Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thought for the Day

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:

Thus the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are “not moral”? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this “other world”—look, must they not by that same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (Nietzsche’s emphases)

Tip of the hat to Ed Oakes.

Then there is this from Oakes himself:

Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory—without the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.

Comments
Distance Education And Cultural Issues... Love is an act of endless forgiveness, a tender look which becomes a habit. ~ Peter Ustinov...Distance Education And Cultural Issues
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan: Yes, I did keep getting your name wrong. I won't happen again. Occassionally, Larry Moran, a militant Darwinist visits this blog. I was connecting dots that weren't there.StephenB
February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
StephenB, thanks. That explains things pretty well. But you keep getting my name wrong. Not "larrymoral," not "larrymoran," but "larrynorman." The original Jesus rocker.larrynormanfan
February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
-----larrymoranfan writes, "I think the response [from Q] was to this passage in the definition: certain features of . . . living things are best explained by an intelligent cause -----"It doesn’t say “certain features of some living things,” it says “living things,” i.e., life — presumably all life, including intelligent life. So if intelligence precedes “living things,” then intelligence precedes “intelligent living agency.” I can’t see how intelligence is not reuired for life or how this interpretation (while perhaps uestionable) reuires a banning." Oh, sure. That was only about the 100th time Q manipulated the language to put words in someone else's mouth and then hold THEM accountable for HIS reformulation. I had some of my own arguments played back to me in almost totally unrecognizable form. It can't be an accident when that happens time after time. It's the same game Judge Jones played at the Dover trial. Michael Behe points out that intelligent design is "consistent with" religious faith (obviously true). Judge Jones plays it back as intelligent design "depends on" religious faith (obviously false). Like Judge Jones, Q purposely misuses the language to discredit and misrepresent ID. My experience has been that ID critics are given a lot of room to criticize on this blog. The only standard they are held to is that they must criticize ID for what is is, not for what it isn't. Q refused to conform to that reasonable standard so he was rightly banned.StephenB
February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Magnan I quite agree about the incomplete state of physics and said as much many times before. We have no theory of quantum gravity and we have a universe where it appears (by observation of gravity induced motion in very large objects across very large distances) only 5% of it is matter and energy that is described by modern physics. It is thought that some 70% of the "stuff" that makes up the universe is something mysterious called dark energy which is further thought to homogenously permeate the entire universe. Over very very large distances this dark energy is thought to counter and eventually overcome the force of gravity over the same distance. Thus the rate at which the universe is expanding is itself growing faster. The question this raises in my mind is what if dark energy isn't quite homogenous. If it can effect normal mass and energy through gravitation (or anti-gravitation) then, vanishingly diffuse as it is, is it great enough to influence quantum events to produce certain outcomes instead of uncertain? How much energy does it take to cause an indeterminate quantum state to preferentially actualize into one outcome instead of an equally probable different outcome? Without a theory of quantum gravity we can't begin to answer that question. Is there an unseen actor working at the quantum level to influence events in the currently observable universe? Could be. There's more to heaven and earth, Darwinists, than is dreamed of in your philosophy. -Shakespeare That said, dark energy is, until it can be characterized as a natural part of the universe, supernatural. I quite agree with you that science has a distinguished history of turning what's commonly regarded as supernatural into the natural mostly through extending our powers of observation with increasingly sophisticated instrumentation.DaveScot
February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
DaveScot, to posit genetic manipulation by "nonphysical" agents does not necessarily require the "supernatural". There is every reason to think that the current laws of physics are profoundly incomplete and will eventually be superceded as they have been several times before. Most of the skeptical arguments against the existence of psi are based on the assumption that current scientific theories are complete, and that they conflict with the existence of the "paranormal". But this is based on 19th century Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics has replaced this as the most exact and "battle tested" basic theory, and nothing in it forbids psi phenomena. The phenomena of parapsychology are strong evidence that at least human minds are able to regularly transcend the physical brain and at least apparently act as mobile centers of consciousness. Quantum theories of conscioiusness are some of the most advanced today and posit an immaterial conscious mind biasing the collapse of state vectors of quantum phenomena in the brain in order to manipulate brain activity (firing of synaptic junctions). Such mind-matter interaction doesn't violate the current laws of physics and therefore isn't "supernatural", i.e. it isn't miraculous. The action of some other conscious immaterial mind on matter (DNA) would therefore also not be supernatural or miraculous.magnan
February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
Oh dear, obviously all 's are banned.Bob O'H
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan - it may only be the capital '' that's banned.Bob O'H
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I think the response was to this passage in the definition:
certain features of . . . living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
It doesn't say "certain features of some living things," it says "living things," i.e., life -- presumably all life, including intelligent life. So if intelligence precedes "living things," then intelligence precedes "intelligent living agency." I can't see how intelligence is not reuired for life or how this interpretation (while perhaps uestionable) reuires a banning. (Sorry about the spelling. I'm trying to write without the banned letter.)larrynormanfan
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Q applying the claim that intelligent agency must precede intelligent living agency Nowhere in the definition does it say this. No more warnings. Adios.DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
DaveScot You’ve clearly tried to force the definition of ID into a box where the only exit is an inference to an unobserved supernatural intelligent agency. No, I'm not forcing a box. The scientific method is a limited tool, and that very tool exists within its own "box". And, I've not used "supernatural." That is a mischaracterization of my message. Everyone in this discussion, it seems, agrees that science can address that which can be observed. At some point in investigating the designer of intelligent life in the universe, and applying the claim that intelligent agency must precede intelligent living agency, an infinite regress question arises that is fundamentally outside of science to answer. That is OK, because we simply hit a boundary of the application of the science of ID. But, those boundaries do exist, the claim that intelligence can't arise from chance or regularity leads to one of those boundaries. Such as, it leads to the conclusion that intelligent living agents can only arise from intelligent agents. Or, could you show me that ID does posit that living intelligence can arise without intelligent design? I'll contemplate your question about the physical laws. I'm not yet sure whether any physical laws would need to be violated. Phinehas, 82,Does the DI really have to spell out that these “certain features” are within the set of that which has been observed? Are you so ill informed about ID that you still do not realize that these certain features include FSCI and IC? Disregarding the query about how broad my investigations into ID have been, I'll point out that the Discovery Institute's claim deals with explanations, and not solely about observations. Some explanations can be provided pending future observations, for instance. Until invalidated through observation (and quite possibly never), that claim is still integral to ID. For instance, doesn't ID explain that that intelligency can't arise from chance and regularity - at all? Isn't it considered a separate form of agency? That is the key part to the inference I'm providing in which the intelligent agent which designed intelligent life was before the life, so that intelligent agent was not alive.Q
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Q It occurs to me that you probably didn't read the definition of ID on the sidebar under "Friends of ID" titled Definition of Intelligent Design Must Read It is an expanded version of what you quoted from the Discovery Institute. I can understand how you might have missed it. If this doesn't make clear the claims of ID to you then nothing will.DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Q quoted the DI: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (my emphasis this time) Does the DI really have to spell out that these "certain features" are within the set of that which has been observed? Are you so ill informed about ID that you still do not realize that these certain features include FSCI and IC? So how can you claim that ID speaks to the origin of speculative entities about which we have no information regarding FSCI or IC? Spelling it out as simply as I can: ID infers design where it observes FSCI or IC. Once again, I realize that your strawman doesn't fit nicely into this picture, but there you have it.Phinehas
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Q You've clearly tried to force the definition of ID into a box where the only exit is an inference to an unobserved supernatural intelligent agency. Stop. We've seen the attempt many times before. It won't work. Perhaps you'd care to take up my standard challenge to religionist ID proponents. Please describe what physical laws of nature a designer would have to violate in order to create the machinery found in living cells such as ribosomes and flagella. No one has made a convincing argument to me that any spooky supernatural acts or entities are necessary. I'm sure the Venter Institute would be interested in a convincing argument so that they can halt their attempt at creating a truly artificial cell before the point where such an endeavour becomes futile. DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
DaveScot, 74, You added “not of earth” and “not of living things on earth”. You just couldn’t resist adding your own paraphrase to make it into the supernatural strawman you can then discredit as being outside the scope of science. I specifically wasn't adding anything to the claim at the Discovery Institute. On the contrary, I was illustrating what isn't in the claim by the DI. Their claim is not limited to being terrestrial, so I misunderstand why you, or Phinehas, would insist that the concept of that claim is limited to earth. I do agree that observationally, we have only observed life on earth. But, the claim I quoted, and was using as the basis for my posts earlier, is a universal claim that is being applied to explain life on earth. However, I am absolutely not trying to discredit anything - unless one is abusing the differences between science and philosophy. Some aspects of a philosophy truly are beyond science - that is not a discredit, but is a recognition of the limitations of science. Also, I am familiar with the differences in scope between the cosmological and biological aspects of ID. I appreciate that you point it out as an aid to keep the discussion focussed. My discussion has been wholly about the biological claims made by ID - or at least by various advocates of ID, such as by the Discovery Institute.Q
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Phinehas: "As far as I can tell, ID would not contradict this." Q: "I’m reading that you are arguing that ID is terrestrial-based." Then you are reading what you want to read. I am arguing that ID is observation-based. You know this is what I am arguing the same as you know that ID is based on observation. You obviously know this because you have stated so yourself. Q: “ID posits is that some form of intelligent agents must precede the design of observable and living intelligent entities.” But you find it easier to attack a strawman. To create your strawman, you manufacture the dichotomy between "of the universe" and "of the earth." This is a distinction of your own making. My distinction is simply this: whether Cosmological or Biological, whether of the universe or of earth, ID is dependent upon observation. As such, it is a scientific endeavor. You clearly do not want to hear this message, however, since your argument requires ID to speculate about an unobserved designer so that you can then call ID unscientific. But ID does not so speculate, so the more you persist in forcing it into that mold, the more you show yourself to be disingenuous.Phinehas
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
StephenB,69 It all goes back to your unwillingness to accept the fact that all events are a result of law, chance or agency. -----Q writes, "I’m sorry that is how my comments are interpreted. I’ve even made the same basic statement you did - see 68 for instance." Since you write well enough to express yourself with reasonable precision, I have to assume thar, in this case, you are purposefully being evasive. So, once again, I am reduced to asking for an answer that may be expressed only as "yes," "no," or "I don't know." I do not intend to pounce on the answer; I am simply asking for a clarification. Are all events caused either by law, chance, or intelligent agency?StephenB
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan I've said over and over again that the complex machinery found in living cells requires no more than intelligent agency with material expertise in biochemistry. If Professor Dembski has argued otherwise I'm not aware of it and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't agree even if he did but I'd have to see the argument first. ID hypotheses, like chance & necessity hypotheses of origins and evolution, are not monolithic. What unites the so-called Darwinists is a belief that chance & necessity are an adequate mechanism for the origin and diversification of organic life. What unites ID proponents is a belief that chance & necessity is an inadequate explanation for all facets of organic evolution and that intelligent agency in some form is also required. Admittedly most ID propenents have a personal belief that the designer is the God of Abraham. Some of us do not. I'm an agnostic when it comes to religion. It needs to be stressed that belief in any particular designers, while they may be buttressed by ID, are not part of ID. DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Q 68 "There is no explcit requirement that intelligence be a property of only life. As the page mentions, it can be of machines, it could also be a property of deities" It appears that by "life" you are referring to biological life. in DLH 66 I was thinking of "life" as all intelligent beings in contrast to the inanimate four forces of nature. Good point on needing to clarify our statements to communicate. The issue regarding examining biochemical systems on earth for intelligent causation is because that is the only data we have. Astronomy can provide data on the universe, but we have no evidence of DNA elsewhere, nor of alien signals, (though there has been alot of speculation on both of those.) larrynormanfan 75 The difference between cosmological and biological is in the data available and the consequent assumptions needed, and inferences to the capabilities of an intelligent designer.DLH
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I have a hard time distinguishing between biological and cosmological ID, especially when those who make the main biological ID arguments (such as Dr. Dembski) also make cosmological ID arguments (regarding, for example, the ultimate origin of CSI as such). If the people within ID keep blurring the distinctions, how are those of us peering in from outside supposed to understand when supernaturalism is allowed and when it is not (or if not, when it is not inferred)? Q didn't muddy the waters; they were muddy already.larrynormanfan
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Q You added "not of earth" and "not of living things on earth". You just couldn't resist adding your own paraphrase to make it into the supernatural strawman you can then discredit as being outside the scope of science. There are two distinct areas of ID called Cosmological ID and Biological ID. While you may reasonably infer that a designer capable of creating an entire universe and the finely tuned physical laws that govern it (Cosmological ID) is supernatural (outside of the material universe) you may not reasonably infer that the same thing holds true for Biological ID where any hypothetical designer needs no more than material expertise in biochemistry (means and opportunity). The designer in the biological ID context may in fact be some evolved, material intelligence that isn't based on carbon chemistry. We simply don't have any facts to work with in determining the nature of any hypothetical designer. Material explanations via evolved intelligent agency remain on the table for the design of organic life on our planet. It doesn't even necessarily have to be of another world. Perhaps intelligent agency is manifest in quantum computing networks that can self-organize under the right circumstances. All we claim is that is demonstrable in Biological ID is that self-organization of life via carbon chemistry is unreasonably improbable given the scope of its resources (means and opportunity) on this planet and we know of nothing else that can manipulate matter into complex machinery except for intelligent agents. This is your final warning. Heed it.DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
DaveScot, 71, ID makes no claims about a designer’s means, motive, or opportunity beyond the fact that means and opportunity must have been available in some way. Means, Motive, or Opportunity of the designer are beyond anything I've been discussing. Those are not the bases of the points I'm discussing. What is inherent in ID is a sequence of operations - intelligent agency exists before complex life exists. Intelligent life is one such form of complex life. Thus, as per the tenets of ID, the intelligent agency that designed the original complex intelligent life preceded the original complex intelligent life. That is is not a strawman, and it is not about the techniques, tools, or opportunity of the agent. It is strictly about the tenets of ID. DaveScot, I mean no disrespect. As I've mentioned, this is an important subject to me because of my background as a high-school science instructor. ----- StephenB,69 It all goes back to your unwillingness to accept the fact that all events are a result of law, chance or agency. I'm sorry that is how my comments are interpreted. I've even made the same basic statement you did - see 68 for instance. ------ Phinehas, 72, As far as I can tell, ID would not contradict this. I'm reading that you are arguing that ID is terrestrial-based. That seems to be an inconsistent narrowing of the tenets of ID. As a quick reference see the quoted section of the Discovery Institute's description: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.(emphasis added) That is, not "of earth" and not of "living things on earth." http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesignQ
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Q: "Otherwise, the argument would eventually become “if intelligent life elsewhere can begin through chance and regularity, it could have created us..." Yes. As far as I can tell, ID would not contradict this. Given the speculative nature of the statement, how could it? Philosophically, I would argue that speculating about some intelligent agent somewhere in the universe arising through some unimagined process involving only chance and neccessity isn't very different to believing in God. Clearly, such speculation cannot be said to be scientific. Q: "...or it could be us..." No. It couldn't be "us" because we have functionally specified complex information written all over us, and chance and neccessity do not have the probabilistic resources to randomly happen upon us. FSCI requires design. "...so we quite possibly could have been the indirect or direct result of chance and regularity." Indirect? Quite speculatively, yes. Direct? No. Q: "That is mutually exclusive to ID, as far as I can tell." If you would stop telling so far and try listening, you would see that it is not mutually exclusive. But I've no doubt that telling serves your purposes better.Phinehas
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Q: "ID posits is that some form of intelligent agents must precede the design of observable and living intelligent entities." Yes! You clearly understand here that ID only addresses the design of *observable* and living intelligent entities, so I can only assume that your waffling in other posts is self-serving. The origin of speculative life (or even speculative non-life that is speculatively intelligent) clearly falls outside of the "observable" qualification. ID does not try to address the design of these speculative entities because ID is science. Philosophy and theology have purview once you get to the design of un-observable, speculative entities. But where we can observe living things, and where we can see functionally specified complex information, ID tells us that these things are designed.Phinehas
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Q ID makes no claims about a designer's means, motive, or opportunity beyond the fact that means and opportunity must have been available in some way. If you make one more strawman regarding the claims of ID it'll be your last comment here. I'm putting you on moderation in the meantime.DaveScot
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Q You have yet to address what I consider to be the main issur. At the risk of being redundant, I will revisit it: You attribute to ID all kinds of assumptions that it does not make and ignore the one assumption that it does make. It all goes back to your unwillingness to accept the fact that all events are a result of law, chance or agency. Since you don’t accept that one point, nothing else works for you. Most of your objections, it seems to me, are derivatives of that one objection. In effect, you are questioning a self-evident principle and holding ID accountable for the intellectual chaos that follows.StephenB
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Phinehas, 65, It seems to me that the hang-up here involves your claim that ID addresses the “origin of all life” or “of the original life” in the universe. Not a hangup, but a valid question. ID does address the origin of life, including of intelligent life. Dr. Dembski's explanatory filter is one tool to address such origins. Phinehas: But I think you are the only one trying to do this and it seems to me that you are forcing ID into a mold of your own making to support your other claims. I don't think so. Identifying the origin of life is one of the pursuits of science, and ID includes claims about what it can contribute to this investigation. Specifically, ID has the specific notion that an intelligent agency was responsible for the design of that intelligent life. Phinehas ID can only address the origin of the life in front of us, not the origin of all life or the original life in the universe. I am unaware that ID contains such limitations. It quite clearly contains the tenet that at least intelligent life is too complex to have arisen through random or regular events. (Otherwise, the argument would eventually become "if intelligent life elsewhere can begin through chance and regularity, it could have created us or it could be us, so we quite possibly could have been the indirect or direct result of chance and regularity." That is mutually exclusive to ID, as far as I can tell.) DLH, 66, To say of the intelligent Designer of the Universe “It was not alive” seems to be an oxymoron. Double-check the ID assumptions you referenced. There is no explcit requirement that intelligence be a property of only life. As the page mentions, it can be of machines, it could also be a property of deities, and possibly of other things I am too limited to imagine :-) . As far as I can see, (if my wording is correct) according to ID intelligence is one of the three agents of cause - random, regularity, and intelligence. ID posits is that some form of intelligent agents must precede the design of observable and living intelligent entities. If intelligence were limited to only living agents, as you are suggesting, then the logic would dictate the intelligent agents must have been alive since the origin of the universe. It may be true, and it may not, but that isn't a requisite element of ID, is it? Just above, my reply to Phinehas shows a logical contradiction if the intelligent agent that designed the first intelligent life were likewise alive.Q
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
Hi Vance: Re no 1: The problem lies in that too many Christians seem to be viewing science as “the search for truth” wherever it may lie Perhaps you should look here at an introductory level examination of the many subtleties and vfexed questions that lie under the debate you are alluding to. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Q See: ID Assumptions To say of the intelligent Designer of the Universe "It was not alive" seems to be an oxymoron.DLH
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
Q: "Those type of comments suggest that ID’s claims about the origin of life can be investigated without including the non-material. That is contractictory to the tenets of ID, once the origin of all life is added to the discussion, because ID explicitely claims that life was too complex to have originated without an intelligent agent to design it, and ID posits that it must have happened before any material intelligence existed." Q: "OK, so whether axiomatic, or conclusionary, ID does make at least the following claims about the designer of the original life of the universe." It seems to me that the hang-up here involves your claim that ID addresses the "origin of all life" or "of the original life" in the universe. I don't believe ID attempts to address this. ID only has the observed life on this planet to work with, and as others have pointed out, does not assume that the life on this planet is "the original life." We know that life on this planet has functional specified complexity and demonstrates irreducible complexity. We have observed what natural processes are capable of in this environment and working with the components of life as we know it. This is all a scientific endeavor. In order to move from this to your "original life in the universe," I would agree with you that one must leave science for philosophy, theology, or pure speculation. But I think you are the only one trying to do this and it seems to me that you are forcing ID into a mold of your own making to support your other claims. If other "natural" agents created life on this planet, ID as a science would need to examine them to see whether they also showed signs of functional specified complexity or irreducible complexity before making any sort of determination about their origin. ID can only address the origin of the life in front of us, not the origin of all life or the original life in the universe.Phinehas
February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply