You Should Know the Basics of a Theory Before You Attack It

_{Barry Arrington

November 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

The commenter who goes by the name Carpathian has been posting on this site for a long time. Yet today he writes:

Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive . . .

*Sigh* Carpathian, why does it seem to satisfy you so much to erect a distorted caricature of the ID position and knock it down? If you are so certain you are correct and that ID is wrong, why don’t you attack what ID actually posits?

I believe the Darwinian account of origins is wrong. But what have I accomplished if I spout off some nonsense that Darwinism does not actually posit, refute it, and then say, “thus I have proven Darwinism wrong”?

The answer, of course, is “nothing.” Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.

Now, here’s your task: Tell me why your statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position. This issue has been covered numerous times here at UD. Anyone who purports to have even a basic understanding of ID would know why it is wrong.

Therefore, if you cannot tell me why it is wrong, that means you do not have a basic understanding of ID.

To those who would be tempted to help Carp out, please do not. Let him work it out for himself.

Comments

Yes, Carpathian has an entire suitcase full of excuses. Not only have I completed a certificate program in Ruby programming, I have likewise completed certificate courses in Java and C programming. I'm not a professional developer, but neither am I any sort of novice. As for communications, I've been in the field for decades. So Carpathians dismissive attitude is a means of self-preservation, but that's all it's good for. It says nothing about me or my capabilities. Meanwhile, we still haven't seen his source code.Mung_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

DK, On what Darwinism in a nutshell is, I suggest that instead of trying to rhetorically pile on on Mung, you look at 37 above: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/you-should-know-the-basics-of-a-theory-before-you-attack-it/#comment-587025 Similarly, as a first look at what ID is about, here may be of help, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/btb-3-what-is-intelligent-design-id-is-it-scientific/ . . . and of course you full well know that here is a discussion in the Resources tab top of this and every UD page, including definition of ID and weak argument correctives, with glossary. KFkairosfocus_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, First I hereby inform you that Mung is in fact one of my go to people on modern computer programming, I am of the machine code, assembly language and line number Basic era; a hardy boy who used to read machine code. He particularly loves Ruby, and for good reason. Whatever I may have said on the ISO OSI layercake comm sys archi that you think disqualifies Mung, cannot do that. Perhaps, you have forgotten that higher level language programming is designed to insert abstract layers that shield the programmer from the messiness of the register transfer level, my native land? (As in, THE ARCHI OF A COMPUTER IS THE ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE, REGISTER TRANSFER OPS VIEW OF THE MACHINE.) From context it seems to me you are seeking a rhetorical shot to make it seem reasonable to your ilk as to why you refuse to allow open inspection of code you have created and seem to claim does what is mathematically utterly implausible, find islands of function in beyond astronomically large config spaces. Flimsy excuse duly noted. KFkairosfocus_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Mung:
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. Do you post at TSZ?
What?? Incoherence and irrelevance seem to be strong suits with you, features of the bluffing and bluster act. I was responding to your #13, where you said:
Can we help Carpathian out now, with why his comment is not an accurate statement of the ID position?
So, show your hand and help Carpathian out, if you can.Daniel King_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Mung, kairosfocus wouldn't have to correct you if you had enough experience in software. You didn't understand my concept and you didn't understand layered communications which KF had to point out to you.Carpathian_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

DK, do you seriously expect us to believe something as close to hand as a Wiki article is not understood as to fundamental claims from Darwin forward? In effect:
chance, non-foresighted, blind watchmaker variation [someone once posted 47 engines of variation, and this includes neutral drifting etc] [= CV] + differential reproductive success of varieties in environments [= DRS, aka "natural selection"] + other filtering out of variations [= OF] --> extinction of less successful varieties [= XLSV] --> incremental descent with modification [= IDWM] --> similarly incremental branching tree evolution [= BTE] --> tree of life pattern of life forms [= TOL]
Or, CV + DRS + OF --> XLSV --> IDWM --> BTE --> TOL So summed up it is soon evident that the vaunted natural selection is in fact only an after the fact description of the LOSS of varieties and associated information. It is therefore not a SOURCE of information, it is a lossy filter. The only actually posited source is chance variation, which is simply not up to the job of accounting for the FSCO/I required to give dozens of main body plans requiring 10 - 100+ mn bits of information here on earth in a window of 600 MY or less. In the case of humans vs chimps, on the 98% similarity claim, one needs to account for 60 mn bases or 120 mn bits of crucially diverse information in 6 - 10 mn years with pop bases probably of order 10,000 and generation times 5 - 20 years. Worse, this does not address the FSCO/I in the root of the tree, in which context existing reproduction is not to be assumed. Indeed, the von Neumann kinematic self replicator coded info using complex system has to be accounted for. VC is right to highlight that an actual, empirically warranted comprehensive macro level theory of body plan origin by evolution that -- without imposition of ideological a priori evolutionary materialism -- is testable and tested, does not exist. Johnson's remark is apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
It is time for a serious re-think. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits.
Why not go on record and tell us? Better yet, tell us and Larry Moran?Daniel King_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre, "I can understand you don’t want to discuss the nature of the intelligent designer." Some of us think that discussing the nature of the intelligent designer is appropriate. I recognize that the data clearly establishes a few things: 1 - The universe has a beginning. Scientists suggest that time itself has a beginning. 2 - More importantly, the universe had a single beginning. Therefore it was the product of a single causal moment. If "god", then "god" singular, or multiple gods working in concert, provided that single moment. This is a logical necessity that speaks to the nature of the "intelligent designer" 3 - The designer must, according to the data, be outside or beyond our universe, or it/he/she could not have been the cause of our universe. If the scientific consensus that time itself came into existence is true, then the designer must also be outside of time. 4 - The earth, and life, is really old. 5 - All of life has a single common design. The scientific community makes a strong case that all of life descended from a single common ancestor. This commonality suggests, UCA requires, that it had a single cause, therefore a single causal agent. If that agent is god, then a single god or multiple gods acting in concert. Again this is a necessary conclusion from the data. All of this is highly compatible with the Christian God, though it is by no means proof of such. But 6 - From the beginning life has encompassed death. The theology that death entered into the world when Adam and Eve sinned is a very uncomfortable fit with the data. 7 - Evidence is strong that man has been around for millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of years. (Hard to say when we crossed over into "human", as we have a hard time defining the term.) There is very good evidence that man became so via common descent -- that there never was a literal Adam and Eve. This creates all manner of consternation amongst Christian theologians. So we get to your point 4 ... 4: Our understanding of the nature of the Christian God is a misunderstanding. Our method of interpreting scripture is in error. The Christian God is, but he is quite a bit different than the theologians have concluded. We note that when Christ came, he declared that the Hebrew theologians had all manner of interpretation errors -- so why not us? The "we can't possibly gather info about the designer" meme is stupid. It is part of the idiotic ideology that science cannot possibly explore the g word. I say, let the data speak. Let us follow the data wherever it leads.bFast_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Mung, revealing. KFkairosfocus_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
PS: Source code on what?
Carpathian was making claims about genetic algorithms that i was critical of. In order to prop up his argument he wrote a software program and then asserted that it supported his claims. But he then refused to make the code available for inspection.Mung_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Seq, God as conceived is uncreated, eternal and necessary. A created god will not be the God of the historic Christian faith. The design inference is as to markers of originating causal process, which is the limit of science. Other circumstances and considerations may show us other things, but they are beyond the limits of scientific induction. For instance, it can be seen that there is a necessary being root of reality, and it can be seen that our being under moral government is also highly indicative. But those are general worldview issues, not scientific ones. The design inference recognises the due limits of lines and modes of inquiry. KFkairosfocus_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

is there a genuine process of design and implementation like we are familiar with from our human experience?
Yes, there is a genuine mechanism for implementing design. It's called representation.Upright BiPed_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

If the Intelligent Designer is not the Christian God we are left with a couple of possibilities regarding the Christian God: 1. The Intelligent Designer created the Christian God 2. The Christian God already co-existed with the Intelligent Designer but has no input in the creation proces whatsoever. 3. The Christian God does not exist at all. 4. ... I can understand you don't want to discuss the nature of the intelligent designerSeqenenre_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Science does not care if the Intelligent Designer is God. Science only cares about reality, as in the reality behind the existence of what we are observing and studying. Yes, that means that anyone who says that if the designer if God then ID can't be science is proving that they are scientifically illiterate.Virgil Cain_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Cabal, first and foremost, ID is not about the designer or trying to identify it; the design inference is about whether and what are empirically reliable signs of design as cause. The leading proponents have stated that on record for over 30 years, and there is no good reason why that should not be understood by one and all. There is an attempt to suggest that there is a dichotomy natural vs supernatural cause and a pretence that this is what ID is about. In fact ever since Plato and as close as ingredients lists in your refrigerator, natural vs artificial is a well known alternative. The design inference is about whether, on credible, reliable empirical signs, we can infer that design is a relevant causal factor for some entity etc. Where, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information is a key case4 in point, one with a trillion member observation base. Consistently it is by design, and that reflects the commonplace that the right parts, in the right orientation and arrangement, correctly coupled, are necessary for relevant function to emerge based on interaction. A bag of 6500 reel parts can work as a paperweight but that is not configuration sensitive. The parts have to be properly organised per a wiring diagram (as Wicken pointed out in 1979) for function to emerge as a famous fishing reel. The same, for the text of your comment vs gibberish serving as filler. So, the design inference is to intelligently directed configuration as relevant cause on observing signs such as FSCO/I, not to who may have been the particular designer or what ontological status that designer may or may not have. That is what scientific investigation can bear and it is very important as for over 100 years, a theory has been established that spectacularly violates the vera causa principle that when we seek to explain unobservable reaches of time or space on traces, causal explanations should be demonstrated per observation to be in fact adequate to the effect. Indeed, there have been attempts to represent that theory as "fact," as in only fools dispute facts. That is ideological manipulation, not science and certainly not ethically sound science education. There are wider worldview level discussions as to who might have designed life and a cosmos fine tuned for it, but that is obviously in a wider province of discussion and reasoning. What may be happening here is that many have swallowed the line that science delimits credible knowledge; is does not, and in fact the claim that it does is itself a philosophical assertion, which is therefore self refuting. Again, the design inference is as to the empirically credible causal process, per nature [= blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs intelligently directed configuration. I am amazed that you as a long term objector to design theory in and around UD still "need" this to be clarified. Indeed,t his suggests that there may be a problem with a fixed, ideologically induced notion that design theory is stealth creationism. That is false and even mischievous on the part of the major leaders who have spread the notion. I suggest you need to take a moment, scroll up and read through the weak argument correctives accessible through the resources tab. Those who want to play at motive mongering games should realise that they too have motives, and that the warrant for a case does not depend on motives but on facts and relevant reasoning. The design inference stands on a trillion member observational base and linked needle in haystack search challenge. To overturn it, simply provide reliable evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity apart from intelligently directed configuration can and do create FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. Absent that, design passes the vera causa test and blind chance and mechanical necessity do not. With quite significant implications for theories on the origin and diversity of the world of life. KF PS: As to howtwerdun, I suggest, look at what Venter et al have done, the rise of GMO's, and extrapolate several generations of technology. Petty level intelligent design of life forms is already a reality and Moore's law and tech progress are still realities. Nanotech is emerging. (Unfortunately, I fear we may see this stuff used for devastating war.)kairosfocus_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

There are a couple of things about ID that I am having problems with: Is te identity, the nature of the designer known, presumed or otherwise, has any clear explanation been given? There was a time when that seemed to be some sort of secret, but judging by the many posters both here and elsewhere who makes it clear that they believe the Christian God is the designer himself, is that also the official position of the DI, and of this blog? The 'couple of things' boils down to none if the answer to the above is 'yes'. Although I am tempted to wonder: Is it done by magic, or is there a genuine process of design and implementation like we are familiar with from our human experience?Cabal_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Mung, I guess I missed those exchanges; but trollish behaviour is why the BTB series is no comment. KF PS: Source code on what?kairosfocus_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Oops, mangled a sentence: In short I pointed out that the actual empirical evidence in hand does not allow us to translate an inference to design of cell based life on earth [into inferring] as to whether a designer of such life would be within or beyond the observed cosmos. KFkairosfocus_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Next, you make a typical materialist error, conflating life with biological life; and often, biological life on earth.
This error has been pointed out to Carpathian repeatedly. And yet he continues to repeat the claim. Which is why I now, without reservation, categorize Carpathian as a troll. Not that it matters to a troll. Another reason why Carpathian is a troll! A troll who refuses to publish for critical review his source code.Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Carpathian, Per clearing up the smoke of burning strawmen, I note that the matter to be explained i/l/o observation is biological life on earth. Encapsulated, smart-gated, metabolising automaton using code-based vNkSR cell based life. In the exchange you did not link, 342 in context, I wrote (but having a RW life had not got back to follow up yet, this is a wee hours pause to comment):
FSCO/I — a summary term for something identified by Orgel and Wicken in the 70’s . . . — is a strong sign of design as cause. So, if such a designer is empirically indicated per inference to best explanation and we are able to see that a designer of life needs very good computation simulation or the equivalent powers indeed and one for the cosmos needs in addition sheer raw power in scads to implement a cosmos, then it seems that we have in hand a pivotal observational base indeed. Just the FSCO/I in those contexts allows us to reasonably infer to design and requisites of design point to significant powers. BTW, on life, I’d suggest that several generations of Moore’s law scaling point to pretty awesome computing power so I remain at the point, molecular nanotech lab is all that is required.
In short I pointed out that the actual empirical evidence in hand does not allow us to translate an inference to design of cell based life on earth does not in itself suffice to infer as to whether a designer of such life would be within or beyond the observed cosmos. Something that . . . had you been familiar with say the first actual technical work by Thaxton et al (TMLO) . . . you should know has been acknowledged by leading design thinkers for over 30 years. Your talking points have majored on distorting this into an argument to in effect be that inferring design on FSCO/I in cell based life is an inference to God as designer. Not so, kindly stop the caricaturing. Next, you make a typical materialist error, conflating life with biological life; and often, biological life on earth. This generates a perceived contradiction that is sometimes triumphalistically put up by the ill-informed. I suggest that you need to step up to the level of worldview thinking, and recognise that there are serious views out there that have a much broader understanding of life than biological life and biological life on earth. Views, that cannot be cavalierly dismissed by dressing up inherently self-refuting evolutionary materialist scientism in a lab coat. Going up to cosmological level, the evidence in hand points to multi-dimensional fine tuning of the observed cosmos in ways that fit it for C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. Where, we evidently sit on a locally deeply isolated operating point on physics and cosmological arrangements, making an inference to design a best explanation even in the face of multiverse speculations. Not least, as it is implausible to find ourselves in this sort of world on such, a Boltzmann Brain type world or similar would be far more reasonable to expect on such speculations. This level brings to the table the sort of point championed by leading astrophysicist (and lifelong agnostic), Sir Fred Hoyle, a generation ago:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
That, would be a far more useful context for your reflection, especially when the two halves are tied together with wider worldview issues such as the requisites of that responsible, rational intellectual freedom that are necessary to turn discussion into anything more than blind programming issuing glyphs representing -- oops, that is already loaded with issues necessitating responsible, rational freedom -- ultimately meaningless mouth noises. Especially when linked, underlying ontological, cosmological and moral issues are brought to the table in that light. Because, on pain of self-referential absurdity, we must be responsibly and rationally free to seriously discuss. (No this is not strictly self-evident to most of us today, we typically lack the understanding and background for that insight that absent such freedom, rationality itself collapses.) Finally, I suggest this as an in a nutshell summary (with onward info) on what ID actually is: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/btb-3-what-is-intelligent-design-id-is-it-scientific/ -- which was put up for reference only a few days past. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Daniel King:
Show us your hand, Bluffer.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Do you post at TSZ?Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry, My bad. You wrote critic and I saw cripple.Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Mung, he is not a cripple. He is, as you point out, a troll.Barry Arrington_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
It never ceases to astound me that critics like Carp spew literally hundreds of comments into our combox purporting to debunk ID only to fail when asked to articulate a basic ID idea.
I don't know what makes you think Carpathian is a cripple.Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

If God, If science cannot consider God, Then science is stupid. Period.bFast_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Caparthian,"and also cannot be God if ID is to be taken as science." Like, who says? I know that you are not the only one who spouts this nonsense. "That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process." ( thethirdwayofevolution.org ) But why? What grand law declares that science is incapable of considering the God question? And, if science is too inept to consider the God question, then how can science be held up with respect. If science is stupid, science should not be held in honor for being so.bFast_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Can we help Carpathian out now, with why his comment is not an accurate statement of the ID position? Or should we not feed the troll?
Show us your hand, Bluffer.Daniel King_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Carpathian
Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive and also cannot be God if ID is to be taken as science. I think this is a statement that ID should be comfortable with.
Why should ID be comfortable with the proposition that the designer of life cannot be alive or cannot be God? Defend your claim.StephenB_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

No I am pretty sure Carp is beyond help. There is ignorant and there is obstinantly ignorant. Sadly, Carp is the latter and as long as he remains so all efforts to help him will be a waste of time, as this very thread demonstrates. That said go ahead and give the answer for curious lurkers.Barry Arrington_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Can we help Carpathian out now, with why his comment is not an accurate statement of the ID position? Or should we not feed the troll?Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply