The Unsolved Murder

_{March 11, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In a private forum a question was recently posed:

At what point the police should stop investigating an unsolved murder and close the case, declaring that God must have simply wanted the victim dead? It is the same point at which it is appropriate to tell scientists to stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it”.

My reply

Dear XXXX,

Well, in practice they stop investigating when the evidence goes cold (the trail of evidence stops in an inconclusive state).

In the investigation into the origin and diversification of life the trail of evidence hasn’t gone cold. The trail begins with ancient scientist/philosophers looking at macroscopic features of life like the camera eye and saying it looks like it was designed. Opposing this was the assertion that the appearance of design is an illusion. Bringing us up to the current day the illusion of design hasn’t gone away. No matter how much further detail (evidence) we get the illusion of design persists. At the molecular level the illusion of design is even stronger than at the macroscopic level. Darwin’s simple blobs of protoplasm was emphatically wrong. What we see in the finest level of detail is even more complex machinery than a camera eye, increasingly more difficult to explain as an accident of law and chance.

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident? The answer is they don’t. Unlike evolutionists, when police are confronted with an “illusion of design” that doesn’t go away in light of all the available evidence they continue calling it a murder (death by design) with an appended qualifier – unsolved murder. Too bad evolutionists aren’t more like police investigators and less like story tellers with delusions of grandeur.

Comments?

Addendum 3/13/08: Assistant Professor of Religion James McGrath feels that criticisms of my response are being censored. To put that mistaken notion to rest here is a link to his response and an invitation to participate directly here if he so desires so long as he follows our rules of decorum found on the side panel under moderation rules.

Comments

bFast: You asked Gerry Rzeppa how ID research is "a more narrow pursuit" than creation science. It is a good question for clarification. But if we were to say that an ID hypothesis is limited for its support to the empirical evidence available to science, while creation science also considers Scripture passages and theological positions as support (which ID cannot use), then I wouldn't mind at all in acknowledging that ID is indeed more limited (or more "narrow") in that sense. Theology takes into account considerations outside the reach of the limits of science. I have no problem with that fact. If someone wants to call creation science "wider" than science proper because CS depends upon a particular theology for its support, fine. OTOH, if Gerry thinks ID practitioners are trying to ignore empirical evidence related to the scientific problems they consider (i.e. data that science can use), I fully second your question "Like what?"ericB_{March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Gerry Rzeppa: "Nobody does anything — including the practice of science — without a reason. ... I think the fact that the leaders of the movement have been able to sustain themselves in the face of such abusive and overwhelming ideological opposition indicates that they have a rather stalwart ideology of their own — an ideology, you will note, that is conspicuously absent from the above quoted description of the movement."
I believe you are confusing the personal with the shared/common. Does an ID proponent have an "ideology of their own — an ideology, you will note, that is conspicuously absent from the above quoted description of the movement."? Of course they do, and they can and will talk about this in appropriate contexts. You don't see that embedded into the description of the movement because their "ideology of their own" is "of their own". And they are able to personally go farther in their ideology than science could ever take them -- exactly as you acknowledged earlier. Example: Phillip Johnson -- “[M]y personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that." See Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 2) (See also its link to Part 1) Do scientists have reasons for practicing science? Of course they do. But it would be an impossibility, not to mention inappropriate, to try to embed every scientist's motivations into science itself as common axioms of science. Can a scientist bring to the table a hypthesis that was inspired or motivated by their ideology? Of course. But to be accepted it must stand on legs of evidence that adequately support the claim. No one's ideology should get an evidence-free ride (as happens now with materialism).
Gerry: "And so the question of whether a particular proponent of intelligent design is merely confused or actually disingenuous hinges on whether or not he really believes that science can be practiced in an ideological vacuum."
ID proponents are neither confused nor disingenuous, nor do they live in an ideological vacuum. There is nothing difficult, confusing, or disingenuous about distinguishing between personal ideology and the limits of science itself. The only confusion is thinking one cannot be sustained, motivated, guided by an "ideology of their own" that is far more encompassing than science.ericB_{March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

ericB says, "The key to understanding the ID position is realizing that it is aiming to answer the question “How far can science legitimately go? What can you legitimately infer from within the limits of equations and test tubes and empirical evidence?” And that, I think, is exactly where the confusion begins. "How far can science legitimately go?" is not a question that can be settled scientifically -- it's a philosophical question. As is your second question, "What can you legitimately infer...", since all but the most trivial of inferences are based on axioms and postulates and conceptual frameworks that are at least philosophical if not theological in nature. The box at the top of this site states, in part, that "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of [such and such, and that] intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories." That statement strikes me as confusing at best, disingenuous at worst. It suggests that the "materialistic ideology" that has subverted science can be removed and replaced with nothing. It suggests that science can be practiced in the absence of an underlying ideology, which I contend is an impossibility. Nobody does anything -- including the practice of science -- without a reason. And so the question of whether a particular proponent of intelligent design is merely confused or actually disingenuous hinges on whether or not he really believes that science can be practiced in an ideological vacuum. I think the fact that the leaders of the movement have been able to sustain themselves in the face of such abusive and overwhelming ideological opposition indicates that they have a rather stalwart ideology of their own -- an ideology, you will note, that is conspicuously absent from the above quoted description of the movement.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

Gerry Rzeppa:
Intelligent design research is therefore a more narrow pursuit
In general you suggest that because ID practitioners reject certain "evidence" that the YECs accept, the IDers are "more narrow". However, there are teaming buckets of evidence that the YEC community refuse to consider. If both parties reject the other party's evidence, how can one say that one is "more narrow" and the other "less narrow"?
and its [ID's] practitioners, like their materialistic counterparts, often have to “remind themselves” to exclude certain hard-to-ignore aspects of the problem.
Like what?bFast_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

ericB, many thanks for that -- I can't always tell if I'm hitting the mark.Apollos_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Apollos at 131: "It’s my hope that others closer to the ID movement will provide a better answer than I was able to do here." IMO, your response at 131 was excellent.ericB_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Gerry Rzeppa: "Personally, I think all this equivocating and attempting to promote theism under the guise of science is every bit as disingenuous as the attempt, on the other side, to promote atheism in the same way." I believe that you already know and will recall upon reflection that it is wise to be generous in how you measure the words and actions of others, true? (Matt. 7:2-4; Luke 6:38) Equivocation is not an insignificant charge. It is not a charge to make lightly or carelessly. Using a general term is not equivocation. To equivocate, one must use two different meanings for the same term within one's case or argument. Let us check for equivocation (and check for any disingenuous positions along the way as well). Here is what an ID proponent could affirm about science's limitations with regard to God:
“I agree that “you can only go so far [with] a scientific proposition,” and, like you, “I am not bothered by the fact that science cannot take us as far as we should consider going.” I never expected to find God in an equation or a test tube.
Could you agree with that as well? ;-) Here the ID proponent affirms that "science cannot take us as far as we should consider going.” and "I never expected to find God in an equation or a test tube." That is the genuine position of the ID advocate. It is not a pretend position. It is not a "guise". It is a recognition of the real limitation of science. Now, if someone were to throw into the discussion another meaning to "science", perhaps one that is not limited in this way, that would have two effects. First, it would lead to confusion, as two definitions of the same term would be in play. Second, it would be committing the error of equivocation. May both you and I both avoid the error of equivocation (and especially to be careful not to slander others with the charge while falling into it ourselves), agreed my precious brother? The key to understanding the ID position is realizing that it is aiming to answer the question "How far can science legitimately go? What can you legitimately infer from within the limits of equations and test tubes and empirical evidence?" Why is this so important? It is important because science is currently afflicted with ideological prejudice, or in other terms with false balances. Science regularly infers the present of intelligent causation, with one consistent exception. If the intelligent even might be God, then the inference to intelligent causation is forbidden. That is a false balance. The position of ID is that, even though science is limited, science must use just weights and true balances. In particular, science must learn how to make a principled and objective distinction between directed and undirected causes, based on the evidence, not on ideological prejudice. (More at post 111.) Do you find anything disingenuous about my position? Would you agree that even science, even though limited as we both affirm, still must act justly with regard to the evidence and the limited sight that it does have?ericB_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

duncan wrote:
"I wonder that if “ID makes it permissible to deny a strictly naturalistic framework” then what exactly constitutes objective detectability that allows for the fact that “if you sign up for ID, what you’re accepting is the possibility that design is objectively detectable”?"
I think that there are two phases to the analysis. First a case needs to be made, or the investigator needs to be convinced, that it's permissible to allow intelligent causes on the list of explanations for observed phenomena. Take our knifed victim for instance. If intelligent causes are ruled out up front, then the investigator can only draw on explanations via accidental causes. Of course, it's not entirely inconceivable that our victim is careless, leaves sharp objects lying around, and happened to back into one with enough force to drive it in. This may very well be the cause of death. So we have included accidental causes in the list of possible causes, and that's completely appropriate for the investigation. However we have another set of possible explanations: those caused by intelligent agents. It's entirely possible that there was independent intent by an unknown party. The investigator can now add intentional causes to the list of possible explanations for the observed phenomena. So the investigator has been equipped with two sets of potential explanations, and can use the remaining evidence at the scene to make determinations. All the observed phenomena surrounding the death can be analyzed against these two distinct sets of causes, to make a determination as to which cause was more likely. A proper determination in this context will allow the investigator to apply efforts appropriately. The first phase of the analysis is to allow intelligent causes on the list of possible explanations for observed phenomena. Once this is permissible, it becomes possible to enter phase two: determining how to detect the activities of intelligent agents. If we rule out intelligent causes up front, we can't even enter the arena of deciding how to determine if intelligence played a role in any observed phenomena. This is what signing up for ID really means, in my opinion. It means allowing for the possibility that intelligence played (or plays) a role. This means intelligent agency can be added to the list of possible explanations. This doesn't mean automatically concluding that it did. What you've done by making this step is added to the list, you haven't taken anything off of it. Epistemologically, you now have a larger set of possible explanations, not a smaller one. You haven't ruled out material explanations in any way -- they still remain on the list next to intelligent causes. You might want to check out this relatively short, but enjoyable discussion paper that Paul Nelson posted before his debate with Sarkar. He makes a good case that allowing intelligent causes adds to possible explanations and removes none. "Phase 2" has to do with design detection, this is where CSI and IC come in. Now that intelligent causes are allowed on the list, determination has to be made as to how one would go about determining design. I've babbled on quite a bit and risk not having understood your question properly. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. I'm happy to pontificate on design detection also, but my understanding of it is most likely underdeveloped.Apollos_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

duncan: "I’m interested in an example where a naturalistic explanation does present itself. Does that in itself preclude a non-naturalistic explanation? I can’t see how it can, if we are pre-supposing that non naturalistic explanations are permissible." Yes, that in itself can preclude a directed explanation. (ID is about intelligent causation, not necessarily "non-naturalistic" explanation. To infer the nature of the intelligence requires more.) ID is distinguishing between where undirected natural processes leave off and directed causation begins. It is because we have some basis for saying undirected natural processes could not have produced this effect (based on our experience and tentative understanding of their range of operation) that we have a basis for saying "Therefore, in this case we infer that a directed cause (a.k.a. intelligent cause, intelligent agency) contributed to this effect." If you see a turtle balanced on top of a post with it's legs waving in vain, one easily infers that someone put it there. We infer it without knowing when it happened, or why it was done, or who did it, or exactly how it was done. Rather, we infer it because we know something about what turtles can and cannot do from our experience and observation of turtles. Since turtles cannot climb fence posts, we infer that someone else put it there. Now you walk farther and see a squirrel or a bird on a fence post. Do you infer someone else put it there? Well, strictly speaking that is possible. But we don't make that inference because it can be explained within the capabilities of the squirrel or the bird itself, without inferring that someone else intervened. In other words, you can't just pick randomly to say "This is designed / directed / arranged / intelligently caused." It has to be supported by evidence for it to be our best available explanation. To make the inference, you need to have evidence that points beyond the reach of undirected causes. That is why Dembski's design filter gives first priority to explanations via chance and natural laws. As Denyse O’Leary said recently: "What is essential is a pattern that is not likely due to mere chance or natural law." See post 2 here and the comments following. Does that help clear it up?ericB_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Apollos(131) Thanks for your comment, which was most helpful. I may be being pedantic, but I can’t help that it raises further questions for me. Everything must be examined ‘to destruction’! I wonder that if “ID makes it permissible to deny a strictly naturalistic framework” then what exactly constitutes objective detectability that allows for the fact that “if you sign up for ID, what you’re accepting is the possibility that design is objectively detectable”? Please remember that, for the purposes of this thread I’m not looking at the design inference i.e. those points where no satisfactory naturalistic explanation is available. I’m interested in an example where a naturalistic explanation does present itself. Does that in itself preclude a non-naturalistic explanation? I can’t see how it can, if we are pre-supposing that non naturalistic explanations are permissible. We assume the ‘knife in the back’ is ‘most likely murder, but could be a freak accident’, but only because we are assuming a materialistic explanation. If we’re open to non-materialistic explanations of things, then all bets are off. Any thoughts?? I do think this inevitably leads to the ID movement facing up to the fact that it would be HUGELY advantageous to be able to delineate an ID process / method.duncan_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB asks, "How would you differentiate between creation science and intelligent design?" I would say that intelligent design researchers typically disallow evidences that creation science researchers readily accept. Intelligent design research is therefore a more narrow pursuit, and its practitioners, like their materialistic counterparts, often have to "remind themselves" to exclude certain hard-to-ignore aspects of the problem. StephenB asks, "What about the ID methodology that rules out law and chance prior to making a design inference? Do you consider that disingenuous?" No, I wouldn't use the word "disingenuous" in that context; primarily because I'm not quite sure what you're asking! Methodologies are not disingenuous, their practitioners are (or aren't). Methodologies are appropriate or inappropriate; easy-to-apply or hard; their application either bears fruit or it doesn't. It seems to me that Intelligent Design researchers are working very hard to formalize what is a ubiquitously common and essentially intuitive process, and I don't see how that formalization sheds any real light on the questions at hand.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

-----Gerry: "Well, I don’t know what these other guys will tell you, but I will plainly say, Yes. Everything was designed by God to fulfill His purposes — and everything does." -----"Personally, I think all this equivocating and attempting to promote theism under the guise of science is every bit as disingenuous as the attempt, on the other side, to promote atheism in the same way. We believe in God, or we don’t, and all of our other beliefs and practices hinge on that point. There’s no point in pretending otherwise." Gerry, how would you differentiate between creation science and intelligent design? What about the ID methodology that rules out law and chance prior to making a design inference? Do you consider that disingenuous as well?StephenB_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Apollos says, "If you’ve been so forthright before, I must have missed it." Yeah, I think you missed it. But I don't think the work of Drs. Dembski, Behe, and others is "unscientific". I think your definition of science is too narrow. I'm with those who have defined Theology as "the Study of God and His Works", and all of the lesser sciences as mere branches thereof. Which makes both Intelligent Design research and, say, Trichology (the study of hair) various means to the ultimate end of understanding our God better. Who, by the way, has assured us personally that "the very hairs of our heads are numbered."Gerry Rzeppa_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Gerry wrote:
Personally, I think all this equivocating and attempting to promote theism under the guise of science is every bit as disingenuous as the attempt, on the other side, to promote atheism in the same way. We believe in God, or we don’t, and all of our other beliefs and practices hinge on that point. There’s no point in pretending otherwise.
Gerry, I'm glad to see you on record about your belief that Intelligent Design is a disingenuous, unscientific pursuit -- an attempt to force religion into the realm of science -- and that its tactics are indistinguishable from the atheistic establishment. If you've been so forthright before, I must have missed it.Apollos_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Duncan wrote:
This is a problem I have with ID. If you sign up for it, aren’t you logically accepting that EVERYTHING could have been designed?
I'll answer as a pro-ID advocate, to provide some counter balance. Others not averse to ID might also choose to answer, and give you a better definition than I am able. If you sign up for ID, what you're accepting is the possibility that design is objectively detectable. This exposes the possibility that the apparent design in nature is more than illusory, but evidential; and it opens the door for you to consider it as such, and carry it as far as the evidence takes you. ID makes it permissible to deny a strictly naturalistic framework for biological life, and consider the possibility that things look designed because they are designed. Accepting ID sets you free from being required to assume that the origin and diversity of life is explainable simply by naturalistic causes, and provides you with additional explanatory power for the things observed in nature. ID doesn't require that you accept any particular religious beliefs or theological framework of any kind. You're liberated to let the evidence speak for itself, independent of religious considerations. Not all ID proponents are Christians, and not all are theists. This is difficult for some to accept, but it's just plain fact. You'll find atheistic materialists opposing ID because it allows for the possibility that intelligence played a role somewhere along the line. Theistic Evolutionists oppose ID on religious-political grounds, as do many legalistic Christians -- mainly because it puts the power to decide into the hands if the individual, rather than abstracting it to the self-appointed elite. For those that use their religion as a tool to control others, ID is very unattractive; this is true for theists and atheists. By signing up for ID, you're also accepting that design is generally detectable -- that human design has implicit characteristics that make it stand out from its raw materials -- that artifacts of human intelligence are quantifiably detectable in the traces left by history. ID attempts to provide a framework for objectively assessing the presence of design, regardless of where or how it occurs. It's my hope that others closer to the ID movement will provide a better answer than I was able to do here.Apollos_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

duncan says, "This is a problem I have with ID. If you sign up for it, aren’t you logically accepting that EVERYTHING could have been designed?" Well, I don't know what these other guys will tell you, but I will plainly say, Yes. Everything was designed by God to fulfill His purposes -- and everything does. This, of course, is not a novel doctrine. Believers have always held that design is overwhelmingly obvious in the universe, and have further maintained that even the seemingly accidental and inexplicable is purposeful, falling under the heading of Providence. "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world", Acts 15:18. Personally, I think all this equivocating and attempting to promote theism under the guise of science is every bit as disingenuous as the attempt, on the other side, to promote atheism in the same way. We believe in God, or we don't, and all of our other beliefs and practices hinge on that point. There's no point in pretending otherwise.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

PaulGiem (80) & tribune7 (86) Thanks for your replies – and apologies, I’ve been away for a couple of days “(Behe’s) purpose is specifically to delineate where evidence for non-design leaves off and evidence for design starts.” But my question is about the reverse enquiry. What is the evidence for design stopping and non-design beginning? Behe’s evidence of design is the absence of evidence of non-design e.g. he can see no feasible naturalistic method for certain malaria virus mutations and so invokes the design inference. This is not the same as the absence of evidence of design. “Now, it is true that the absence of design is harder to detect than design i.e. the ID method can provide false negatives namely claiming something that was designed was not” Exactly. So for all we know everything could be designed – including the ‘knife in the back’? This is a problem I have with ID. If you sign up for it, aren’t you logically accepting that EVERYTHING could have been designed?duncan_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Gerry, Setting aside the possibility that I'm simply wrong, I'll have to insist that a riderless bicycle is a completely functional machine, capable of performing its task exactly as intended -- unequivocally different from a broken bicycle [missing/broken chain, etc]. I consider this conspicuously self-evident. We'll just agree to disagree; and perhaps I'll change my mind when replacement bicycle riders become available for purchase at the bike shop. :wink:Apollos_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Apollos - I really don't want to belabor this thing, but when you say "A bicycle without a chain is broken, but without a rider it’s still a completely functional machine", you're simply wrong. A bicycle without a rider is every bit as non-functional as a bicycle without a chain -- it does nothing; it just sits there and rusts.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Gerry wrote:
Apollos says, “What potential exists for a seed with the shell removed? What potential exists for the dry seed? Here’s a hint: both answers are different.” No, they’re essentially the same — the problem is that you’re comparing “seed without shell and without the hope of getting one” with “seed without water but with the hope of getting some.”
Thanks for making my point. The seed without the shell has no hope of getting one; it's broken. The seed without water retains its function, and maintains all the potential that was designed into it. A bicycle without a chain is broken, but without a rider it's still a completely functional machine. Likewise an unplugged computer can be sold as a complete and functional system. Try selling one that's missing it's bridge chipset, or using it for that matter. Electricity might be part of a computer's specification, but I'm not sure its considered part of the Irreducible Complexity. Your distinctions seem to assume "functioning in the present tense," in contrast to "able to function."
Here’s the “meaningless letter version: a + b + c -> d where a=seed, b=shell, c=water, d=tree. It’s all or nothing and therefore irreducibly complex. And it’s easy to describe and highly unlikely to happen by chance, and therefore an example of specified complexity. It’s a system that has been designed.
There is a difference between IC and SC; it looks like you might be conflating them. I believe that IC is considered a subset of SC. Your original comment on the topic (91, 93, 97, 99, 100, 108) had all the appearances of wanting to determine whether a tree/sun/water/soil combo was irreducibly complex like the a/b/c/d components of a flagellar motor. This is a different task from determining if both contain specified complexity (I believe they do). There is a quantifiable, concrete, and instinctive difference between an IC system designed to operate within physical laws, and the laws themselves. The reason for using human engineering analogues is that it [putatively] simplifies the comparisons and removes confusion. IOW, all sorts of rabbit trails are possible when considering the tree that "was designed by God" as with the water, soil, sun, solar system, galaxy, universe; where a bicycle or automobile makes use of physical laws that were not designed by humans, making it possible to separate the design of the functional parts from the laws under which they are intended to operate. For instance, a water wheel is designed to make use of gravity. As such, gravity is part of the system's design, but not necessarily part of its irreducible complexity. The specification takes gravity into account, but gravity is not one of the parts fashioned to work in conjunction with the system. It's fundamental -- a constraint under which use can be made to generate energy. So perhaps, there is a difference between functional dependencies and functional parts.Apollos_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Patrick (107): "I realize that the ID community has a focus of combating Darwinism now but producing such general purpose applications of ID would help ID become more acceptable." I think this is precisely ID's problem: it's spending more time fighting a negative campaign than finding positive evidence for ID. Until that position reverses, it simply won't make any headway in the scientific world.Portishead_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Gerry , there is a purpose for the law and if one is blessed to live in a nation where one can act to change its laws one is obliged to do so when they are unjust. Ask yourself this:do you speak out against abortionists as Paul did against adulterers, perverts and slave traders?tribune7_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

PS: GR, at 121, gives a biblical challenge. I suggest he and others take a read here, here and here to see how I have taken it up as a matter of applied Bible study with historical references, extension into applied ethics in the context of an invited public lecture of some national impact, and as a tool for professional application of the sustainability paradigm. [FYI, the SD principle is rooted in Kantian ethical thought, which can be addressed in terms of the Biblical forms of the Golden Rule, thus extending Judaeo-Christian ethics effectively into the public policy domain through using the Kantian CI and the SD issue as key bridging concepts. The reference resources page in my site may prove useful as well.]kairosfocus_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

H'mm: First on the technical point, I agree that Patrick's summary at 105 was well done. The situation, however, again shows the need for an ID 101 tutorial link on the blog's RH column or in a tab at the top. 1] ID 101 link? Maybe a link to the IDEA site here [as I recently added to my own always linked page . . .]? Indeed, the diagram in no 82 above appears with an explanation here under the IDEA FAQ on false positives. The very fact that Patrick found it necessary to post it shows that we need a briefing. [But then, maybe that is the chalkdust in my veins talking . . .] 2] False positives and negatives . . . Now, while I strongly doubt that ID will ever be acceptable to the zealously committed to evolutionary materialism [who see in it, rightly, a threat to their most cherished ideas and agendas . . . but are closed-mindedly unwilling to consider that maybe their commitments need a serious critical review], it is easy enough to use the underlying principle of probabilistic resource exhaustion to get a sliding scale EF. What I mean is this: a --> There is a law of large numbers in statistics, which is the valid form of what the layman tends to call "the law of averages." b --> In effect, once samples are sufficiently large from a big population of potential samples, most samples tend to be like the population. [E.g. for distributions that we have reason to believe will be Gaussian, a sample of about 30 is big enough to as a rule look a lot like the population.] c --> As a consequence, we don't expect to see extremes in realistic situations. This underlies the point of classical hypothesis testing. In that, we construct a model of what would be expected on a null hypothesis [as a rule "chance"], then we compare observation with expectation. If we are "far enough" out in the skirts, we reject the null on some level of confidence. The alternate hyp in many cases is some species of design, e.g. in say a racial hiring case. My favourite being the hypothetical case (for illustration only) of Grand Duke's ironworks in NO, with 2/3 pop being black but GD's Iron works has only the genial Uncle Tom Black working there [as the plant Janitor!], the other 40 employees being of the unsurprising ethnicity for a firm that proudly advertises its KKK links. [Question: is the 40:1 ratio in the teeth of a population of 1:2 the other way likely to be chance or design?] d --> In such hyp testing, we are willing to have a risk that we falsely reject the null [reject "chance" when it is indeed chance], and a second risk that we falsely accept the null [accept chance when we should have ruled design]. e --> In short, the ID approach extends a common enough process in statistics. The basic idea is that: 3] Extending the EF . . . * we have a contingent or non-contingent situation, i.e is the outcome reliable enough to show a law-like natural regularity at work [ e.g. heat + oxidiser + fuel --> fire, reliably] * if yes, then obviously, law-like regularity is an adequate explanation [e.g. the hexagonal symmetry of snowflakes] * if the outcome is highly contingent, then it could access particular configurations by chance or by intent. [e.g. text can be at random --fhysrjfhgfsjiyhwflsf -- or by intent -- this text is by intent] * We then consider the space that configs can take up: how much storage capacity, and how many possible states. At the upper end of the scale, 500 bits takes in the number of possible states in our observed universe across its estimated lifetime: ~ 10^150. * Similarly, in an Earth that is 5.98*10^24 kgs, with the average atom for the sake of argument being assumed to have atomic mass 12 [i.e about 3*10^50 atoms and a similar 10^-43s Planck time, we have in 4.5 bn years [ ~ 1.42*10^17 s], {3.00*10^50 x 10^43 x 1.42*10^17} = 4.26 *10^110 quantum states. * If something is significantly less likely than 1 in 4 * 10^110, we are not likely ever to see it on earth. * Similarly with maybe coming on 10 - 15 bn humans living over the past 100 years or so, if a characteristic [e.g. a fingerprint pattern] is significantly less likely than 1 in 10^10, it is likely to be unique. * Once we have identified a reasonable probabilistic resource threshold, and a credible model for getting chance outcomes, and it fits a "simple" pattern that can be tied to intent-full action, we can infer that what is significantly less likely than that is most likely not by chance but by agency. * Why do we say that? Because we commonly observe agents using skill and insight to target functionally specified, information-rich outcomes. And highly contingent outcomes are capable of storing information. [E.g. in my always linked, I show how we could in principle develop an information system using dice as the storage elements, through specifiyign a code and setting the dice in dice registers to appropriate values.] In short, we have a framework for using the EF practically, and in so doing, we can address a lot of interesting real-world situations, in forensics [as with our knife in the back case] and elsewhere. 4] Reformation and alternative sub cultures . . . I see a side debate developing. I strongly suggest that we would find it useful to study an actual case in point of where Bible beleiveing Evangelical Christains took the lead in reformation, by acting at personal and policy levels. It took decades and they were seriously attacked [at least one Missionary in Guyana died in gaol, and in Jamaica the authorities tried to hang the evangelical missionaries there as (falsely accused) instigators of rebellion]. But in the end, they did prevail. I suggest a read of the William Knibb story therefore, as a part of the cooling off exercise. [A glance at the Thomas Foxwell Buxton and William Wilberforce stories will also help, a lot. Let's just say that when WW set out on his mission in life, it looked like don Quixote tilting at windmills. Fifty years later, what William Knibb called "the monster" was dead. And, the world learned a lesson in how reformation (imperfect as such will always be) can be undertaken in a Bible-believing increasingly democratic culture; in the teeth of all the powerful interests including national security. For, in C18, the slave trade was a big slice of Britain's sea-borne trade and was viewed as the seed-plot for the royal navy.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

tribune7 asks, "OK, you have a person who has been “fixed”. How should he respond to the culture?" StephenB asks, "How do you propose that we fix the barbarians that dominate the media, universities, courts, music industry, and halls of congress." I reply: I've already answered those questions, and I believe that my answers are consistent with the teachings that we find, word and deed, in the New Testament. So if you want further information regarding my views, I suggest you look prayerfully there.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Patrick, what you did at #105 was a beautiful thing.StephenB_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Proofread yourself Stephen: Even God had to civilize his people before he changed their hearts.StephenB_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

----"Culture doesn’t sin, people do. It’s people who need fixing, not culture. Fix the people and the culture will take care of itself. Try to fix the culture, without fixing the people, and you’ll soon be right back where you started — or worse." How do you propose that we fix the barbarians that dominate the media, universities, courts, music industry, and halls of congress. They think WE are the ones who need fixing, and they are in the process of doing just that. Even now they are sexualizing our children, murdering their babies, and poisoning their minds with materialist propaganda. I don't know about you, but I am not going to just hand it over to them. You don't preach to a murderer until you take the knife out of his hand. Even God had to civilize his people before he changed his hearts. That is the difference between the Old and New Testaments.StephenB_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Culture doesn’t sin, people do. It’s people who need fixing, not culture. Fix the people and the culture will take care of itself. OK, you have a person who has been "fixed". How should he respond to the culture? Ignore it? Are you saying culture doesn't matter? How about laws?tribune7_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Alleviation of symptoms or full cure. Actually Gerry it's more like ending the condition that causes the disease vs. putting a band-aide on the wound.tribune7_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply