ID and Catholic theology
| April 2, 2008 | Posted by Lord Ickenham under Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science |
Father Michal Heller, 72, a Polish priest-cosmologist and a onetime associate of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, the future pope, was named March 12 as the winner of the Templeton Prize.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801398.htm
In this recent interview came a critique of the intelligent design position as bad theology, akin to the Manichean heresy. Fr. Heller puts forth this rather strange argument as follows:
“They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.”
Coming from a theologian, this is an astonishing summary of the Manichean heresy. Historically Manichæism is a form of dualism: that good and evil were equal and opposite forces, locked in an eternal struggle. In this distortion, the role of the all-powerful evil is replaced by chance? It is traditional Christian teaching that God forms (i.e. designs) creation. Does this make God the arch-rival of chanciness? It is difficult to see how the intelligent design perspective could possibly be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks in his Summa of God explicitly as the great designer of the creation:
“… the “Spirit of God” Scripture usually means the Holy Ghost, Who is said to “move over the waters,” not, indeed, in bodily shape, but as the craftsman’s will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form.”
The ID point of view is such a minimalist position it is amazing to see the charge of heresy– it simply does not have the philosophical meat necessary to begin to make this kind of theological accusation.
There are some points that Fr. Heller raises that are entirely consistent with an ID point of view:
“There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.” But “God is also the God of chance events,” he said. “From what our point of view is, chance — from God’s point of view, is … his structuring of the universe.”
In this quote, he is basically saying the there is no such thing as fundamental chance, only apparent chance. The apparent noise is really a beautiful tapestry viewed from the wrong side. Of course if there were discernable structure, then we could … well … discern it (this is the whole point of ID). The problem here is that Fr. Heller does not have a self-consistent position that one can argue or agree with, as his next quote shows:
“As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”
Now if I were picking from a list of random events to use as my illustration of chance acting in the world, childbirth would not be one of them. Does he mean the timing of birth, or the act of conception, or the forming of the child? If anything this is an extremely well-choreographed event that has very little to do with chanciness of any flavor. Here he seems to be going back, and saying that chance is real (not just apparent) – but God intends to have it that way. Once again, the ID position can also be reconciled with the existence of fundamental chance, but not fundamental chance as the only thing that exists in the universe.
In this interview, Fr. Heller does not seem to have a sophisticated view of how randomness can work together with intelligence, he also does not seem to have read any books by design advocates – the arguments he makes are directed to nonexistent opponents. For a physicist/theologian that is giving an interview upon the reception of his Templeton award, the only physics/theology that is offered is internally confused, and based on caricatures of the ID argument. My feeling is that if he actually read and considered the ID arguments we might find a kindred spirit.
258 Responses to ID and Catholic theology
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Eric:
Excellent again:
While of course it is logically possible that all of this originated by sheer lucky noise (as a 747 can be assembled, in principle, by a tornado passing through a junkyard . . .):
1] symbolic codes expressed in chemical monomer letters,
2] algorithms to implement same codes,
3] physical molecular nanomachines in proximity and arrangeement to implement said algors and meaningful codes . . .
this is counter to our experience and observation, and requires resort to quasi-infinities of quasi-infinities of sub cosmi, each on the scale of our observed cosmos.
The epicycles and deferents are multiplying without limit — a sure sign of runaway ad-hocery.
GEM of TKI
Karios, I keep losing my place with you so here’s more:
Karios @223
You have not shown that these “chance based features” are in fact random. Nor have you shown that chance is inapplicable even in “designed contexts”.
It may also be made of fine wire and cheese. You just don’t get it do you? Sure, science can never say 100% “this is the way it is”, it’s always a balance of probabilities. You have not shown that the balance has tipped in your favour. You have no definitive proof that the cosmos is designed and so are reduced to “may” yet then continue on as if you’ve established your case beyond reasonable doubt.
I heard a story about a GA that was required to evolve a timer mechanism. It was provided with a mechanism to place components on a board. Rather then evolve a timer from the parts available to it it evolved a radio reciever. Which picked up signals from a nearby computer as computers have timers in them to synchronise everything up, don’t ya know?. Seems to me that fits the bill for “insight and imagination to creatively configure elements” no?
What is this obsession with chance-based searches? Karios, do you really think that it’s simply a choice between “intelligent design” and “random chance”? Everything I read from you on that subject leads me to think so.
Presumably you determined this partly by comparing the values of Complex Specified Informatinon for a rock and a Clovis point? What were the values you obtained for the CSI of each? Please don’t explain it further, or refer to your always linked, Just put the figure down (or whatever form it takes) for each please.
Karios @234
what on earth is “pre-reading”?
Karios, how would you like it if I criticised the contents of a book, for example the Bible, and then it tured out that in fact I’ve never read it? How would that strike you?
please. Onlookers, please note the habit of using the “always linked” as a cover all for any point at all claimed without further substantiation.
Sigh. Please. If you’d read the book you would realise that it was not supposed to be a “realistic model” of anything, let alone “the genome” (presumably human).
As you know all the factors affecting “bio-functionality” in the Cambrian I can but acquiesce to your knowledge, oh time-lord.
Both parts of that sentence cannot be true. If it was used rhetorically how could it have been, in your words an attempt at a realistic simulation?
Not only that, but as he did not simulate the interactions of all the atoms and electrons that also cut down the search space unrealistically. As he also purposeful target and substituted artificial for natural selection (what’s the difference by the way?) that would also have cut down the search space unrealistically. Hardly worth the bother spending any tmie looking at really , except as a toy example to teach people stuff.
I think the onlookers (some of them) will agree quote the opposite. It is you that has set this “toy example” up and destroyed it with thousands of words.
Continued in next comment.
Karios, continued
a –> In praxis — as opposed to how the general context is presented to the public [and the naive technical practitioner]
I don’t think the general public care as long as the stuff keeps coming out of the shops.
Yes, and as I noted you can also set up an analogue search/performace space using physical components and breadboards. One page from one book does not define the entirety of a subject.
And in any case the the text you quote contains “The genetic algorithm solves optimization problems by mimicking the principles of biological evolution”. Biological evolution eh? How about that.
I doubt the origin of life if achieved via non-intelligent design methods would either.
Randomness again KF? I know it's your trusty sheld but it's getting a bit thin. Did the previous planes to the 747 (the ones that evolved into it) also self-assemble in junkyards?
What, selection?
. What's your point? If you had a random target what would be the point?
So "maximise the gain on this antenna" is active information? Or the physical behaviour of the system in question is "active information" Of course I'm aware of Dr Dembski's work on this, no need to link...
I saw a child playing with a model plane. He said “look at my plane fly, my model plance”. I simply had to correct him, his “plane” was simply not a smaller version of the real thing, it was being depicted as something it was not. KF, are you active in the research of the origination of body-plans then?
You state the obvious in such eloquent ways. Congratulations. Again your comment with the monkeys indicates it’s “random v’s intelligent design” here yet again. Yet you were quoting things about selection earlier.
There must be 100′s of GA’s out there. If “often” is true you will have no trouble giving me one, ten, two dozen examples of GA’s misrepresented as if they were models of evolution by chance variation and undirected, non-purposive natural selection.
And?
If it was a blind search it might as well just start at the beginning and end at the end. And in any case if your “selected, constrained target zone” is “physical reality” then does that not change anything for you?
Then give me an example of people putting out this “notion”
Again, it’s 100% random v’s 100% intelligent design. strawman? I think so.
RichardFry
False interpretation. Note that “that makes sense in English” incorporates grammar or “law”.
That is the problem with evolutionary searches.
On “Is anyone using this” please do your homework first. e.g. see Differential Evolution
DLH
Sorry, not clear to me what you refer to here. I’m not interpreting anything here. I’m pointing out that Kariosfocus’ intrepretation is 100% random 100% of the time.
That it’s not a blind search? Sorry, again here it’s opaque to me.
Once more, not clear what you are getting at here. I’m not claiming that GA’s are not used right now in industry. They are, of course. KF seems to be saying they are unable to solve a class of problem,a class the deatils of which he so far has not made clear to me except to claim that the use of pre specified information in setting the target somehow invalidates something.
DLH,
On “Is anyone using this” please do your homework first. e.g. see Differential Evolution
Why that? Please don’t dump a source on us without saying what to get from it.
I’m going to do my best to say how my dad explained this to me. Reproduction increases information. You have to write more to describe all the critters after reproduction than before. The “laws of nature” (and some chance) decide which offspring reproduce. Not all reproduce, so there may be a decrease in information here. But what remains may say more about what works in nature than the information in the original parents.
In evolutionary computation the researcher makes up his own “laws of nature.” He sets the standards of success, but he doesn’t say how to succeed. The information on HOW comes from reproduction. And reproduction doesn’t “know” anything about the standards.
If you believe that artificial “laws of nature” direct artificial evolution, then why can’t THE laws of nature direct natural evolution?
Actually, simple reproduction itself doesn’t do much to increase information. See the discussion above in post 184 about “Let’s go to your string “THIS TEXT STRING” repeated a million times.
In a way, yes the programmer does say how. Each program must be written in such a way that every candidate solution must be able to be understood and evaluated by the associated fitness function. Thus, it is necessary that all production of candidate solutions is constrained so that it always produces only those kinds of solutions that the fitness function can understand and evaluate. Otherwise, the program would crash or give faulty results.
So the programmer must define the solution space of possible candidates. This is typically too large to have even a computer consider every one in turn, but it is constrained in its nature. There is no opportunity for true novelty outside the predefined solution space of possible candidates.
What the programmer doesn’t know is exactly which possible candidates will be evaluated and of these which will score the best given the predefined fitness function.
This makes this type of algorithm potentially very useful for searching a large solution space of possibilities. However, it never gives a solution other than one of those within the predefined constraints of the model. The computer is searching within a large box in a deterministic way, not being inspirationally creative in the way we would think of creativity, as in thinking outside the box. It is up to the programmer to creatively define the box they want the software to search.
Even those who doubt that neo-Darwinian processes can account for as much as is claimed for them do not claim that undirected processes are free of the laws of nature. So I don’t think anyone is saying that natural evolution is not being influenced by the laws of nature.
The question is more subtle. How far can that sort of process go in taking an existing creature and changing it into something quite different? Are there never any limits at all to change? If there are limits or constraints, what are they? What is the edge of evolution?
To say that the laws of nature are in the game does not automatically mean that those laws are encouraging change. It could also mean that they sometimes inhibit or prevent change. (Indeed most of the time, the fossil record shows stasis for species — they stay the same for long periods of time until they become extinct.)
Within both computer algorithms and in biological change, there is also the issue of being trapped in a local optimal region (sometimes called a local maxima or a local minima). Other possible solutions may be separated by impassable regions that divide the possibilities into islands of variation.
Which of these effects the laws might have and when they do it is a question for research. Saying the laws participate doesn’t by itself inform about the effect of that participation.
You are asking good questions and thinking about these issues. I would recommend that you read Dr. Michael Behe’s recent book The Edge of Evolution. In it he looks at both the abilities and the limitations of these processes, based on the best available empirical evidence.
RichardFry (248): “I heard a story about a GA that was required to evolve a timer mechanism. It was provided with a mechanism to place components on a board. Rather then evolve a timer from the parts available to it it evolved a radio reciever. Which picked up signals from a nearby computer as computers have timers in them to synchronise everything up, don’t ya know?. Seems to me that fits the bill for “insight and imagination to creatively configure elements” no?”
In short, no. (But let me tell you a story sometime about a fish I caught…
Sorry to rain on that story you have heard, but I will assure you that it was not as creative as the story makes it sound.
You can safely count on the fact that the program did exactly what it was told to do. Whether people noticed that the outcome could be used in other ways might reflect on the observation of those people or some lucky accident. But I assure you that the program itself did not think “Hey, while I was working on this, I got an idea. What about this instead?”
Evolutionary / genetic algorithms provide a way to search a large set of possible candidate solutions predefined by the programmer’s model. They cannot innovate outside the defined box they are told to search. Think for a moment about the fact that everything they do is evaluated by the defined fitness function.
Please see my response to austin_english at 256 and please review my post at 232 in regard to this point.
Also, did you find either 245 or 246 helpful?
Participants [and onlookers]:
First of all, kindly cf 242 above and of course, the original post, to see the effect of one tangential distractor after another on a serious matter in the main.
So, I ask: is anyone out there serious about discussing the matter in the main? In absence of such, we can now conclude that those who play rhetorical games — as will be documented yet again below — with distractors and misrepresentations thereby reveal their utter want of a serious case on the merits.
We can further take it as a given that if the argument in the main [that, contra Heller, design is evident in the cosmos and in cell based life and that it is not Manichean heresy to see that] were easily overturned, it would have been, so RF’s resort to one red herring after another; leading out to one strawman after another (then duly pummelled – at least, not soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion), is indicative of the balance of the case on the merits of fact and logic. And, not to his advantage.
Having noted that general point, we need to address the usual cluster of tangential red herrings, yet again, so that certain points may be made clear:
1] RF, 249: what on earth is “pre-reading”?Karios, how would you like it if I criticised the contents of a book, for example the Bible, and then it turned out that in fact I’ve never read it?
You will note that I gave a context: “READAK-trained pre-read.” This is a fast survey of a written work that takes in key features: themes/theses, topic sentences, conclusions, summaries, key illustrations and examples etc, to get an overview of its substance in a very few minutes. [Go look up READAK; they are still in business, and are worth far, far, far more than every cent that one of their courses costs. This is one deeply satisfied and grateful client.]
In short, on the tangential point, I in fact surveyed and sampled Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker in my old university bookshop when it came out, found it sadly wanting, and saved my money. It is therefore not part of the 100 or so shelf feet of books that surround me as I speak. [Those are the books that passed the pre-read test and were worth the investment, including e.g. TBO's TMLO as I discuss in the appendix 1 the always linked. Sears-Salinger's Thermodynamics came in as a textbook and has stayed on as an old friend.]
So, I hardly can be said to be in the position of dismissing what I have not read. I pre-read, found wanting, and moved on to what makes better substance. (and BW is hardly comparable in literary, historical or spiritual merit to the Bible, which notoriously many a skeptic critiques without taking time to so much as pre-read.]
2] Weasel, again:
On the more direct response, onlookers, kindly compare what is actually being discussed: Dawkins’ notorious WEASEL, which I took time in 227 to excerpt the actual discussion in BW, ch 3, from Wiki [i.e I have actually not only read but presented the matter in this thread]. Namely:
There, I addressed the deep challenges this notorious bit of rhetoric in the guise of popular education faces:
In short, a major red herring leading out to a strawman.
Worse, Eric B has repeatedly also addressed the Weasel example and the wider question of GA’s, only to meet the same tangential tendencies. I find it hard to believe that RF’s argument is serious, instead of a rhetorical game.
3] 248, You have not shown that these “chance based features” [ie. Stemming from the role dice play in Monopoly] are in fact random. Nor have you shown that chance is inapplicable even in “designed contexts”.
Now, first, RF takes the excuse that I have only pre-read BW to refuse to address the relevant contents of my always linked. Had he taken time, he would have seent hat in section A, I speak to the use of dice as in a game:
Now, a die has eight corners and twelve edges. In tumbling these features cause it to have sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Consequently, we see the physical basis for the commonplace observation that a reasonably fair die shows a pattern where each side turns up uppermost 1 in 6 throws, on an effectively random basis. Indeed, that is why such dice are commonly used, even as one of the three basic examples in any initial course in probability and statistics, with the fair coin and the deck of cards.
So, as long since noted by the undersigned, chance-based – even, effectively random — elements can be a part of a designed context, per very familiar example. Thus, that we can see similar chance-based elements in a designed cosmos should not be surprising either. And, I cited rocks vs spearheads, thermally linked phenomena and more to illustrate in the observed cosmos. In short, this is plainly objection for the sake of objection, not serious dialogue at this point.
Worse, there is an OUTRIGHT MISREPRESENTATION there too: I have NEVER set out to argue that “chance is inapplicable even in “designed contexts”.” Just the opposite, that designed contexts can embed chance elements, as illustrated by the game, Monopoly.
[ . . . ]
4] RF: Sure, science can never say 100% “this is the way it is”, it’s always a balance of probabilities. You have not shown that the balance has tipped in your favour.
Onlookers, I took time to show in the always linked that RF refuses to address, just why there is good reason to infer to design when we see fucntionallys pecified, complex information and more broadly fucntioanlly specific organised complexity. This, I pointed to in the case of observed information, DNA and the like, the body plan level diversity of the observed life forms here on earth, and the underlying, convergent, multidimensionally fine tuned physics of the cosmos. RF has never actually addressed on the merits what he seeks to dismiss.
At least, he is willing to accept that scientific findings are inherently provisional so the acceptance of any given theory is in the end a matter of trust in what cvannot be provfed and is subject to correction. That correction is precisely what the design inference is provciding in the context of the evolutionary materialist paradigm.
5] You have no definitive proof that the cosmos is designed and so are reduced to “may” yet then continue on as if you’ve established your case beyond reasonable doubt.
As just noted, and as pointed out repeatedly above to anoterh participant, “proof” is not a reasonable criterion in a scientific context, provisional, empirically anchred warrant per abductive inference to best explanation is. And that is what I have provided in the always linked, thus my use of “may.”
In short, sadly, we see here selective hyperskepticism at work, leading to evidently closed minded objectionism.
6] obsession with chance-based searches? Karios, do you really think that it’s simply a choice between “intelligent design” and “random chance”?
Again, a serious misrepresentation – aka strawman. On two levels.
First, I have repeatedly and consistently pointed out that from Plato on, it has been immemorial that chance, necessity and agency are three relevant causal factors. Mechanical necessity shows itself in natural regularities, i.e low contingency: a heavy object – e.g. a die — resting on a table does so in light of fundamentally gravitational and electrical forces leading to elastic deflections and equilibrium. Where contingency dominates — e.g which of the die’s faces is uppermost — that is either chance or intelligent action. So, in contexts where we study highly contingent phenomena [and information is precisely based on such high contingency to configure meaningful symbols to represent states of affairs etc], we use techniques that more or less reliably discriminate between agency and chance.
One of those techniques, as Mr Bolinski showed in inferring that Premise Media used XVIVO’s work as a source for their clips on the inner workings of a cell, is complex specified information. (So, why then do so many now so desperately want to resist a similar inference when we address the origin of DNA say as an information-bearing macromolecule . . . ?]
So, at the first level, to address chance and agency as the two long-known alternatives to account for high contingency, is plainly not an “obsession.”
A the second level, kindly avoid conflating chance and randomness. A chance situation is one that could just as easily have been something else, as opposed to a purposefully set state. Randomness is a property of certain mathematical and practical situations, but chance may come up in for instance sensitive dependence on initial conditions. [in the case of the die, it comes up in that the precise config of forces and initial conds does lead deterministically tot he outcome of which face is uppermost, but the sensitive dependence means that the outcome is for us incalculable as we cannot specify sufficiently accurately to determine the outcome consistently. So, for practical purposes the uppermost face of a tossed fair die is chance and is random, due to the finest degrees of differences in the initial conditions.]
7] Presumably you determined this [the difference between a random rock and a clovis point] partly by comparing the values of Complex Specified Informatinon for a rock and a Clovis point? What were the values you obtained for the CSI of each?
No need: basic common sense and a little observation will do nicely.
Going beyond that, we may observet hat fucntionally specified complex organisation is just as effective an index of the action of agancy as is a measured value of he statistical weights of functional and non-functional subsets of the config space for an observed functional element. Random rocks don’t make good spear heads, which in turn tend to be pointed, symmetrical, adapted for hafting, and conform to styles, also showing signs of flint knapping. All fof which were discussed and linked above.
And, one can look at functionality vs non-functionality of rock and clovis point. Then we can look at the pattern of the elements of shape vs say typically observed ones for similarly sized rocks, from balls to plates in shape. Even without explicit calculation it should be plain that there is a vast config space for such rocks, of which those shapes that correspond to clovis points are a very small subset. So, we have observed functionality, and high contingency, then also being in an otherwise improbable state, apart form intelligent action.
Not too hard to see, if one is willing, i.e is docile before evident truth.
8] 249, Onlookers, please note the habit of using the “always linked” as a cover all for any point at all claimed without further substantiation.
This is rich!
Having just complained that I am objecting to a work that I have only pre-read [and have cited the relevant parts of, cf supra], RF now objects that I always link a reasonably detailed summary case for the design inference, and refer him to it for substantiation of shorter remarks in this thread. [And, were I to take out the details in the blog thread, he would doubtless join Leo in objecting to prolixity. As Morris Cargill used to say: logic with a swivel – there is always an objection to be made.]
RF, why not show us that you have looked at the relevant linked and have found the relevant case wanting on specific grounds? Like, my “obsession” with chance vs agency as the relevant causal factors for highly contingent outcomes?
9] If you’d read the book you would realise that it [WEASEL]was not supposed to be a “realistic model” of anything, let alone “the genome” (presumably human).
if you’d cared to respond to what I actually said,a dn what Eer4ic actually said, you would realise that we have cited the weasel case and given its rhetorical context, warranting our objections. It is a case of the now long traditional iconic substitution of artificial selection for natural selection, to persuade the unwary that NS is capable of vast informational innovation and creativity.
10] As you know all the factors affecting “bio-functionality” in the Cambrian I can but acquiesce to your knowledge, oh time-lord.
Again, a strawman, this time putting words into my mouth that do not belong there.
What I pointed out is that we see in the fossil record on the usual interpretation that in a window of some 10 MY, ~ 5- 600 MYa, up to about 40 phyla and subphyla appear in the fossil record, requiring innovation of dozens of body plans with required diverse organisation, organs, tissues, cell types and of course proteins. This requires a vast increment in DNA.
Using Meyer’s example of an arthropod, I indicated that for just one of these body plans, relative to the 1 mn or so DNA base prs in a reasonable simple unicellular organism, we have to account for upwards of about 100 mn base pairs of incremental DNA. That is in an obviously functional context, and it sets up config spaces of order ~ 1.36*10^60,205,999 states. To find the observed and potential functional subsets of any reasonable scale becomes maximally improbable on the gamut of the observed universe, much less the required window of time here on earth. But, 100 mn base prs is 200 mn bits, or about 29 mn 7-bit ASCII characters worth of information storage/representation capacity. At 7 characters per word in English, avg., that is about 4 mn words, or about 6 – 7,000 pp at 600 words per page; comparable to the corpus of a great writer or a major reference work.
In short, we are right back at a million monkeys banging away at keyboards at random, trying to write a good slice of Shakespeare, before we can get tot he bio-functionality required to account for the fossil evidence, then to climb from functionality to improved functionality and diversity within the general body plan.
To not weary the reader even further, let us be more selective from now on:
11] 250, the text you quote contains “The genetic algorithm solves optimization problems by mimicking the principles of biological evolution”. Biological evolution eh? How about that.
Precisely: my point was, and is, that the GA approach is routinely [and usually ignorantly] misrepresented as mimicking the principles of biological evolution. For details of why cf Eric and myself above, onlookers.
[ . . . ]
12] RF: Did the previous planes to the 747 (the ones that evolved into it) also self-assemble in junkyards?
Oddly, RF here echoes the classic Berra’s blunder: planes “evolved into” the 747 all right – by technological transformation through INTELLIGENT DESIGNS; designs that, step by step, with cases of revolutionary change in body plan, improved on previous ones.
Macro-evolution by intelligent design, in short.
On the “self-assemb[ly]” issue: misrepresentation, by now “as usual” – nowhere do I argue that planes self-assemble, but that it is logically and physically possible for a plane to be assembled by a tornado passing through a junkyard, but utterly improbable to the point where we routinely and reliably infer to agency as being responsible for the FSCI in a plane.
Now, this point, which echoes Hoyle, is rooted in the underlying fact that the config space is too big and too populated with non-functional states. Oddly enough, Dawkins in the same book, BW, p. 8, agrees with me and with the late, great Sir Fred [member in good standing of The Noble Order of the Gadfly]:
Thus, when we see a jumbo jet, we routinely and reliably – and accurately – infer to agent action as the cause, not chance.
13] What’s your point? If you had a random target what would be the point?
Pretending that something is unclear can only get you so far. Here is the context in 234 – and note onlookers how RF does not give that context, No prize for guessing why:
14] give me an example of people putting out this “notion” [ie. that GA's are said to mimic biological evolution]
Just did, by excerpting 234. Indeed, when you thought it served your interests to do so, you cited the exact same text. The difference: I have pointed out just why GA’s do not at all mimic the observed sort of NDT-based biological evolution [which is of course microevolution.].
15] , it’s 100% random v’s 100% intelligent design. strawman? I think so.
Here is how I discussed the die excample in the always linked section A:
Then again:
Who is misrepresenting whom, on the explicit evidence here, Mr Fry?
I can leave onlookers to judge that for themselves.
However, the bottomline is clear: HAVING PLAINLY LONG SINCE LOST ON THE MERITS, EVO MAT ADVOCATES ARE NOW RESORTING TO RED HERRING DISTRACTGORS AND STRAWMAN MISREPRESENTATIONS, plainly to disguise and distract attention from the unwelcome fact. In the large through the sort of tactics exposed in Expelled and in the brouhaha just raised on alleged plagiarism and stealing of intellectual property. In the minor key, the sort of distracting rhetoric as we have again had to point out step by step in this thread.
For shame, Mr Fry.
Cho man, do betta dan dat.
GEM of TKI
KF I asked you
You then said
So there’s “no need” to tell me the CSI you obtained for each item? Basic common sense and observation tell us that the sun orbits the earth. The whole point of formalising such a method of design detection is that it is formalised!
It’s very convinenent that the crux upon which your argument rests does not need anything other then basic common sense to prove it’s case.
I’ll ask again. What were the values of the CSI in the Clovis point and the rock? It’s a calculation you claim to have done. So lets see the “working”, don’t just give me “it’s obvious”
The word READAK does not appear in this thread. Perhaps you imagined it.
SO you’ve not read it and yet think you can pontificate about what it purports to say. Wrong.
Very impressive.
Have you read any of Dawkins’ work?
What is your problem with GA’s in general KF? Yes, we know all about your thoughts on Weasl, but you appear to have a problem with the whole concept. What is it that you think that people are claiming for GA’s that you know they cannot do? Please don’t quote, in your own words if possible.
As you have not proven the cosmos to be designed you are assuming your conclusion and running with it.
Again, this comment is not appearing. KF, I guess you win by default once more. I really can’t be bothered to type if there’s a good chance my comment will never appear. I guess I’ve been expelled!
Mr Fry (and onlookers):
You have plainly not been expelled (maybe, for cause, put on moderation? or it could be the usual annoying bugs that show up here . . .); you have dropped out of the college of reasoned discourse, by insistent resort to quote-mining, misrepresentations and ad hominems.
I will very mildly mitigate that by noting that a mechanical search on READAK — at least in Firefox –will not show up my remarks in 252 [which goes next to making a freebie ad for READAK], so part of the trouble may be that you are not reading carefully but then essay to rebut on ill-informed snippets out of context. (BTW, evidently some deletions of posts probably related to recent disciplinary action by DS, has thrown the numbers above into chaos.)
Sadly, in either case, this is trollish behaviour, not serious civil-minded discourse.
In any case, this pattern moves far afield from the core business of the thread, so let us again draw attention to that core business, from whifh RF and his ilk would insistently distract us:
A: Fr Heller and ID, from what is now 236
“Lord Ickenham” then links a summary of the Manichean heresy, from the classic edn of the Catholic Enc:
In short, it seems that Heller is probably thinking of ID as a theological dualistic system that sees forces of order and organisation opposed to those of chaos [chance]. But in fact, the design inference is a scientific inference to best explanation within the observed cosmos, from SIGNS of Intelligence to its credibly known source, intelligent action:
i –> It is a commonplace observation, immemorial since the days of Plato, that causal factors commonly rsolve into [1] natural regularities tracing to mechanical necessity, [2] chance (often showing itself in random behaviour), [3] intelligent action.
ii –> It is possible to see the three at work in a given situation. For instance as discussed in the always linked, heavy objects fall under the natural regularity we call gravity. If the object now in question is a die, its uppermost face for practical purposes is a mater of chance, and the die may have been tossed as a part of a game, and intelligently designed process using intelligently designed objects in ways that take advantage of chance and natural regularities to achieve the purposes of agents.
iii –> natural regularities are detectable by consistent, low contingency patterns of events, i.e we may use scientific approaches to infer to natural laws as their best explanation.
iv –> When by contrast we see high contingency, we know that chance and/or agency are the relevant predominant causal factors. That is the particular configs observed may result from chance or from agent action: we may toss a six or we may set the die with 6 uppermost.
v –> Per the principle of large numbers, we observe that random/chance samples of a population of possible outcomes tend to reflect its predominant clusters of configurations. [This is in fact the foundation of the statistical form of the 2nde law of thermodynamics. It is also the basis for Fisherian style inference testing and experiment designs that use these principles, e.g control expts and treatments studied using ANOVA etc]
vi –> When therefore we see that these predominant clusters are non-functional, but the observed outcome is functionally specified and complex, we infer — routinely and reliably — not to chance but to intelligent agency.
vii –> This is generally non-controversial, but on matters tied to origins of life and the cosmos, there is a currently dominant, evolutionary materialist school of thought that strongly objects to what would otherwise be the obvious explanation for the organised complexity [OC] of cell-based life and the similar OC of the physics that underlies the cosmos that facilitates such life. Thus, through the injection of methodological naturalism into the understanding of science [= “knowledge,” etymologically], the question is too often begged.
viii –> This is a matter of science, not theology. The inference to design is a reasonable principle in science not a theologically speculative, ill-founded heresy.
ix –> but , going beyond the province of science, as Fr Heller has, the issue brings up a very familiar and unquestionably foundational Christian theological context that challenges Fr Heller’s thinking:
x –> So, is the design of the world plain to those willing to follow the evidence where it leads instead of rejecting the evidence in favour of agenda-serving assumptions and stories? Paul says, yes. In so saying, he opens himself up to empirical test, and the implication of the design inference is that design is indeed intelligible and very evident in the world as we experience and observe it. That makes the theological inference to a Creator God as designer of the world a reasonable worldview alternative indeed.
B: Onlookers: On exposing further select distractions and distortions:
1] 255: there’s “no need” to tell me the CSI you obtained for each item [stone vs Clovis point]?
Let’s roll the actual tape from point 7, what is now 253, which RF artfully excerpted just a tiny snippet of:
That is, I pointed out that the EF-CSI scheme is just one of several ways of formally or informally detecting design. I started with common sense [how we recognise spear-points in our backyard in the first instance], then moved up to complex organisation, then pointed to the way one could do the calc if one wanted, noting that in fact explicit calcs of config spaces is unnecessary, as the point is plain from looking at random rocks and clovis points.
[Take a largish sample of representative random rocks of appropriate size (i.e using the principle that samples tend to look like the population) , then profile their shapes. Take some representative Clovis points. Which is more sharply constrained as to shape and functionality? And of course, RF puts in my mouth the claim that I claimed to have made the explicit calculation. There was no need, as a glance at my backyard full of volcanic rocks suffices to remind me of the vast variety of flattened, oblong and rounded off shapes natural rocks take, vs what spear points do.]
So, the problem — sadly but plainly — is want of docility before plainly evident truth.
[ . . . ]
2] You ain’t read it [Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker] . . . how dare you critique it
On the direct and irrefutable contrary — cf, e.g., what is how 252, point 2 — I have read and now twice excerpted the relevant section of BW, viz, that on Weasel.
It suffices to summarise my findings in the point Eric and I have made very clear: WEASEL is a clear instance of the sadly now very familiar illustration of rhetoric in the guise of education, the misleading icon of darwinism.
In short, having no real reply on the substantial case, RF sets up a strawman, since I have pre-read and on the strength of therefore finding BW seriously wanting, refused to waste time and money to buy it 20 years ago. What he conveniently insists on leaving out, is that when I have needed to make specific reference to a specific point, Weasel, I have been able to find and excerpt the relevant data.
Then, I have used it to show just how seriously amiss Weasel is [excerpting again . . .]:
Onlookers, simply compare what I excerpted and discussed above, what Eric B similarly discussed, and what RF is trying to do.
3] you appear to have a problem with the whole concept [of GA's]. What is it that you think that people are claiming for GA’s that you know they cannot do?
This is again an utter and evidently willful or at minimum willfully negligent misrepresentation. Here is what I most recently said when this strawman was raised:
That is I am very aware of the fact that GA’s work, and of how they work. Also,t hat this is said to be how biological evolution happened – BTW, ironically this could be read as saying that biological macro-level diversity owes itself — per the true, observed and reliably known nature of GA’s — to intelligent design!
But, that is not the intended meaning; the idea is that chance + necessity suffice to create “brilliant design” and GA’s are held to mimic that.
But to do that, the issue of first finding the shores of islands of functionality is dodged, and the further issue of the step-size to get to bio-function [comparable to the information content of a major literary work or corpus] is also dodged. This detailed in the same post; which serious onlookers can easily enough scroll up to.
RF again shows himself a devotee of the strawman stratagem.
4] As you have not proven the cosmos to be designed you are assuming your conclusion and running with it.
Let’s see, I have long since first pointed out that “proof” is not a proper category in science, but rather the making of inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, linking a discussion of same.
What do we see in response: insistence on an irrelevant, misrepresentation based, question-begging objection, selective hyperskepticism in short:
i –> Scientific theories are not held to the criterion of logico-mathematical demonstration relative to universally acceptable premises, but that of inference to best current – and provisional – explanation.
ii –> That is a commonplace of phil of sci, it is even held up as a virtue of science by the likes of Popper.
iii –> So, we put forward the well-tested observation that, reliably, complex, functional organisation [as analysed by the EF or other similar formal and informal techniques] is a sign of intelligent action, as opposed to the other major source of high contingency outcomes, chance. Can this be overturned by reference to empirical data? No, or RF would have eagerly and gladly done so long ago. [Cf how he tried to dismiss the difference between a random stone in the backyard and a Clovis point, which is actually used by Archaeologists as a diagnostic for a particular culture in the Americas: i.e. if it shows up, you infer to that culture.]
iv –> So, per the basic sci method, we have a well-tested, reliable hypothesis: organised, especially functional complexity [as indicated by FSCI or the like] is a reliable sign of intelligent action. We have a right to use this principle, subject to of course a solid counter-instance. That is just how science works, based on the general — as opposed to absolute — concept that the world works in an orderly, reliable, intelligible way; a premise BTW, that historically owes its origin to the influence of Judaeo-Christian theism in the founding era of science.
v –> Now, we briefly mentioned, excerpted and linked [Section D my always linked] on the complex, convergently fine-tuned organisation of the physics of the observed, life-facilitating cosmos we happen to inhabit. Per that discussion, we infer provisionally but with high confidence, that the cosmos as we observe it, manifests reliable signs of design.
vi –> What is the objection: first, that you have not PROVED. But of course not, science, as an empirical world exercise is incapable of proof. Tha tis an irrelevancy leading out to a misrepresentation of what HAS been said.
vii –> Second, that the question is being begged. Not at all, per scientific method, a reliable principle is being used to infer to the best explanation of observed phenomena. That means that the burden of proof, properly, is on those who would overturn it. On pain of selective hyperskepticism — inconsistently rejecting what does not sit well with what one wishes the world is like, while accepting similar cases that fit with what one hopes the world is like.
viii –> So, RF had a choice: EITHER [P] keep his rejection of cosmological design, but at the expense of admitting that he rejects the basic principles of scientific investigation, OR [Q] accept the scientific principles, recognise that the inference to design is based on a hitherto well-tested principle, but – tada – here is why the principle fails as a generalisation.
ix –> That he insistently picks P shows strongly that he cannot fulfill what Q requires. Thas tis, he is unable to overturn that organised complexity is a reliable sign of design, but does not wish to accept certain key cases [cosmology, DNA, body plan level biodiversity spring to mind; cf the always linked sections B - D], so he instead pretends that science is about “proof” as opposed to empirically based well-warranted, provisional inference to best explanation.
So, it is RF who is really begging the question here.
Given the above all too painfully plain track record by RF, that is, sadly, no great surprise.
GEM of TKI
PS: Maybe I can make a point above clearer this way, by turning about and modifying the following:
In short, if you [RF] hold that on principles of science, you may confidently reconstruct the past in accordance with the evolutionary materialist paradigm, then so can I [GEM] use the same principles to reconstruct the past based on the design paradigm – and with a better fit to ALL the data. [Unless, you also intend that you can write evolutionary materialism into the very definition of “science” which is not only question-begging -- as well as historically and philosophically unwarranted -- but boils down to censorship when the results of free scientific thinking cut across the desired materialistic outcomes!]