the genome requires those same four characteristics, following the same pattern as the previous examples. Read the comments. No one seemed to have a hard time following it. I would also like to see it addressed head-on, not sidestepped and then buried. Or if that's too much, then to call attention to the evasion, as UB already has. I would like to see even the vaguest hypothetical idea of how any chemical processes possessing no forethought or intent can, in any order or employing any intermediate steps, can arrange molecules in sequences which are processed by an intermediate protocol which produces even a simple functional output, which in turn bears no resemblance to the arrangement used to produce them. To avoid moving the goalposts on "simple functional output," let's say that the only required functions are that the resulting construct is able to reproduce by replicating the original arrangement and withstand the disruptive effects of even the most hospitable environment. (UB, hopefully I'm not misrepresenting any of this. I don't want to butcher it, just to re-request as response to it.) It would seem that for this to exist and self-perpetuate, multiple elements must co-exist simultaneously - the arrangement of matter as representation and the protocol. And that arrangement must be so specific as to have as its end result the replication of itself and protection for that process. Am I wrong to think that, missing any of one of these elements, no replication would ever occur? (One could substitute a perfectly hospitable, non-interfering environment for protection, if any such environment would permit the presence and interactions of necessary elements.) I said "co-exist," referring to the present nature of life. Your argument (to help you out) must be that if all did not appear simultaneously, then there must be one or more intermediate steps, each able to exist and somehow be modified, without reproduction or intent, that somehow led to the current state. Once you have that, you can wave the magic wand of variation and selection. But what first magic wand do you wave to obtain the second?ScottAndrews2_{February 17, 2012
February
02
Feb
17
17
2012
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

"What does “Darwinism” mean in this context? I am interpreting it as the hypothesis that individual variations lead to differential breeding success, causing favorable variations to be more common in subsequent generations. Is this your understanding of “Darwinism”?" Yes, partly, but more like (or in addition) that undirected natural selection acting on random mutation (variation) is the process by which organisms evolve. I think you will find that while many of those who accept and/or posit Darwinian explanations will leave out the "undirected" part of the equation, "undirected" is implied. It is the "undirected" part that most ID theorists reject. There is no evidence that it is undirected, and in fact, the evidence is lacking in demonstrating any real example of that specific Darwinian process beyond the very limited and unremarkable examples of micro-evolution. "I don’t see why. I agree that if there is no god or gods, clearly the universe is doing fine without them. But your atheistic materialist then simply drops the issue as irrelevant, and goes about examining the universe to see how it works. And I would argue that if this materialist in his investigations encountered any god or gods, and was able to determine that (and how) they affect the universe in important ways, he’d be a fool not to include them in his explanation of how things work." But the atheistic materialist is in effect moving the goalposts such that if there is a god or gods, his/their existence is entirely outside scientific enquiry. While I believe that the existence of a god or gods would be above scientific knowledge, if such a god or gods exist(s), he or they would touch on scientific evidence. Materialists believe that the scientific method excludes what they call "supernaturalism," again, without defining what they mean by it other than labeling it as "magic." Not only is that a category error, it's telling of their a priori metaphysical commitments and not of their commitment to the scientific method. As such, they aren't looking, and have not allowed themselves to look. "Granted, Darwin (and all other scientists) examine the data to extract conclusions from observation. They don’t deal with metaphysical assumptions, because within the scope of their research there is no real need to do so." I absolutely disagree with this. First of all, they are not "extracting conclusions from observation" alone. If their metaphysical assumptions are driving their interpretation or research (which is quite legitimate in itself), then there is definitely a need to examine their metaphysical assumptions. "So I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Science makes the metaphysical assumptions that the universe is knowable, that it is consistent, that every aspect of it is ultimately understandable, and that it contains nothing “unnatural”, and thus lying beyond investigation." David, science makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysical assumptions (and even if it did, you would seem to have made a contradiction in your claim that metaphysical assumptions don't need to be examined in science); but they come from someplace else beyond the science. It's those metaphysical assumptions that allow us to do science in the first place. As such, they could not derive through science alone. We don't get that the universe is knowable, consistent, understandable, etc... through science. These are all concepts that developed long before science developed to it's current state. They stem from philosophy. Science may contribute to them and help them to evolve or to be substantiated, but science is not their generator. Me: "So I would argue that it most definitely makes a difference to the science if the conclusions of the scientist are based on his/her a priori metaphysical assumption and not on the raw data itself coupled with reasonable scientific methodology." David: "By the very concept of science, this is backwards. You do not START by assuming your conclusions and then seek whatever supports them. You START with the raw data, from which you form testable hypotheses." I don't see how you derived that I said you start by assuming your conclusions. My very argument is that quite often materialists start with their conclusions; their a priori commitment to materialism, and then work backwards. "Science holds that while the universe can be endlessly subtle and devious, it is NEVER mendacious. Science works by observing SOME of what happens (half-truths), and trying to figure out what it means and where to look next. But the universe does not present falsehoods, only half-truths from our perspective, and whole truths as our perspective broadens. In this formulation, a god or gods would be regarded as whimsically introducing falsehoods, violations of the basic rules. If this DOES happen, science would have been fatally crippled from the start." Science does not hold anything of the sort, David. Science is simply modeling, observation, testing and either confirming or revising the model in order to get a more refined idea of how things work. It does not tell us how the universe is supposed to behave. We interject our own preferred ways of looking at the universe to determine how it is supposed to behave. That is called metaphysics. While some metaphysical ideas are definitely informed by science and they may or may not be helpful for how we do science, but it isn't the science itself that tells us. A great many theists would argue that the universe is knowable, consistent and understandable precisely because above and behind it all there is a reasonable creator. It is this belief - and it can be well argued and confirmed - that led to scientific methodology in the Western world in the first place. The reason such a creator would be beyond our finding out merely by science alone is not because he intentionally deviates from our finding out, but because we are limited by our finite abilities to find out. But I see that we're getting quite beyond where we began. I would emphasize that you take Kuartus' advice at 65 and read up on the Kalam. The kalam pretty much clarifies a lot of these issues; while I anticipate that there will still remain some disagreement, as well as some issues that are still not yet clarified.CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

But there’s a lot that many materialists claim to know that they don’t really know by the science, yet quite often they will insist that they do know by science. I would say the same about some theists as well.
Since I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here, I must speculate. And my speculation is that this area can get tricky, because at the margin we encounter the problem of knowledge - how do we know that we know what we know, and such. Science never claims to offer proof of anything, only some level of support for a proposed explanation. Now, the level of support offered may be sufficient for one person to call it scientific knowledge and for another to disagree. Even discounting theistic interpretations (which strike me as infinitely malleable), raw data commonly support (or aren't inconsistent with) different interpretations. And science really is in the business of interpreting raw data. "Scientific knowledge" IS a body of interpretations.
So to say that since science can’t tell me, it must remain an unknown strikes me as false. If it’s strictly a scientific question, then I would agree, but the existence of a deity, while it might touch on science, goes far beyond science in my view, and I believe that such a deity’s existence can be known.
This is somewhat convoluted. If we are dealing strictly with science, then if science doesn't know, it's unknown. And certainly materialists would argue that deities are invisible to science, except insofar as scientific explanations of phenomena are testable and theistic explanations generally are not. I'd argue that the existence of anything "outside nature" (whatever that means) is not knowable via the scientific method.
Science can lend itself to theistic implications, but does not give us all of the knowledge we need to have to be able to say and know “there is a God.”
I disagree. These are ships in the night. A theist sees theistic implications in everything, and there is in principle no scientific way to demonstrate otherwise. The statement "there is a god" cannot in principle rest on scientific knowledge.
What I happen to believe is that the universe is natural, not supernatural. Therefore, everything that operates within the universe does so within the confines of nature’s laws; with very limited exceptions (those being when the deity acts above or before nature as in miracles and the universe’s genesis event).
This strikes me as an inconsistent belief, kind of like saying "I believe gravity always operates, except when it doesn't." But current understandings, based on really countless experiments, is that gravity is not whimsical - it ALWAYS operates. "Miracles" are what I meant by a "dishonest universe" - a universe that is occasionally inconsistent, paradoxical, breaks its own laws. Science in such a world would not be possible. No exceptions can be permitted. So if you accept a natural universe, you must reinterpret apparent exceptions accordingly. Perhaps we're dealing with figures of speech or some such.
I’m quite open to the idea that what ID theorists call design was “front-loaded” first as a thought or plan and then into the very fabric of nature; such that we could have a very reasonable natural explanation for how complex biological systems arose; while still not limited to materialistic Darwinian explanations.
Um, well, I would have no problem with the notion that the universe's contents, forces, principles, etc. PERMIT the advent of life. Clearly this is the case. And given this, evolution as understood by biologists is a permissible and indeed observable ramification of these initial conditions. So from a scientific perspective, nothing non-material is required, nor observable in scientific terms. To the materialist, the need to superimpose an unnecessary theistic component onto a fully self-sufficient understanding is an aspect of psychology, not an aspect of the operation of the universe.
But the other exception is when the deity acts above nature as in a miracle of history or in the here and now. Again, these would be very rare exceptions. I don’t believe I’ve ever witnessed anything that could be called a true miracle that did not at the same time have a natural explanation, but I don’t rule them out.
I think we can take it as a tenet of the "faith of science" that such exceptions do not happen, because this would violate the presumption of the internal consistency of the universe. We're back to saying "gravity fully explains the falling brick, but we can't rule out intelligent pushing". Good discussion, by the way. Thank you.David W. Gibson_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

David, "But unknown does NOT mean supernatural. You’re right that the evidence we have suggests that our universe had a start. I’ve seen at least a dozen models of such a start, all of them consistent with the evidence we have. None of them involve anything theistic at all. And certainly there are also theistic models, but these are proposed by theists." I think most of the theists I know of who deal with cosmology rely on the current "non-theistic" models. Those models do lend themselves to theistic interpretations, though. As far as the unknown; yes I think that is the best position when one simply does not know. It's being honest. But there's a lot that many materialists claim to know that they don't really know by the science, yet quite often they will insist that they do know by science. I would say the same about some theists as well. So to say that since science can't tell me, it must remain an unknown strikes me as false. If it's strictly a scientific question, then I would agree, but the existence of a deity, while it might touch on science, goes far beyond science in my view, and I believe that such a deity's existence can be known. Science can lend itself to theistic implications, but does not give us all of the knowledge we need to have to be able to say and know "there is a God." Now to deal with the supernatural: David: "But unknown does NOT mean supernatural." I don't believe I've ever made the claim that what is unknown by science is necessarily supernatural. But neither would I rule it out - that it could be. What I happen to believe is that the universe is natural, not supernatural. Therefore, everything that operates within the universe does so within the confines of nature's laws; with very limited exceptions (those being when the deity acts above or before nature as in miracles and the universe's genesis event). I'm quite open to the idea that what ID theorists call design was "front-loaded" first as a thought or plan and then into the very fabric of nature; such that we could have a very reasonable natural explanation for how complex biological systems arose; while still not limited to materialistic Darwinian explanations. We aren't currently required by any of the evidence to believe that, but it's perfectly reasonable to accept it as possibly true even if the evidence shows that there's intricate design. But the other exception is when the deity acts above nature as in a miracle of history or in the here and now. Again, these would be very rare exceptions. I don't believe I've ever witnessed anything that could be called a true miracle that did not at the same time have a natural explanation, but I don't rule them out. I do have a natural and reasonable skepticism of many claims of miracles, because I just don't believe they are as normative as many theists believe they are - I'm talking broken limbs being instantly repaired, etc.CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

While I agree that it shouldn’t matter, the thing you should really ask yourself is why it should matter that we try to find a formula that leads us in a direction away from theistic implications.
But of course. And the answer is, such formulas allow for empirical testing, for falsification, for making predictions which can be tested.
If there is no god or gods, then such a formula would be essentially meaningless anyway. It would be sort of like saying, “while we believe bicycles don’t require a car transmission, we’ve finally invented a formula whereby we can prove that bicycles don’t require a car transmission.” If they didn’t require it in the first place the determining that they don’t is meaningless.
I'm not sure I understand this. This isn't a statement of belief, it's a statement about bicycles. DO bicycles need transmissions? By trial and error, we find that they do not. CAN bicycles have transmissions? Indeed they do (not car transmissions, but transmissions suitable for bicycles). And the question of a transmission for a bicycle is a very good one, because it leads to the invention of various approaches to bicycle transmissions. But the utility of such devices seems unrelated to the existence of god or gods.
It seems to be the same with Darwinism.
What does "Darwinism" mean in this context? I am interpreting it as the hypothesis that individual variations lead to differential breeding success, causing favorable variations to be more common in subsequent generations. Is this your understanding of "Darwinism"?
If there is no god or gods, then the universe does not require one. The real issue then is obviously that the atheistic materialist who raises the issue of there not needing to be a god or gods, would like there to be such a formula (again, beginning with the metaphysical commitment)
I don't see why. I agree that if there is no god or gods, clearly the universe is doing fine without them. But your atheistic materialist then simply drops the issue as irrelevant, and goes about examining the universe to see how it works. And I would argue that if this materialist in his investigations encountered any god or gods, and was able to determine that (and how) they affect the universe in important ways, he'd be a fool not to include them in his explanation of how things work.
while Darwin believed that formula could be found in the natural sciences, he forgot all about metaphysical assumptions; which is why Kuartus’ suggestion is important. Deal with the metaphysical assumptions first, and then we can begin to discuss what the scientific evidence says or does not say.
Granted, Darwin (and all other scientists) examine the data to extract conclusions from observation. They don't deal with metaphysical assumptions, because within the scope of their research there is no real need to do so. Gould relates a story wherein Darwin attended a meeting of the London Geological Society. This organization, like any scientific organization, suffered from often violent disagreements as to the interpretation of the evidence. So they resolved not to theorize until they had enough data! Darwin scoffed that they might as well go down to the nearest quarry and describe every pebble. Darwin argued that no evidence is meaningful outside the context of some hypothesis, theory, or model. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Science makes the metaphysical assumptions that the universe is knowable, that it is consistent, that every aspect of it is ultimately understandable, and that it contains nothing "unnatural", and thus lying beyond investigation.
So I would argue that it most definitely makes a difference to the science if the conclusions of the scientist are based on his/her a priori metaphysical assumption and not on the raw data itself coupled with reasonable scientific methodology.
By the very concept of science, this is backwards. You do not START by assuming your conclusions and then seek whatever supports them. You START with the raw data, from which you form testable hypotheses. Test them, reject the failures, refine the hypotheses, test again. Each test generates more data, helping to refine the hypotheses. The result is an explanation of how things work. Science can never address WHY things work, because within the scientific method such questions have no referent - they don't make sense.
But how do they get “magical” from “supernatural?” Would they necessarily be the same thing? Magic seems to be a defying of the laws of nature by an entity who is him/herself confined to the laws of nature, while if we limit “supernatural” to a deity who created everything, and exists before anything else that exists, then that deity would therefore be the author of those laws. It would then make no sense that such a deity could not defy those laws, or in effect act above those laws. So in that sense, “supernatural” is not the same as “magic,” and the materialists are wrong from the very start.
This I understand. What you would SEEM to be saying, in the ears of the materialist, is that if we have a magical entity, then we can permit this entity to perform magic. But this just adds another layer of turtles. Once again, one of the tenets of science is that the rules of the universe are consistent. And therefore all entities capable of influencing the universe, are themselves bound by the laws of that universe. It's considered "no fair" for some entity to reach in from "outside" (a non-operationalized concept), diddle with reality as we know it, and then slip back and hide where we are in principle forbidden from looking. Science holds that while the universe can be endlessly subtle and devious, it is NEVER mendacious. Science works by observing SOME of what happens (half-truths), and trying to figure out what it means and where to look next. But the universe does not present falsehoods, only half-truths from our perspective, and whole truths as our perspective broadens. In this formulation, a god or gods would be regarded as whimsically introducing falsehoods, violations of the basic rules. If this DOES happen, science would have been fatally crippled from the start.David W. Gibson_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

me: "Don’t forget also that Darwin did not start with bare reason, but intended to find a formula that required no “supernatural.” I believe he failed, and his initial inquiry was a religious commitment to materialism. That’s a world-view commitment and not a scientific one." David: "Why does this matter? Darwin’s biography might be interesting, but his science must withstand rigorous testing by biologists, not biographers. And perhaps, if we could go back and time and read Darwin’s mind, we might discover he was really convinced it was Martians or Leprechauns. And it STILL wouldn’t make any difference to the science." While I agree that it shouldn't matter, the thing you should really ask yourself is why it should matter that we try to find a formula that leads us in a direction away from theistic implications. If there is no god or gods, then such a formula would be essentially meaningless anyway. It would be sort of like saying, "while we believe bicycles don't require a car transmission, we've finally invented a formula whereby we can prove that bicycles don't require a car transmission." If they didn't require it in the first place the determining that they don't is meaningless. It seems to be the same with Darwinism. If there is no god or gods, then the universe does not require one. The real issue then is obviously that the atheistic materialist who raises the issue of there not needing to be a god or gods, would like there to be such a formula (again, beginning with the metaphysical commitment); and while Darwin believed that formula could be found in the natural sciences, he forgot all about metaphysical assumptions; which is why Kuartus' suggestion is important. Deal with the metaphysical assumptions first, and then we can begin to discuss what the scientific evidence says or does not say. So I would argue that it most definitely makes a difference to the science if the conclusions of the scientist are based on his/her a priori metaphysical assumption and not on the raw data itself coupled with reasonable scientific methodology. "To the materialist, “supernatural” means “magical”, and materialists reject magic." Yes, I agree. That's the reason why they reject it. But I would argue that materialists have very good reasons for rejecting magic. I actually like "The Amazing Randi's" exposing of magic frauds, for example. But how do they get "magical" from "supernatural?" Would they necessarily be the same thing? Magic seems to be a defying of the laws of nature by an entity who is him/herself confined to the laws of nature, while if we limit "supernatural" to a deity who created everything, and exists before anything else that exists, then that deity would therefore be the author of those laws. It would then make no sense that such a deity could not defy those laws, or in effect act above those laws. So in that sense, "supernatural" is not the same as "magic," and the materialists are wrong from the very start. Again, it's to the metaphysics we must go. And the metaphysics require certain basic self evident assumptions like the LNC, or we won't get anywhere.CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Heya CY, #63
He’ll probably be done with you shortly. :)
On the contrary, I think he was 'done with me' from the very moment I presented a material argument that didn't match up with any of the readily available talking points he had memorized. As very clearly demonstrated, neither he nor David Gibson want to engage actual evidence. It serves neither of their purpose. Consequently, both played their own individual cards. Neil's was to wear condescension as a shield against a superior position, and David's was to pretend not to know what the hell I could possibly be talking about. From a strategic perspective, both are easily identifiable as flanking maneuvers. A flank is a action to take when one cannot mount a frontal assault on a position; it's a calculated move into uncontested territory, one small enough to defend. In both of their cases it was entirely reactionary, but certainly served their purposes until they could gain the one thing they both needed most - disengagement. What is interesting is to recall the strategic principles which go along with their choice of maneuver. There are actually three which have been well-established in writing for well over a thousand years. The first is to the most obvious; to force an immediate change in the engagement (away from the strength of the defended position). You'll notice that neither came even close to touching on the argument I presented (again, it doesn't serve their purpose). The second and third principles are based more on a sober recognition of the situation, a sort of introspection; a realistic view of one's strength against the defended position. Both of them fail here miserably, not necessarily because they are terrible actors, but merely because their positions suck so bad in the face of the argument against them. (However, in the end it doesn't really matter because neither of them had anything to lose – having wagered nothing, certainly not their pursuit of truth, empirical or otherwise). The first of these two principles talks about immediacy, or as it is typically understood, the need for an element of surprise. And the second talks about pursuit (ie: flanking maneuvers only open a window for a moment at best against a superior position, better to rush in quickly with whatever strength you have to offer). These two principles themselves are truly about creating a successful and authentic flank, but it is important in this instance to know what “success” actually was. It certainly wasn't defeating my argument. That would be way too ambitious given the rather monumental differences in the strengths of our three positions, so “success” for both of them was no more glamorous than just simply getting the hell away from the argument being presented. In that regard, they both accomplished their goal. On the other hand, I have like many others here, have literally gasped at the astonishing way some people will gladly prostrate themselves in defense of their empirically failed ideology, against all evidence to the contrary. In this instance I would have been debating one actor who was ready to vent his spleen over the evils of religion, and another staring at his shoes pretending not to understand the language. Not today. :|Upright BiPed_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Don’t forget also that Darwin did not start with bare reason, but intended to find a formula that required no “supernatural.” I believe he failed, and his initial inquiry was a religious commitment to materialism. That’s a world-view commitment and not a scientific one.
Why does this matter? Darwin's biography might be interesting, but his science must withstand rigorous testing by biologists, not biographers. And perhaps, if we could go back and time and read Darwin's mind, we might discover he was really convinced it was Martians or Leprechauns. And it STILL wouldn't make any difference to the science.
I don’t know how much more clear it could be that when we have evidence (not limited to Big Bang cosmology) that the universe (space and time) began, it allows for a theistic inference.
Yes, this is very clear. Indeed, a theistic inference can be drawn from everything conceivable, and some theists believe that their personal God is driving the actions of every subatomic particle and everything else known and unknown in the universe, and enforcing all the laws of reality everywhere in realtime. Who knows, maybe they're right. Nonetheless, cosmological models have no supernatural components.
While a theistic inference is not immediately demanded and one could (though I believe not rationally) look for an explanation elsewhere; a theistic inference becomes even more reasonable than had we come up with evidence for an eternal universe. We have no evidence for an eternal universe and the very notion defies logic. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to infer theism without necessarily going any further and insisting on it.
I respectfully suggest that you are assuming your conclusions as your arguments. Certainly the materialists I know find no reason for anything supernatural in any of this. They concede that a great deal about the universe, including its origin, are essentially unknown. But unknown does NOT mean supernatural. You're right that the evidence we have suggests that our universe had a start. I've seen at least a dozen models of such a start, all of them consistent with the evidence we have. None of them involve anything theistic at all. And certainly there are also theistic models, but these are proposed by theists.
I don’t read it as subtle at all. It’s an in-your-face statement that there can be no god or gods. It is an apology for atheism.
Then I guess I didn't explain very well. To the materialist, "supernatural" means "magical", and materialists reject magic.
It’s a religious statement more than it is scientific. I think you’ve illustrated the point quite well. There is absolutely nothing in scientific evidence, which demands that kind of commitment.
Again this strikes me as a bit subtle. Certainly there is nothing in the scientific evidence that precludes the supernatural. As one wag put it, if you hold up a brick and drop it, you can't rule out "intelligent pushing", but gravity is more testable. So I agree with you here. There is a philosophy of science which is taken on faith. Among other things, this philosophy holds that if it can't be tested, it can't be science. It also holds that the universe is internally consistent, and inherently knowable. No way to prove any of this.
Quite the contrary. What I’m saying is that there’s nothing in science that would cause me to reject any theistic inference from material evidence. I don’t believe I’m alone in that. The supernatural hangup of materialists stems from their a priori commitment to materialism, and not from the science alone.
Ah, now I understand, and I agree with you again. The scientific method is not competent to rule out the supernatural. As I said earlier, God may be deliberately managing every particle and force in the universe, and there would be no way to know. What the materialist might argue here is, so far no theistic or supernatural component has been required to explain anything so far explained. Layering on a superfluous supernatural offends Occam's Razor. It adds no explanatory power to anything. But it might be true, and there's no way to show it's not. I agree that it’s an empty label. And as such, anti-supernaturalism is also empty. It attempts to assert materialism as the default position of science when it is not.Oh no! Science ASSUMES, as an inherent part of the scientific method, that all things in the universe are natural, that they all arise from natural causes, and that they can all be explained in natural terms. In fact, this set of presumptions DEFINES the boundaries of science as we know it.
Bottom line for science should be: there could be a God, or there could not. We currently do not know by science that there is or is not. If there is a God, it is reasonable to accept that there could be some evidence for his existence. If there is no God, there would be none. The materialists seem to be afraid of finding such evidence, and as such, they either have ruled out anything that allows a theistic inference (as in ID), or they find a quick fix to theistic inferences by suggesting such things as multiverses (as in cosmology).
Yes and no. Mostly no, I would guess (but I don't know). Yes, there could be a god. But my best understanding of any gods are, they are by definition not testable by the scientific method. If they were, they could not be gods! Now, the theistic evolutionist regards reality as we know it as God's Works, and the process of evolution as scientifically understood as God's chosen method of making His will happen. But materialists (and science generally) rules out a theistic inference simply because it is inherently NOT testable, and thus falls outside the competence of science to investigate. (And I've read about multiverses, but I have yet to see anyone NOT a religious apologist claim that they are proposed to address anything theistic in any way. They simply arise as implications of some cosmological models. But once again, I agree that a theological interpretation can be applied to anything conceivable.)David W. Gibson_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

David, I concur with Kuartus that you look into the Kalam Cosmological argument; since, as I pointed out, we all have metaphysical world-view commitments, and materialists are not immune.CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

David, "But if we regard evolution as being designed by the feedback constraints of mutation and environment, we have no need to rename “evolution” to “ID”. We seem to have devised new nomenclature to include the possibility of the supernatural, which evolution does not. So there really IS a nod to the supernatural in this verbiage." That would be fine if it was a position consistently held across the board by TE's, Darwinists, etc.., but it is not. It sounds like the soft sell to get everyone to abandon any religious inklings for no good reason. Don't forget also that Darwin did not start with bare reason, but intended to find a formula that required no "supernatural." I believe he failed, and his initial inquiry was a religious commitment to materialism. That's a world-view commitment and not a scientific one. "No, the problem here is, you’re creating a poor analogy. You seem to be confusing “unknown” with “theistic”, and these are quite different things. I should repeat, perhaps: NO cosmological models have ANYTHING supernatural anywhere in them. Even models that have a big bang simply do not allow for a supernatural cause. All such models rest on genuine observational evidence, and ringing in the supernatural to fill in blanks in the evidence is outside the bounds of cosmology." I don't know how much more clear it could be that when we have evidence (not limited to Big Bang cosmology) that the universe (space and time) began, it allows for a theistic inference. While a theistic inference is not immediately demanded and one could (though I believe not rationally) look for an explanation elsewhere; a theistic inference becomes even more reasonable than had we come up with evidence for an eternal universe. We have no evidence for an eternal universe and the very notion defies logic. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to infer theism without necessarily going any further and insisting on it. "My reading is, most materialists think of “supernatural” as meaning “in violation of well-established principles by which our universe operates.” This is perhaps more subtle than it sounds." I don't read it as subtle at all. It's an in-your-face statement that there can be no god or gods. It is an apology for atheism. It's a religious statement more than it is scientific. I think you've illustrated the point quite well. There is absolutely nothing in scientific evidence, which demands that kind of commitment. "It LOOKS like you are saying “here is something I can’t explain or understand, so I’ll attribute it to God, and this satisfies me, so I don’t have a problem anymore." Quite the contrary. What I'm saying is that there's nothing in science that would cause me to reject any theistic inference from material evidence. I don't believe I'm alone in that. The supernatural hangup of materialists stems from their a priori commitment to materialism, and not from the science alone. "Claiming it’s supernatural is fine, if you have positive evidence for the supernatural, otherwise it’s an empty label substituting for missing knowledge." I agree that it's an empty label. And as such, anti-supernaturalism is also empty. It attempts to assert materialism as the default position of science when it is not. Bottom line for science should be: there could be a God, or there could not. We currently do not know by science that there is or is not. If there is a God, it is reasonable to accept that there could be some evidence for his existence. If there is no God, there would be none. The materialists seem to be afraid of finding such evidence, and as such, they either have ruled out anything that allows a theistic inference (as in ID), or they find a quick fix to theistic inferences by suggesting such things as multiverses (as in cosmology).CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

David Gibson, There is a website called wiley online library. The contents there are not free since you have to purchase the article you want to read. Anyway, the website includes whole books, but you have the option to purchase single chapters. There is a book archived there called the blackwell companion to natural theology. One of the chapters is written by a physicist and a philosopher. The chapter is called The kalam argument. I suggest you invest a couple of bucks and inform yourself. As for quantum mechanics, you should read Bruce Gordon's essay A quantum theoretic argument against naturalism, in the book The nature of nature.kuartus_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Cannuckian Yankee,
While this is exactly right, I think the hangup with many materialists with regard to the legitimacy of ID is “supernaturalism.” While ID does not require the supernatural, it allows for a supernatural cause.
But if we regard evolution as being designed by the feedback constraints of mutation and environment, we have no need to rename "evolution" to "ID". We seem to have devised new nomenclature to include the possibility of the supernatural, which evolution does not. So there really IS a nod to the supernatural in this verbiage.
Some materialists will not even consider ID because of that one hangup; yet they have no problem considering Big Bang cosmology despite it allowing also for a supernatural cause. Materialists have been able to deal with the Big Bang’s theistic implications, but at present they haven’t been able to deal with ID. They believe ID supporters are being disingenuous by not identifying the designer.
No cosmologists I've ever heard of, has allowed for any theistic implication of the big bang. Instead, they present a model based on current observations. Since observations at that early time are indirect and highly limited, the range of allowable models is of course quite large - to the point where some of them do not involve a big bang at all. None of these models have any supernatural component. I suppose the problem is if the models are sufficiently unconstrained as to allow supernatural "explanations", they have abandoned any pretense of the relevance of evidence, in favor of "anything goes". I think it's important to understand that there are no theological implications to any cosmological model of the big bang. None.
With Big Bang theory I don’t hear anybody really identifying the “Big Banger,” so the objection seems to be a bit disingenuous itself.
No, the problem here is, you're creating a poor analogy. You seem to be confusing "unknown" with "theistic", and these are quite different things. I should repeat, perhaps: NO cosmological models have ANYTHING supernatural anywhere in them. Even models that have a big bang simply do not allow for a supernatural cause. All such models rest on genuine observational evidence, and ringing in the supernatural to fill in blanks in the evidence is outside the bounds of cosmology.
I think it’s helpful to deal with the supernatural hangup, not because we want to insist on who the designer is, but because it is a hangup; and I don’t believe most materialists have any idea what they mean by “supernatural.”
A good point, I think. My reading is, most materialists think of "supernatural" as meaning "in violation of well-established principles by which our universe operates." This is perhaps more subtle than it sounds. Quantum mechanics is based on the observation of quite a few violations of the understandings at the time. But they were never regarded as supernatural - we simply expanded our understanding. Quantum mechanics is now viewed as operating under well-defined rules. There never was any all-purpose "wastebasket" of unexplainable stuff.
As a theist myself, I don’t end any inquiry into the supernatural or the existence of God with incredulity along the lines of what Neil terms “superdude,” or angels, devils, etc. I’m able to go beyond that and to rationalize how anything can exist without a very specific and necessary first cause that begins to look a lot like God as we narrow down the criteria based on issues of causation, contingency and necessity. So with that, the hangup essentially disappears for me.
Hopefully, you can understand what this looks like to Neil. It LOOKS like you are saying "here is something I can't explain or understand, so I'll attribute it to God, and this satisfies me, so I don't have a problem anymore." And to Neil, all you've done is created a LABEL. You might as well have said "I believe in the Great Green Arkleseizure, I can't find a first cause here, therefore the GGA did it, and I'm good with that." But making up a label isn't explanatory. It's like the joke where the psychiatrist tells the patient "You suffer from nameless fears? No problem, we have a name for everything!" But unfortunately, giving the fear a label doesn't make it go away.
So while I wouldn’t insist that by ID a materialist accept the “supernatural,” whatever they mean by it, I would insist that they get over their anti-supernaturalism hangup, because it’s a clear question-begger.
I think this is a misunderstanding. The materialist, following the established rules of science, seeks some sort of positive evidence for ID. Claiming it's supernatural is fine, if you have positive evidence for the supernatural, otherwise it's an empty label substituting for missing knowledge. And arriving at ID by an attempt at elimination ("I can't believe evolution could have done it, therefore it must have been God") presents logical problems, because there are many possibilities. This approach to ID sounds a lot like "I proved that 4+2 doesn't equal 42, and THEREFORE it equals 17 by default!" If ID embodies the claim that an intelligent designer was involved, the materialist wishes evidence of this. Without such evidence, all we have is "golly, this sure looks designed to me." For those who do not already assume design, this approach is unsatisfying.David W. Gibson_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Neil: "I’m surely done with you." UBP: "Unable to confront the argument in front of you, a surrogate is required for the beating. Yet again." He'll probably be done with you shortly. :-(CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

#59,
I have now read it. Sloppy meandering, loosely defined terms. Waste of my time. Word salad. It’s written not to illuminate, but to obscure and confound. Complexity as a weapon. A work of deception. Work of the devil, for which hell waits. This has the stench of the worst crank philosophy. If scientists wasted their time with every crank argument like this the whole project of discovery would freeze.
I hate to break it to you Skippy, but empiricism isn’t conducted by running through the halls, waving your hands above your head, yelling “Stop It, Stop It, Stop It” As threatening as it may appear to you, one actually has to engage arguments and data in order to refute them. We live in a material universe, where the existence and transfer of information has material consequences which we can observe. If those material observations cause you some sort of particular emotional distress, you can always forego empiricism and become something else.
And this is what you propose to unseat a theory that over 150 years…
Ah yes. Unable to confront the argument in front of you, a surrogate is required for the beating. Yet again.
Why do you exist? To feed thousands of loudmouth preachers, and the likes of Santorum, Bachmann and Perry, with a steady stream of distortions. That’s why you exist. Thou shalt not lie, but yet lie dost ye.
Yes, I understand you are upset. My elder grandmother use to tell me that Calgon made some nice bath products. Perhaps you can give them a try.Upright BiPed_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

To Neil Schipper- It is true that some or even most IDists do not accept common ancestry as in fish->amphibian->reptile-> mammal type common ancestry, but tta does not mean ID argues against it. ID doesn't care and IDists say if that happened then it happened by design not via filtered willy nilly. As for 150 years of evidence, well strange there still isn't anything that demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote.Joe_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Cannuckian Yankee- As science only cares about reality, it too allows for the supernatural.Joe_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, i originally visited the link in your #16 briefly, and saw it's a continuation of a conversation, and there isn't even a link to what went prior. So your suggesting this to someone as a start point to wrap his head around new ideas seems faulty or disingenuous. I have now read it. Sloppy meandering, loosely defined terms. Waste of my time. Word salad. It's written not to illuminate, but to obscure and confound. Complexity as a weapon. A work of deception. Work of the devil, for which hell waits. Along the way we encounter these gems:
for one thing to represent another thing within a system, it must be separate from it, and if it is truly a separate thing, then there must be something to establish the relationship that exist between the representation and the effect it is to represent (within that system) .. the immaterial relationship between a physical representation and its physical effect .. In the dynamics of information transfer, the operative observation is that each of these physical things (the representations, the protocols, and their resulting effects) always remains discrete. the dynamic property that they each remain discrete is a material observation
This has the stench of the worst crank philosophy. If scientists wasted their time with every crank argument like this the whole project of discovery would freeze. And this is what you propose to unseat a theory that over 150 years, despite having undergone refinements, is daily supported empirically, and has been contradicted in its core claims never?
ID does not challenge the observation that organisms have common operating systems and have changed over time
Very forward thinking indeed. This site takes for its name opposition to descent from a common ancestor; common ancestry is what all observation and investigation supports. And every third article here takes juvenile swipes at Darwin, or something called "Darwinism" (which, like "Mendelism" or "Schrodingerism", is an inanity, and something no one subscribes to). Why do you exist? To feed thousands of loudmouth preachers, and the likes of Santorum, Bachmann and Perry, with a steady stream of distortions. That's why you exist. Thou shalt not lie, but yet lie dost ye.Neil Schipper_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Joe, "ID does not require the supernatural- period, end of story." While this is exactly right, I think the hangup with many materialists with regard to the legitimacy of ID is "supernaturalism." While ID does not require the supernatural, it allows for a supernatural cause. Some materialists will not even consider ID because of that one hangup; yet they have no problem considering Big Bang cosmology despite it allowing also for a supernatural cause. Materialists have been able to deal with the Big Bang's theistic implications, but at present they haven't been able to deal with ID. They believe ID supporters are being disingenuous by not identifying the designer. With Big Bang theory I don't hear anybody really identifying the "Big Banger," so the objection seems to be a bit disingenuous itself. I think it's helpful to deal with the supernatural hangup, not because we want to insist on who the designer is, but because it is a hangup; and I don't believe most materialists have any idea what they mean by "supernatural." As a theist myself, I don't end any inquiry into the supernatural or the existence of God with incredulity along the lines of what Neil terms "superdude," or angels, devils, etc. I'm able to go beyond that and to rationalize how anything can exist without a very specific and necessary first cause that begins to look a lot like God as we narrow down the criteria based on issues of causation, contingency and necessity. So with that, the hangup essentially disappears for me. So while I wouldn't insist that by ID a materialist accept the "supernatural," whatever they mean by it, I would insist that they get over their anti-supernaturalism hangup, because it's a clear question-begger.CannuckianYankee_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Frustratingly, I still don’t understand.
Well David, (#49) The frustration is apparently something we share. I provided a link to explain the issues I am raising with you. In that link, I provide a fairly comprehensive explanation, and then very plainly say … “So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form” … “There is a list of the physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled” … “That list includes the four material observations as discussed in the previous paragraphs …” …and it then goes on to summarize those physical requirements for a second time. Yet you return with this statement: ”you say that evolution is “entirely dependent on physical requirements it offers absolutely no solution for”, and I simply cannot guess what this means.” I would have imagined at this point it would be crystal clear that the physical requirements which you “cannot guess” are those being explained to you, but apparently I was mistaken. This leaves me no alternative than to simply concede that you flat out have no understanding of the issue – even after being given a coherent explanation. Instead of thinking of you as disingenuous, I will simply leave it at that. cheersUpright BiPed_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Update:
Dawkins STILL Gets "Origin" Title Wrong AFTER the Interview! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCtifNoIsJ4
And if it is a memory test that is required for being a 'true' Christian, instead of the 'gift of grace' from God,,,
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
,,,Then is this following guy the only guy in the whole world who is actually a Christian???
The Gospel According to Luke,, recited from memory - Bruce Kuhn - video - University of California, Santa Barbara http://vimeo.com/35834513
Verse and Music:
Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Sarah McLachlan - Answer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8B1ai25lUo
bornagain77_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

To Neil Schipper, ID does not require the supernatural- period, end of story.Joe_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

David W Gibson:
The genetic code describes the attributes of the organism, and provides the instruction set for constructing these attributes.
Evidence please. BTW David ID is not anti-evolution. ID argues against blind and undirected processes having sole dominion over evolution.Joe_{February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Neil, "in all your verbiage you don’t acknowledge once that by supernatural I’m clearly referring to superdude gods and angels and devils, agents with intelligence and intention, stuff billions of people believe and teach their kids." I know exactly what you meant by it. You have a very narrow non-functional definition or idea of what "supernatural" means. This is the basic and typical avoidance of materialism. I didn't acknowledge it because I don't believe it's simply a matter of dismissing what is necessary for anything to exist - the "superdude" if you will, and expecting it to magically go away. I believe it's the height of irrationality to believe that everything we call "nature" simply poofed itself into existence without a necessary first cause. Regarding the moon landing hoax; the key word you stated is "nearly all." The fact is that there are eyewitnesses still living who can attest to the fact of the moon landing, and there is enough documentation outside of the media that attests to that fact. It's not simply a matter of media reports, although many of us get much of what we consider as fact from the media. If you were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, you could not depend on any documented evidence for any historic event, because it's all disseminated from some form of media. My view is that documented evidence can be evaluated along with other evidences to determine if it is true or not, without any input from consensus. But lets get back to the real issue here; you have basically stated that consensus science is truth, and since the consensus is drifting away from the idea of God, there is therefore, no god, gods or "supernatural" in general. Fine. I'm inclined to disagree, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the moon landing.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, in all your verbiage you don't acknowledge once that by supernatural I'm clearly referring to superdude gods and angels and devils, agents with intelligence and intention, stuff billions of people believe and teach their kids. You can't even make a fair reply about the moon landing hoax: nearly all scientists, just like layfolk, only "know" what they know indirectly from media reports, and individuals ascribe lesser or greater amounts of trust to these sources. I'm surely done with you.Neil Schipper_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Neil, Sorry, I have to correct something in here: "What one does with the fact that if there is contingency, there must also be necessity at the beginning (not necessarily in time, but outside of time and space). “Something” that exists but has no beginning, or is uncaused. If you want to call it “supernatural,” I think you can see how the term itself is inadequate. It might not be natural in the sense of contingent nature, but it is no less a part of reality in order for anything else that we view as reality to be meaningful. What you’re trying to suggest is that every phenomenon must necessarily be contingent; and then you end up with the absurdity of either an infinite regress of contingent causes, or an infinite regressive web of contingent causes." I would correct this by saying : what you're trying to suggest is that every state of being in what we call reality must be contingent..... "phenomenon" is the wrong term.CannuckianYankee_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary solutions to engineering problems invariably surprise the engineers – it was never something they’d have thought of. No mind was involved in the solution, but the solution WAS designed.
No mind? I suppose if you don't count the decades of computer science to design the processors and advance software development, and then someone analyzing a requirement and deciding that a genetic algorithm would be a good fit, designing it and executing it, all to design a single component imagined by someone else to add to a system designed by someone else, all of which is manufactured by equipment purposefully designed for that purpose, then yes, no mind is involved. And what do they invent so that they should be an example of what similar biological processes might produce? Nothing. They produce exactly what they were purposed, designed, and implemented to produce. A GA can improve on your antenna design. It does not start with raw materials and a fitness function and design from scratch the communication system and accompanying protocols that require the antenna. They make the opposite of the case you wish by demonstrating the limitations of evolutionary processes rather than their capabilities. That such a poor example is used over and over to support what evolution can "design" should make anyone wonder why a better one isn't available. Why does anyone ever bring up GAs?ScottAndrews2_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, Frustratingly, I still don't understand. The genetic code describes the attributes of the organism, and provides the instruction set for constructing these attributes. But you say that evolution is "entirely dependent on physical requirements it offers absolutely no solution for", and I simply cannot guess what this means. A tree is entirely dependent on soil to grow in. But the tree "offers no solution" for soil. I don't even know what a "solution for soil" might even consist of. It's not a tree's requirement to "explain" the ground. So maybe you could explain what you think evolution is required to explain. Give an example or something. Evolution is a biological process by which organisms reproduce slightly different organisms, different in many different ways, combined with variation in the capacity of these subsequent organisms to survive to produce more. What needs to be "solved" here?David W. Gibson_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply