ID is dead.

Good luck, and please clean out your desks.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm and is filed under Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

163 Responses to “ID is dead.”

Techne Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 3:36 am
Long live teleology and telicthoughts .

Comment by Techne — December 1, 2011 @ 3:36 am

Rock Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 10:23 am
ID is still dead?!

There are fates worse than death, ya know. Boredom, e.g. ID is boring.

Or maybe its just the denizens of telicthoughts.com. They were bored to death…

Comment by Rock — December 1, 2011 @ 10:23 am

Guts Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 11:24 am

Comment by Guts — December 1, 2011 @ 11:24 am

velikovskys Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Thanks for the Simpsons moment.

Comment by velikovskys — December 1, 2011 @ 12:31 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
ID was already disproven way back in 1739 when David Hume discovered the snowflake. I'm not sure how it survived all the way to now, but good riddance.

Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

don provan Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 2:44 pm
How appropriate for this to come up after nearly 2 weeks of silence here at TT. The Design Matrix ad is still featured at the head of the list in the right column, a book now 4 years old. The article explains exactly, point by point, why only a few lowly critics such as myself bother to look here anymore.

Any chance of having a serious discussion of these points? Or is this typical "oh, yeah?" going to be the reaction, perhaps with a couple more tired rehashes of "information entropy"?

Or is the conclusion too obvious to need discussion?

Comment by don provan — December 1, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

Guts Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Not really sure why you mentioned Mike's book in association with the collapse of the ID movement. Mike's hobby is very different in content and in scope (and it still moves ).

And so what that this blog goes silent at times? Get a life, geez.

Comment by Guts — December 1, 2011 @ 2:52 pm

MikeGene Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 8:35 pm
LOL. So it took Rosenhouse 6 years to acknowledge we live in a post-wedge world. Years ago, I remember all the critics here mocking the reality of a post-wedge world while gnashing their teeth at me for chuckling at their threatiness – The Coming Theocracy. See? I was right all along. It would nice if just one of them could admit it.

Anyway, all the drama today is found in the sitcom known as the Gnu blogosphere. Has Don bought his stickypus yet? Or is he saving up for the t-shirt?

Comment by MikeGene — December 1, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 9:45 pm
And there is a song to go with this pronouncement. From the album "Sex and Gasoline" the video:

The Rise and Fall of Intelligent Design

and for those who can't see the video, the lyrics:
Rise and Fall of Intelligent Design (lyrics)

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 1, 2011 @ 9:45 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 1st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
If I were to respond to Jason about the supposed decline of ID and the supposed success of evolutionary theory as a persuassive idea, I would cite this article in 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...

Teaching creationism in public schools has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts, but according to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, it continues to flourish in the nation’s classrooms.

RSS Feed

Get Science News From The New York Times »
.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

Is the "solution" to this "problem" retraining the high school teachers? No.

But Dr. Moore is doubtful that more education is the answer. “These courses aren’t reaching the creationists,” he said. “They already know what evolution is. They were biology majors, or former biology students. They just reject what we told them.

“With 15 to 20 percent of biology teachers teaching creationism,” he continued, “this is the biggest failure in science education. There’s no other field where teachers reject the foundations of their science like they do in biology.”

The persistence of this minority is telling. It will persist unless evolutionary theory adequately explains the emergence of machine-like properties of biological systems.

For me the most telling example of dissatisfaction with evolutionary ideas? Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg. He had two PhD's in biology, one of them in evolutionary biology. Why was he so sympathetic to ID proponents if the ID case had no merit. Even though Sternberg, as far as I know, rejects ID, he seems comfortable associating with the ID crowd. If an evolutionary biologist like Sternberg feels evolutionary theory is flawed, how much more should anyone else….

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 1, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:20 am
don provan wrote:

Any chance of having a serious discussion of these points?

What would you consider a serious discussion? What counterpoint(s) would you like to see?

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 2, 2011 @ 12:20 am

Dick Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 am
Did Rosenhouse really suggest that because Darwinians haven't had much to say about Edge of Evolution and Signature in the Cell that therefore the critique these books offer of naturalistic evolution should be dismissed?

Couldn't there be another explanation for the critics' reticence? Couldn't it be the case that critics were left with pretty much nothing substantial to say in rebuttal and thus thought it best to just ignore the arguments in the books so as to not draw undue attention to them?

It seems to me that if there were deep flaws in these works there would be hooting and catcalls 24/7 from the Darwinians. They'd be holding these books up as examples of how risible ID is. Yet, whatever they've been saying on their blogs, it's been as quiet as a desert night in the popular media where one would think the battle to discredit ID in the minds of those not already committed to one side or the other would be waged.

Comment by Dick — December 2, 2011 @ 12:21 am

Guts Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:56 am
The main problem with mainstream ID is that they're just a bunch of Old Earth Creationists (with a few YEC stragglers) dressing up their arguments.

It's quite sad that someone with at least a small amount of knowledge of Evolutionary Biology and only engaging in this subject as a hobby has 100 times more integrity and scholarship than anything mainstream ID has mustered.

Comment by Guts — December 2, 2011 @ 12:56 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:47 am
The mistake Rosenhouse makes is he equates ID with Phil Johnson and the fellows of the Discovery Institute. The hypothesis of ID has been around since Cicero (106 BC), and that being the case, it has survived a long time, and will likely survive as long as humanity is on the Earth.

To quote Dick Dawkins:

It was hard to be an atheist before Darwin , the illusion of design is so overwhelming.

The "illusion of design" appears so real, the computer-like systems in evidence in a single cell are so akin to man-made computers, that it is tempting to believe the appearance of design is not an illusion, but a reality.

And that is why ID will never die.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 2, 2011 @ 11:47 am

EfG Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I have to say, reading that article, I thought – Oh, I must have missed the rebuttal of "Edge of Evolution". Cos it certainly didn't happen at the time.

If it's sound, don't say anything, then we can pretend it's bad anyway.

The "illusion of design" thing is so interesting. There was Darwin arguing against a God because life seems so chaotic and wretched, a struggle for survival. And here's Dawkins arguing that Darwin did a good job of explaining what looks designed.

Comment by EfG — December 2, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
December 3rd, 2011 at 1:13 pm
"Behe's arguments about irreducible complexity were logically fallacious"….

How so?
I'm not even saying they aren't wrong. I just would like to know how they were "logically fallacious".
It just seems that "logically fallacious" is one of those fundy-atheist sneers thrown out when they're too lazy (or incompetent) to even tackle the issue.
Again, I'm not even saying Behe is correct – but 'logically fallacious' is pretty damning and bold.

Comment by GringoRoyale — December 3, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 3rd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
GringoRoyale wrote:

It just seems that "logically fallacious" is one of those fundy-atheist sneers thrown out when they're too lazy (or incompetent) to even tackle the issue.
Again, I'm not even saying Behe is correct – but 'logically fallacious' is pretty damning and bold.

Good point. They could at least mention in passing what logical fallacy the opponent is guilty of. If they really wanted to get fancy, they could throw in a hyperlink to whichever one they allege is being used.

EDIT: Appeal to Ridicule and (of course) Ad Hominem are the ones most commonly seen from ID opponents.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 3, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 3rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Long live ID!

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 3, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:48 am
ID is dead.

Are you sure?

(In this final dramatic scene our hero, Jason Rosenhouse, is being played by academy award winning actor Michael Douglas.)

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 4, 2011 @ 11:48 am

olegt Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I wouldn't say that ID is dead. It's in a persistent vegetative state. The limbs are twitching, but the mental activity is gone.

Seriously, let's examine the progress of ID in recent years in light of the goals set by the father of the movement Phillip Johnson. Here is an excerpt from his column The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science published in 1999:

I measure our success in two ways. First, many thousands of high-school and college students are reading our literature, and are responding very favorably. As they learn that the official textbooks present the evidence selectively, and even distort it in the manner illustrated by the finch-beak example, many become highly motivated to challenge the dogmatic system that is being foisted on them. The most talented of these will be the Wedge members of the future. Second, the Darwinists are completely unable to meet our challenge at the intellectual level, and scarcely try. Their literature continues to promote the view that the only dissenters from Darwinism are religious fundamentalists who don’t know about the overwhelming evidence that proves that “evolution has occurred.” This caricature of the opposition works only with people who have never heard the dissenting arguments firsthand. With the growth of private schooling (including home schooling) and the Internet, it is no longer as easy as it was for educators to ensure that students hear only the official version of the story. Once independent-thinking young people have read the dissenting literature, they are not likely to be impressed with the evasive statements of the Darwinist establishment.

Success for the Wedge does not mean replacing one dogmatic system with another. Our objective is not to impose a solution, but to open the most important areas of intellectual inquiry to fresh thinking. If the fall of Darwinism inspires materialists to develop a new theory that can survive unbiased scientific testing, then so be it. If they can’t do that, then the world will face the astonishing truth that the evidence of biology actually supports the popular belief that living organisms are the product of an intelligent creator rather than a blind material force. When that realization sinks in, the next big project on the intellectual agenda will be to understand why so many brilliant people fooled themselves so completely for so long. Exploring that question will make the twenty-first century a very exciting time.

Let's measure the success of the ID movement* by its own stick. Is ID winning in schools? (Here is an interactive map of IDEA Clubs to help you determine that.) Are its ideas penetrating the academia? Are biologists being converted? (Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells present a poster at a biology conference. No one gives a damn.)

*Yes, I am well aware that some of you do not like this association. But Jason Rosenhouse writes specifically about the ID movement. If you don't like Phillip Johnson and Bill Dembski then rename your own mental gymnastics something else.

Comment by olegt — December 4, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

Allen_MacNeill Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
If you go to the link provided by Olegt and click on the links, you will discover what I discovered three years ago: that the "Intelligent Design" movement on college and university campuses is dead. Here at Cornell the IDEA club is long gone, its members dispersed to the four winds and no one taking their place. The same is apparently true everywhere, except of course at the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent.

Indeed, it has not escaped my notice that activity here at Telic Thoughts has ground to a virtual standstill (pun intended, of course). Rather than presaging the final collapse of evolutionary biology, Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial was apparently the last shot fired by its opponents, who now constitute yet another footnote (and not a very impressive one) in the history of the biological sciences.

Personally, I have missed my opponents in the Cornell IDEA club. In our debates, they helped me sharpen my own arguments and come to some clarity on the philosophical and political implications of evolutionary theory. A fencer without a courteous and worthy opponent is just another nut waving a foil around the the salle…

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 4, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
If the ID movement was a flock of fire breathing dragons that morphed into harmless hillside windmills, then there are still a bunch of useless Don Quixotes traipsing around.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 4, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

olegt Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Wrong analogy, AOFM. I have always viewed ID as a train wreck.

Comment by olegt — December 4, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

Genomiques Says:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
My own thoughts on this "ID is dead" idea:
http://thegenomestale.wordpres...

Comment by Genomiques — December 4, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 3:22 am
Very nice to hear from you Allen as always.

As you can tell, I'm mostly out of the debate, although I still believe in ID. When you told me Hannah was working to help the poor in a remote country, it struck me that whether one wins an internet debate one day or not, pales in importance to the challenges other people are facing.

I believe in ID, but I no longer feel importance of seeing ID win debates in public. What do I mean? Let's suppose the whole world accepted ID as true, how would it improve the human condition? In Muslim lands, the acceptance of ID is ubiquitous, but does that equate with a better life, like say in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

I have a very great personal stake in ID because of its philosophical significance to me. But contrary to what some think, most church goers I meet have absolutely no interest in the topic. They'd still believe whatever they believe even if you convinced them their ancestors were monkeys. I was even chided once for mentioning ID in front of a Christian group because some thought I was being disrespectful to the faithful who might believe in evolution…How many times have I heard a sermon where the phrase "Intelligent Design" was used? Maybe a handful if that….

Whether biologists will accept ID is one thing, but I think there will always be a persistent minority in the general population who will accept it for the reason that Dawkins unwittingly cites: the "illusion" of design is overwhelming.

Indeed, it has not escaped my notice that activity here at Telic Thoughts has ground to a virtual standstill (pun intended, of course). Rather than presaging the final collapse of evolutionary biology, Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial was apparently the last shot fired by its opponents, who now constitute yet another footnote (and not a very impressive one) in the history of the biological sciences.

As I have said before, there is one area of ID (and not a very prominent one) that has not been debated enough, and it has medical significance. John Sanford's thesis is that human genomes are deteriorating, and it is not just because modern medicine is allowing the genetically sick to have offspring. There are possibly many new genetic defects popping up with every generation that will never be weeded out. In that respect, I can't in good conscience totally disregard the importance this question, even if was motivated to support pro-ID arguments. It is a question that is legitimate independent of ID. From what I can gather, John and others are still researching this, and it should be a topic that should be of interest to many even if it may have metaphysical implications…..

But does that contradict my lack of interest in defending ID in public debates? Not really. If Sanford's thesis is correct, it may support the ID hypothesis, but it paints a grim future for humanity. So either way, it's hard to feel human life in this world has any great victory if ID is true. It may mean something to those who believe there is a God and that He will one day grant eternal life, but as far as the affairs of this world, if ID were true (particularly in Sanford's ID model), then it means humanity is dying faster than we thought, and that's not something to celebrate.

I very much commend the former president of the IDEA club at Cornell who is has spent time helping underprivileged children. Such selfless devotion to a noble cause makes me want to be a better person, and being a better person seems more important than winning debates.

PS
I hope this is not too personal to talk about, but I heard that there may be a cure for cystic fibrosis. I saw a news item where a missing protein was identified in cystic fibrosis patients, and a drug company was able to have a successful clinical trial. Unless I'm confusing you with someone else, my understanding is this development my lead to the betterment of life for someone in your family. I thought of you when I saw the report and hoped for the best for your family.

I've thought that if I'm ever near Ithaca I should bring you a bottle of Michigan wine which I sometimes procure in my travels. Do you have any taste for dessert wines by any chance? I hope all is well with you, and an early Merry Christmas.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 5, 2011 @ 3:22 am

Allen_MacNeill Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:33 am
Greetings, Sal:
I have also been immensely impressed with Hannah's decision to go back to Mongolia and work with her orphans. Just before we lost contact, she emailed me to say that she had married another mission worker and they were moving to an inaccessible part of Mongolia with their adopted children (hence the cessation of contact). By now I expect they will have at least one of their own. I haven't heard from her in over a year, but expect (and hope) that this is due mostly to the inaccessibility of her current dwelling place.

I bring this up because it shows that some people (on both sides of this issue) have the integrity to "walk the walk". My long-time association with Will Provine (now once again battling a brain tumor) has shown me that one can be an extraordinarily generous and self-effacing person with or without a religion. Indeed, it now seems to me that one's personal religious beliefs are almost irrelevant to one's moral and ethical behavior. As I have pointed out in my published works on the evolution of the capacity for religious experience, it seems to me that one's behavior (and its underlying motivation) comes first, followed (sometimes long after) by what seems to me to be a post-hoc explanation that refers to religion, science, or some combination of the two.

As for cystic fibrosis, no one in my family is homozygous recessive for the condition, and so no one is currently affected by it. When my wife was pregnant for our fourth (most recent) child, she discovered that she is a carrier for the CF- allele, touching off a somewhat frenzied test to see if I was as well (thereby giving us a 1/4 probability of having a child with CF). However, as most of my ancestors come from the outer islands between Scotland and Ireland (not the medieval cities of central Europe), the probability that I was also a carrier for the CF-allele was vanishingly small, as was confirmed by a quick "gene-chip" test. But thank you for the thought…

Leah and I have moved our family (and growing library) across Cayuga's waters to a faux French provincial "chateau", where we are planning on setting up our own hobby farm, which I hope will eventually include some grape vines. Our ten acres slopes down toward the lake, and so is perfect for a Finger Lakes vineyard. Until we have bottled our own there is always one of the local wineries, and I would be happy to take you on a tasting tour if you are ever in the area. Take care and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 5, 2011 @ 7:33 am

Jared Jammer Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:57 am
According to site analytics, Uncommon Descent is doing quite well, peaking at over 10K unique monthly visitors during the late spring and early summer.

Evolution News & Views is doing even better, with over 14K unique monthly visitors earlier this year. ENV has drawn roughly the same number of unique monthly viewers this year as Panda's Thumb.

So, the top I.D. blogs─bar this one, unfortunately─are doing fine and dandy, contrary to what the design-denialists would like to believe.

Also, from my own personal experiences across the net, I.D. continues to be hotly debated, even on non-science-themed forums. I can't think of a single forum I go to (5-10) that this whole debate hasn't produced a multi-page debate. So, yes, I.D. remains alive and well amongst the general public.

YouTube is another place in which the design vs. Darwin debate rages on. When I first became interested in this debate nearly four-years-ago, YouTube was roughly 80% pro-Darwin. Nowadays, I'd say it's split down the middle, with I.D. supporters genuinely sticking to science and logic, while Darwin defenders go with their typical ad hominem, anti-religious nonsense.

Last, but certainly not least, there's the fact that the science continues to support I.D. The level of sophistication and brilliant engineering inside the cell is being uncovered at a rate in which the ateleological explanations simply can't keep pace with. Design-denialists are still forwarding 19th century arguments in the year 2011, and it's just not convincing. I dare say they've become the modern-day equals to 17th century geocentricists─perhaps worse, due to how readily available the Internet has made information.

David Klinghoffer has a nice little piece on this subject: The New Rallying Cry: "Intelligent Design Is Dead!" – Evolution News & Views

As he astutely points out, "I.D. is dead!" is looking like the new "I.D. has no peer-reviewed papers!," the old anti-I.D. rallying cry which has been firmly put to rest by a bevy of peer-reviewed papers.

Comment by Jared Jammer — December 5, 2011 @ 10:57 am

olegt Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
How many is a bevy, Jared? Three? Four?

The shiny new journal of ID research, BIO-Complexity, has published a total of 7 articles in two years. My own publication list over the same time period looks more impressive than the output of the entire ID movement.

Comment by olegt — December 5, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
olegt wrote:

Wrong analogy, AOFM.

Nope, it's entirely appropriate.

Unless you're foolish enough to suit up, mount up, and tilt lances toward train wrecks.

If so, you don't put too much trust in the typical neo-Darwinian advocate's intelligence. Which strangely puts you on the same side of the issue that I'm on.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 5, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
If ID is dead it is because pseudo-religious activists with materialistic or naturalistic worldviews have been successful in marginalizing and demonizing it.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 5, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
John,
For some people a sneer and a condescending chuckle go a long way.

Comment by GringoRoyale — December 5, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

Deuce Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Sal:

Whether biologists will accept ID is one thing, but I think there will always be a persistent minority in the general population who will accept it for the reason that Dawkins unwittingly cites: the "illusion" of design is overwhelming.

*That* is the ultimate reason that design arguments can't and won't go away. And it's not just that the "illusion" is so strong that people keep believing it regardless of Darwinian denials of it. It's that Darwinists themselves don't, and can't, consistently treat it as an illusion. It's impossible to meaningfully describe biology to any degree of detail without employing teleological concepts of function. Rather than consistently denying biological function as an illusion, they attempt to explain it with natural selection, which is ateleological and therefore incompatible with the actual reality of function. They strain to come up with bastardized non-concepts like "teleonomy" (just like teleology only not!) in order to have their cake and eat it too (that is, to have design be real and not real at the same time). Ultimately, it's incoherent and self-contradictory, so the issue can't be settled, because the contradiction will always continue to nag at people, and all the rationalizations in the world can't resolve it.

Comment by Deuce — December 5, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

Rock Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Will there be a wake? BYOB?

Comment by Rock — December 5, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Olegt:

I wouldn't say that ID is dead. It's in a persistent vegetative state. The limbs are twitching, but the mental activity is gone.

Looks like Olegt is having trouble reconciling the fact that science has adopted ID as the future of biology. While evolutionary biology veers off into explanatory quagmires like Evo-Psych and struggles to make sense of the terabytes of genomic data, systems biology has stepped in to fill the void with a teleological approach.

Finally, we are able to see actual predictions being made, incredibly complex systems being meaningfully modelled, and diseases are being tackled – all because some smart scientists decided to ask "What is the purpose of this design"?

The wedge strategy may be DOA, olegt. ID, however, is currently being funded by the NIH and the NSF to the tune of millions of dollars.

But don't worry, Oleg. I'm sure some school board somewhere will try to insert some creationist literature into some curriculum in some county school system just in time to give you another fix for your culture-war jones. I'll bet your hands are trembling very slightly with anticipation at the very mention of the notion.

Meanwhile, teleology has nonchalantly taken it's seat at the dais. The idea that "design is illusory" has necessarily given way to the search for purpose in the very real designs we see. It was inevitable.

Does this mean that ID has "won"?

No. It means that ID is useful. And as long as ID is useful it will be used.

Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Mike is gone… Rock is gone… Joy is gone (Well, we can see in this thread, Mike and Rock still come back for visits.)

Anyway who said that? Is he gone? How ironic!

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 5, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

olegt Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
chunkdz wrote:

The wedge strategy may be DOA, olegt. ID, however, is currently being funded by the NIH and the NSF to the tune of millions of dollars.

Can you name specific grants? Here is the NSF award search to help you along. I am not as familiar with the NIH, but feel free to investigate on your own.

I recall that Dembski applied for an NSF grant on the topic of ID. The reviewers didn't think much of his application. He did not get it.

Comment by olegt — December 5, 2011 @ 8:38 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
ID is dead because it is not necessary anymore.

It started as a debate on origins. Rather than just "do science" from a teleological perspective, the ID scientists sought to gain acceptance in the mainstream. They were vehemently denied this as the atheist majority circled the wagons and colluded to keep them OUT.

Then an interesting thing happened: Scientific knowledge progressed. And, as scientific knowledge progressed, there really was nothing left to debate. As Chunk pointed out – everyone is using design terms now. Sure, they're careful to always cite the almighty E, but everything they're saying fits handily into the ID mold.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 5, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Olegt:

Can you name specific grants?

A quick search for "systems biology" turned up this one: 100G's for a teleological approach to Darwinian evolution. Gee, and here I thought evolution was best explained as a purposeless kludgefest!

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch...

I'm sure you'll be able to find a few more on your own.

I recall that Dembski applied for an NSF grant on the topic of ID. The reviewers didn't think much of his application. He did not get it.

Maybe he should try again. The NSF is giving away gobs of money to researchers who use the teleological approach. They've even established several foundations across the country to develop more talent in the systems biology world.

You need to stop thinking "ID = Wedge" and start thinking "ID = teleology". (I say that knowing that you will never in a million years do the former but perhaps the scientist in you could learn to appreciate the latter.)

Daniel:

As Chunk pointed out – everyone is using design terms now. Sure, they're careful to always cite the almighty E, but everything they're saying fits handily into the ID mold.

True, but it's even more than just using the terminology of design. It's looking for the purpose behind the design. This used to be a big no-no, but now the sheer utility of the approach has helped it gain acceptance. The design of living cells is turning out to be so similar (though much more advanced) to our own designs that it's really a no-brainer to treat biology as purposeful design.

Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

olegt Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
chunkdz wrote:

A quick search for "systems biology" turned up this one: 100G's for a teleological approach to Darwinian evolution.

chunk,

Equating systems biology with intelligent design earns you 30 points on Baez's crackpot scale. (See Point 30.)

Comment by olegt — December 5, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Well how do you like that. A crackpot expert. How much grant money does he get to research crackpottery? No wonder the country's going broke. Please increase my taxes to pay jerks to make stuff up so other jerks can quote it like scripture.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 5, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

olegt Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
AOFM,

I think you underestimate the significance of crackpottery. I can tell you on good authority that scientists receive crackpot correspondence on a fairly regular basis. There is a clear need to study and classify crackpots. In fact, this is the main reason why scientists visit sites like Uncommon Descent, where crackpots can be observed in their natural environment.

Comment by olegt — December 5, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 12:13 am
There goes another paycheck down the hole, along with a couple of dozen more of my precious few brain cells.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2011 @ 12:13 am

Euphrates Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 3:49 am
Seeing as the ID movement (well, the one Rosenhouse is discussing anyway) was primarily a dialectical response to various combinations of philosophical naturalism with the modern synthesis, it really is not a huge surprise that as the modern synthesis wanes away into the dustbin of dumped paradigms that ID should wane away with it. Those even cursorily familiar with the pattern of history will not be astonished to notice teleological ideas take a more prominent role in the future of biology.

As for lamenting the decline of ID, honest observers and inquirers of the truth I'm sure will admit there has been a lot of grist for the mill generated by the "controversy" and most of us are better for it. Though, there will of course be a few special cases from either side of the dialectic who think the war rages on (one need look no further than certain posts in this thread for evidence of that).

Comment by Euphrates — December 6, 2011 @ 3:49 am

don provan Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
don provan: Any chance of having a serious discussion of these points?
angryoldfatman: What would you consider a serious discussion? What counterpoint(s) would you like to see?

This is a really good question. I don't have a good answer, but I've been thinking about it for the last couple of days. I guess I was mainly hoping for a discussion that avoided bringing up the traditional crackpottery such as equating systems biology with intelligent design, using phrases like "teleological concepts of function", and citing as important authorities high school biology teachers that continue to allow their personal opinions dictate what they teach.

We've seen that, of course, but we've also seen some quality insights. A couple supporters have posted notes emphasizing that there are several lines of reasoning all considered "ID", something that suggests progress could be made by ID supporters actively weeding out those which Rosenhouse is correctly criticizing. If there are, indeed, valid parts of ID, they are being obscured by the nonsense that, as Rosenhouse explains, people willing to take ID seriously are sick of dealing with.

A couple years ago, I remember reading a list created by ID supporters of arguments that ID supporters shouldn't use, but, alas, nothing came of it, and we continue to see arguments based on thermodynamics which fellow supporters actually applaud instead of shooting down.

But I think perhaps the most interesting comment so far is from Sal:

Salvador T. Cordova: I have a very great personal stake in ID because of its philosophical significance to me.

This is really the core issue that supporters such as Sal need to look at. I applaud Sal for admitting his personal stake, but he seems entirely unaware of what a huge burden this puts on him to try to be unbiased. Indeed, Sal has always been and continues to be unabashedly biased, making his scientific thoughts entirely useless. For example, after years and years of participation in this conversation, he still considers it reasonable to say things like, "They'd still believe whatever they believe even if you convinced them their ancestors were monkeys."

If anything about this is to be taken seriously, people serious about it need to be the first to stand up and complain about such mindless comments.

Sal made a further important observation:

Salvador T. Cordova: But contrary to what some think, most church goers I meet have absolutely no interest in the topic.

Critics are fully aware that many church goers have no interest in this topic, including many, many, many church going biologists that have no trouble believing in God while rejecting ID arguments. Those are the people that can look at the issues without inflicting their personal stake on their conclusions. Sal, on the other hand, admits he has too much at stake to do that.

Comment by don provan — December 6, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Olegt:

Equating systems biology with intelligent design earns you 30 points on Baez's crackpot scale. (See Point 30.)

Point 30?

"30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate."

Ummm, systems biology is not "groping it's way" toward teleology. It is using teleology everyday as an integral part of a productive program. There are Centers For Systems Biology going up all over the planet. This is far from a nascent idea in some dead guy's head. Furthermore, Systems Biology was doing this long before I ever even heard of ID so your attempt at "argument by stereotype" doesn't even begin to hold water.

But to further clarify, I don't equate Systems Biology with ID. I associate them both very tightly with teleology. Both SB and ID adopt teleology because it works, it makes sense, and it offers real predictive power.

Shoot, ID has wanted to find function for junk DNA since Phil Johnson's day. Is it any wonder that it is largely Systems Biology that is now discovering those functions? This is why I say Systems Biology is doing ID work. It takes a teleological approach to discern the workings of purposeful systems.

Comment by chunkdz — December 6, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
chunkdz wrote:

But to further clarify, I don't equate Systems Biology with ID. I associate them both very tightly with teleology. Both SB and ID adopt teleology because it works, it makes sense, and it offers real predictive power.

That's not what you wrote here. It was something about "ID being funded by the NSF and NIH." Not happening now, not gonna happen.

Shoot, ID has wanted to find function for junk DNA since Phil Johnson's day. Is it any wonder that it is largely Systems Biology that is now discovering those functions? This is why I say Systems Biology is doing ID work. It takes a teleological approach to discern the workings of purposeful systems.

Mainstream biologists were wondering about possible function played by junk DNA well before the ID movement was even born. If you read Ohno's original paper in which he introduced the term you'll find that he speculated how mutation in junk portions of DNA can lead to novel genes. ID folks did not come up with any new ideas on this front.

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Olegt:

That's not what you wrote here. It was something about "ID being funded by the NSF and NIH." Not happening now, not gonna happen.

That's because you are only able to see ID as a political movement. [remember: political partisanship has been clinically shown to impair rational thought.]

Mainstream biologists were wondering about possible function played by junk DNA well before the ID movement was even born

Notice I didn't say "wondering about". I said "discovering".

(What did I just say about impaired rational thought?)

Function is being discovered increasingly through a systems biology approach which asks "what is the purpose of this design". The utility of the ID approach is not some bald assertion on my part. It is right there in the literature for anyone who is able to escape their partisan bias.

Comment by chunkdz — December 6, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
chunk,

So who's been wondering and who's been discovering? Mainstream biologists, that's who. ID's Monday quarterbacks just complain.

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
chunkdz:

Function is being discovered increasingly through a systems biology approach which asks "what is the purpose of this design". The utility of the ID approach is not some bald assertion on my part. It is right there in the literature for anyone who is able to escape their partisan bias.

The notion of function in biology is not exactly new, either.

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

Rock Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
In Fanos’ reminisces he writes about Shannon’s invention of the “Ultimate Machine.” It was a box with a button. When one pushed the button a mechanical hand lifted the cover of the box, reached out and pushed the button again, withdrawing into the box, the lid snapping shut…

LOL

Comment by Rock — December 6, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Olegt:

So who's been wondering and who's been discovering? Mainstream biologists, that's who. ID's Monday quarterbacks just complain.

I'm not sure if systems biologists consider themselves "mainstream", but yes – lots of scientists are using the teleological approach to great advantage over .

And who's complaining? I think it's great!

The notion of function in biology is not exactly new, either.

No kidding.

Comment by chunkdz — December 6, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
chunk,

You are conflating systems biology and ID, again. Here is a definition of systems biology on the web site of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard.

Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be molecules, cells, organisms or entire species. Living systems are dynamic and complex, and their behavior may be hard to predict from the properties of individual parts. To study them, we use quantitative measurements of the behavior of groups of interacting components, systematic measurement technologies such as genomics, bioinformatics and proteomics, and mathematical and computational models to describe and predict dynamical behavior. Systems problems are emerging as central to all areas of biology and medicine.

Where is teleology in that?

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Here is a review article in Science entitled Systems Biology: A Brief Overview.

Abstract: To understand biology at the system level, we must examine the structure and dynamics of cellular and organismal function, rather than the characteristics of isolated parts of a cell or organism. Properties of systems, such as robustness, emerge as central issues, and understanding these properties may have an impact on the future of medicine. However, many breakthroughs in experimental devices, advanced software, and analytical methods are required before the achievements of systems biology can live up to their much-touted potential.

H. Kitano, Science 295, 1662 (2002). doi:10.1126/science.1069492

Where is teleology?

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Olegt:

Where is teleology in that?

The very idea that a system is greater than the sum of it's parts (a foundational element of systems biology) is at it's root teleological. The basis of system dynamics is that a part of a system is purposeful because of it's place within the entire system. IOW, it's inherent in the very definition so it does not need to be spelled out on a departmental webpage.

If you weren't such an impudent philosophy-hater you might have learned this from Kant's concept of Naturzwecke, or from philosophers of science like Hans Driesch.

Comment by chunkdz — December 6, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Wow… Provan and OlegT both used the "crackpot" broadbrush in the same thread!

Question: How many "crackpots" later turned out to be right?

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 6, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

olegt Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
chunkdz:

The very idea that a system is greater than the sum of it's parts (a foundational element of systems biology) is at it's root teleological.

No, it only means that the system is nonlinear. Nonlinearity and teleology are entirely different concepts.

Comment by olegt — December 6, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 6th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
don provan wrote:

Me: What would you consider a serious discussion? What counterpoint(s) would you like to see?

This is a really good question. I don't have a good answer, but I've been thinking about it for the last couple of days. [...]

All I saw in your reply was what you think we should NOT talk about. These are far from counterpoints; in fact they are an a priori attempt to steer clear of any counterpoints.

Your definition of a serious discussion would seem to be for you to state X and for everyone else to smile and nod like bobblehead dolls and tell you X is the best thing they've ever heard yessir yessir three bags full may they smooch your ass again please. Suck it, Senor Quixote, nobody wants to be your Sancho.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

Techne Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Teleology, summed up as “Every agent acts for an end” (Summa Theologiae I.44.4).

Where is the teleology in the cited passages?

Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be molecules, cells, organisms or entire species. Living systems are dynamic and complex, and their behavior may be hard to predict from the properties of individual parts. To study them, we use quantitative measurements of the behavior of groups of interacting components, systematic measurement technologies such as genomics, bioinformatics and proteomics, and mathematical and computational models to describe and predict dynamical behavior. Systems problems are emerging as central to all areas of biology and medicine.

Biological components are agents, be it substances or accidents.
To study groups of interacting components is to study how agents act for various ends. Where is the teleology? See the bolded part.

Abstract: To understand biology at the system level, we must examine the structure and dynamics of cellular and organismal function, rather than the characteristics of isolated parts of a cell or organism. Properties of systems, such as robustness, emerge as central issues, and understanding these properties may have an impact on the future of medicine. However, many breakthroughs in experimental devices, advanced software, and analytical methods are required before the achievements of systems biology can live up to their much-touted potential.

H. Kitano, Science 295, 1662 (2002). doi:10.1126/science.1069492

Function is a teleological term. You cannot describe the function of something without talking about the end it is acting towards.

Where is the dysteleology in systems biology? Where do agents (call it stuff if you want) not act for an end? Where is the teleology? See the bolded part. Actually, formal and final causality is right there.

Comment by Techne — December 7, 2011 @ 12:58 am

olegt Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Techne,

What was the point of highlighting the phrase groups of interacting components? We work with groups of interacting particles in physics. Do we rely on teleology? Hardy.

Function is a funny word that has lots of shades. In this case, it means that a certain thing is used to achieve something. It does not mean the thing was made by an intelligent designer with that specific function in mind. Panda's thumb is a case in point.

I am not saying that biology relies on "dysteleology." It just doesn't operate in these terms. It's neither teleology nor its opposite. Teleology is irrelevant.

Comment by olegt — December 7, 2011 @ 8:19 am

Techne Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Techne,

What was the point of highlighting the phrase groups of interacting components? We work with groups of interacting particles in physics. Do we rely on teleology? Hardy.

Interacting particles act for an end. Simple really. You may not explicitly acknowledge this, but it doesn't make a difference. Show me a particle that does not act for an end or give me an example of how you can even study a particle if it does not act for some end.

Function is a funny word that has lots of shades. In this case, it means that a certain thing is used to achieve something. It does not mean the thing was made by an intelligent designer with that specific function in mind. Panda's thumb is a case in point.

Colour the concept of "function" anyway you want. By saying that "it means that a certain thing is used to achieve something" you are essentially conceding the point that it is teleological. To achieve something just is to act towards an end.

I am not saying that biology relies on "dysteleology." It just doesn't operate in these terms. It's neither teleology nor its opposite. Teleology is irrelevant.

Say what you want, a functional system is pretty much teleological no matter how you try to sell it.

Comment by Techne — December 7, 2011 @ 8:59 am

olegt Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Techne:

Show me a particle that does not act for an end or give me an example of how you can even study a particle if it does not act for some end.

So, even a single particle, not interacting with anyone, is teleological? If everything is teleological then the word has no meaning.

Comment by olegt — December 7, 2011 @ 9:16 am

Techne Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 9:25 am
So, even a single particle, not interacting with anyone, is teleological?

Not interacting implies that it is not acting towards any end.

Teleology can be summed up as “Every agent acts for an end”

If everything is teleological then the word has no meaning.

I think the notion that every agent acts for an end is perfectly intelligible and makes logical sense.

Comment by Techne — December 7, 2011 @ 9:25 am

chunkdz Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Olegt:

No, it only means that the system is nonlinear.

It doesn't "only" mean anything of the sort.

I think you may be able to reasonably ignore teleology in non-adaptive systems. But in adaptive systems, teleology is inextricable and unavoidable. (At least if you want to model the system as accurately as possible)

And when we speak of systems biology we are talking about adaptive systems.

Comment by chunkdz — December 7, 2011 @ 11:12 am

don provan Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
angryoldfatman: All I saw in your reply was what you think we should NOT talk about.

Huh? I did, of course, mention some things that I was hoping not to see, to emphasize what would make the conversation less than serious. But, in addition, I provided the positive suggestions of weeding out the crap. It's unfortunate that you cannot see that as something to talk about, although your reaction is, in fact, what I've come to expect from any suggestion that ID could benefit from some internal criticism.

I also held up Sal's introspective comments about his own motives as a positive example that might lead to some illumination.

But, yes, I have no glorious new direction to suggest. As an observer, I see no shame in that. Personally, I think Rosenhouse has brought up very valid points. I'm sorry if you mistook my expression of hope that we would see some interesting discussion come from it for a claim that I had any idea whatsoever what such a discussion would look like. Instead, we're seeing mostly the same old stuff, like chunkdz and Techne trotting out modern directions in biology as if ID or ID thinking had anything at all to do with those developments.

Comment by don provan — December 7, 2011 @ 6:54 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Don Provan – the "observer" who sees what he wants to see.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 7, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Don,

This is really the core issue that supporters such as Sal need to look at. I applaud Sal for admitting his personal stake,

Thanks.

Indeed, Sal has always been and continues to be unabashedly biased, making his scientific thoughts entirely useless.

Yes, I am biased and according to some I'm also useless, deluded, and dishonorable.

but he seems entirely unaware of what a huge burden this puts on him to try to be unbiased.

It is not my intention to present myself as unbiased or qualified to make arguments. It's not my intention that ID become an accepted scientific theory in the mainstream

It is my intention to find evidence consistent with the idea that there is a God, who for whatever reason is relatively silent except maybe for the evidence of a miracle which we call life.

When I began looking into ID in 2001, I thought it would be nice to see Phil Johnson's vision come true. Today, what matters more to me is whether ID is true. If there is a God, I think the little politcal battles in the world kind of pale in comparison to such a reality.

And if there is no God, well, I don't know how meaningful life will be except perhaps to find a little amusment and comfort while waiting for the inevitable end.

I'm on the libertarian side of the Republican party. I'm for people living out their lives with minimal unwelcome interference from others. If evoultionary biologists want to do their thing and make their claims, I'm for them pursuing what turns them on.

Their ideas challenge mine, and I occasionally enjoy debating them.

The reason I post less now is that I have found out how little I know about anything. I was trying to learn differential geometry and tensor calculus not too long ago, and now I'm embarrassed that I've even dared to make comments on the internet about physics after seeing the immense complexity of things like the Einstein Field Equations and the work that real scientists have done. Truly amazing and humbling to behold.

But has that changed my opinion of design? Has it made me think evolutionary biology is science on par with Quantum Mechanics? No. And it pains me to say it because I have good friends like Allen MacNeill.

There is no money in this, no glory, perhaps only the satisfaction of making conversation and polemics.

So it's fine with me that the scientific world doesn't like ID, in fact, for various reasons, in select instances it makes ID more believable (like when OOL researchers continually fail to achieve their goals).

Sternberg jumping ship is no small matter to me. Dean Kenyon's jumping ship was no small matter to me. John Sanford's jumping ship is no small matter to me. Richard Smalley's jumping ship is no small matter to me. These were scientist who were persuaded by ID literature. So even if ID does not advance as a scientific enterprise, I doubt that evolutionary biology will have a monopoly on the private views about origins being held by the general population and a small minority of scientists.

If an evolutionary biologist like Sternberg PhD PhD will find evolutionary explantions wanting, how much more should ordinary people.

I respect your discourse. I respect the Aethistic position, but until aetheists can articulate, on logical grounds, why life is meaningful without God, then in the interim, even if I only had suspicions that God exists…to me that's enough to press forward and search for evidence of God. Those who suspect God exists are making life choice consistent with that suspcion by exercising Pascals wager.

But before we find evidence for God, we can first search for evidence of ID.

And even if the most successful progress are these internet polemics that will fade into cyberspace oblivion, that's fine for my personal purposes, maybe not someone else's. Because of people like Mike Gene and Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe, I find reason to believe in Intelligent Design, and belief in Intelligent Design makes it feasible to believe in God.

I have the highest respect for Allen MacNeill, and I'm sorry that we've found each other on opposing sides of the debate. And that's the other reason I've tried to refrain from debating. Perhaps the polemics aren't worth the price of losing friends like Allen. We probably will never agree on these matters, but we do agree that people like his former student, Hannah Maxson, sets an example for all.

And besides, there are other intellectual disciplines one can pour brain cells on like:
The Wonderful World of Wallstreet Quants

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 7, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

olegt Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Techne:

Not interacting implies that it is not acting towards any end.

Not sure I understand the significance of this. Maybe you can clarify that. Two positive electric charges repel each other. To what end?

Comment by olegt — December 7, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
don provan wrote:

But, in addition, I provided the positive suggestions of weeding out the crap.

Positive suggestions of weeding out crap = let's not talk about Y because Y is crap.

Me, earlier: All I saw in your reply was what you think we should NOT talk about. These are far from counterpoints; in fact they are an a priori attempt to steer clear of any counterpoints.

Quod erat demonstrandum, Sir Don. You at least need to get out your lance if you're going to knock that giant down.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 7, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

Joy Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Happened to stop by tonight, just kicking' around. I see that Sal has said pretty much what can be said -

I believe in ID, but I no longer feel importance of seeing ID win debates in public. What do I mean? Let's suppose the whole world accepted ID as true, how would it improve the human condition?…

Yes, those of us who do believe life is a telic phenomenon and evolution a teleological process do have an invested philosophical preference in that direction. The opponents of ID have theirs, too. And it's that philosophical preference that has always ruled the debates, and is the reason you don't see many minds changed. At home where we actually live and deal with reality, it doesn't matter who's 'winning' or 'losing' any debate day to day. It doesn't materially affect what is believed.

Those who see the debates as all about imposing their philosophical preferences on everybody else ('the authoritarians') may see the lack of interest to be some kind of 'failure' or 'victory', but it isn't. It's just the real world trumping lesser concerns with more pressing concerns. The pendulum does what pendulums do – swing.

I had not heard about the development of a treatment (hope for a cure?) for CF. Too late for my young friend Matthew. When his body started rejecting his 'new' lungs (a Duke guinea pig, he had access to the best of care) and he was facing another transplant at the ripe old age of 14, he chose to die instead. A heart-breaker for all who loved him, but he was done fighting and we had to let it be. If future Matthews can live longer and without suffering, that's a very, very good thing. Such things come of studying the design, and what goes wrong with the design.

Anyway, thought I'd weigh in. Good to see you all are still at it, pro and con!

Comment by Joy — December 8, 2011 @ 12:06 am

chunkdz Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:54 am
JOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYY!

Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2011 @ 1:54 am

chunkdz Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:07 am
Provan:

chunkdz and Techne trotting out modern directions in biology as if ID or ID thinking had anything at all to do with those developments.

Here's just one well known example of how systems biology is using ID principles to exploit evolution. This is Front-Loaded Evolution demonstrated at the protein level. Utterly telic, goal-oriented and purposeful.

http://www.nature.com/msb/jour...

Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2011 @ 2:07 am

Techne Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Not sure I understand the significance of this. Maybe you can clarify that. Two positive electric charges repel each other. To what end?

Now you have two interacting charges.

1) An electric charge acts towards an end: Generation of an electric field.
2) Interaction of electric fields act towards an end: Generation of a force.
3) A force acts towards an end: Repulsion or attraction. Repulsion in this case.

Comment by Techne — December 8, 2011 @ 8:52 am

olegt Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Fascinating! A few more questions, if I may.

How did you determine that the purpose of electric charges is to create an electric field? And that the purpose of the electric fields is to generate a force? What if the purpose was to create an electrostatic potential instead? How can we tell?

Comment by olegt — December 8, 2011 @ 9:08 am

Techne Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:35 am
How did you determine that the purpose of electric charges is to create an electric field?

As a thing is so it acts: Action is the index of essence.
Empirical evidence suggests that charges act to generate electric fields.

And that the purpose of the electric fields is to generate a force?

Empirical evidence suggests that electric fields generate a force, or at the very least that is what the current theory suggests and the empirical data appears to agree. if it turns out to be wrong and is updated and we find out that the empirical evidence suggests that electrical fields actually negate forces or act towards some other end, so be it.

What if the purpose was to create an electrostatic potential instead?[/quote]
If you can empirically verify that something acts for an end such as generating an electrostatic potential, or if it has been verified, sure why not. You are welcome to improve or fill in the details, i probably left out a lot. The above was just to demonstrate what I mean by "every agent acts for an end".

How can we tell?

Good old empirical science and logic.

Comment by Techne — December 8, 2011 @ 9:35 am

olegt Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Techne,

Electrical charges generate both an electric field and an electrostatic potential. They also generate a magnetic field and a vector potential. Just saying that, however, does not get you very far. Fortunately, one can give a precise mathematical formulation of how much of an electromagnetic field (or gauge potential) is created by a charge and how that field would affect another charge nearby. That can be experimentally verified.

In contrast, you cannot verify empirically whether something acts for an end unless we somehow get to ask it what it is up to.

Comment by olegt — December 8, 2011 @ 11:02 am

Techne Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:19 am
olegt,

Thanks, one can now say that the natural ends of an electric charge are;
1) Generation of an electric field.
2) Generation of an electrostatic potential.
3) Generation of a magnetic field.
4) Generation of a vector potential.

And like you say, the magnitude can be empirically measured and thus just confirming that a charge does indeed act for those various ends. You don't need to communicate with a charge to realize it is acting towards an end e.g. generation of an electric field etc., just look at the data.

Comment by Techne — December 8, 2011 @ 11:19 am

olegt Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Techne:

And like you say, the magnitude can be empirically measured and thus just confirming that a charge does indeed act for those various ends.

It's a nice "just-so" story with no consequences. I can equally well say that an electron acts towards an end of emitting photons or bumps into atoms with the goal of creating phonons. This all would be cute but it would not add one bit of knowledge. What's the point of this teleological approach?

Comment by olegt — December 8, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

Techne Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
It's a nice "just-so" story with no consequences.

The Scholastic approach appears to be perfectly compatible with modern physics to me. you may argue there are no consequences, that is fine, i just think you can't coherently explain any process without implying formal and final causality. You are welcome to try of course.

I can equally well say that an electron acts towards an end of emitting photons or bumps into atoms with the goal of creating phonons.

You can try and make anything sound nonsensical, but I think if you describe the process properly it will make more sense than your attempt here.

I tell you what, try and describe the processes without making use of formal and final causality. You may not explicitly make use of it but you can't coherently describe your above-mentioned processes without making use of terms that imply formal and final causality.

This all would be cute but it would not add one bit of knowledge. What's the point of this teleological approach?

Aristotelian causality and realism is just a more complete picture to me. To me it adds knowledge. Sure, you may not agree, so be it. Nobody is forcing you to learn more about it. But to say it has no consequences or adds no knowledge is not really an argument against it, especially if it is compatible with modern physics.

Comment by Techne — December 8, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
It's a nice "just-so" story with no consequences. I can equally well say that an electron acts towards an end of emitting photons or bumps into atoms with the goal of creating phonons. This all would be cute but it would not add one bit of knowledge. What's the point of this teleological approach?

There is perhaps no point except one of conceptual convenience (like imaginary numbers).

During a time when many physcists were sympathetic to ID (like in Euler's time), they presumed that evidence of structure in the fabric of reality indicated an underlying design, just like seeing the structure of a building indicated design.

But, in the strict sense, the laws of physics indicate structure. In that sense, the teleological approach might be more of a conceptual convenience rather than a reality. One could merely do the math without all the philosophy and assumption of Intelligent Design.

That said, there was an ID sympathy in physics a long time ago….

On April 15, 1744, the pioneer of the Principle of Least Action, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis presented:
Derivation of the laws of motion and equilibrium from a metaphysical principle

II. Need to Identify Proofs of God’s Existence in the General Laws of Nature; In particular, the Laws Governing Motion’s Conservation, Distribution and Destruction are Based on the Attributes of a Supreme Intelligence

We should not seek the supreme Being in little details, in the parts of the universe of whose relationships we know too little; rather, we should seek Him in universal phenomena that allow no exception and whose simplicity is entirely exposed to our view.
….
After so many great men have worked on this subject, I almost do not dare to say that I have discovered the universal principle upon which all these laws are based, a principle that covers both elastic and inelastic collisions and describes the motion and equilibrium of all material bodies.

This is the principle of least action, a principle so wise and so worthy of the supreme Being, and intrinsic to all natural phenomena; one observes it at work not only in every change, but also in every constancy that Nature exhibits. In the collision of bodies, motion is distributed such that the quantity of action is as small as possible, given that the collision occurs. At equilibrium, the bodies are arranged such that, if they were to undergo a small movement, the quantity of action would be smallest.

The laws of motion and equilibrium derived from this principle are exactly those observed in Nature. We may admire the applications of this principle in all phenomena: the movement of animals, the growth of plants, the revolutions of the planets, all are consequences of this principle. The spectacle of the universe seems all the more grand and beautiful and worthy of its Author, when one considers that it is all derived from a small number of laws laid down most wisely. Only thus can we gain a fitting idea of the power and wisdom of the supreme Being, not from some small part of creation for which we know neither the construction, usage nor its relationship to other parts. What satisfaction for the human spirit in contemplating these laws of motion and equilibrium for all bodies in the universe, and in finding within them proof of the existence of Him who governs the universe!

regarding the Einstein Field Equations

Not only does the least-action principle offer a means of formulating classical mechanics that is more flexible and powerful than Newtonian mechanics, [but also] variations on the least-action principle have proved useful in general relativity theory, quantum field theory, and particle physics. As a result, this principle lies at the core of much of contemporary theoretical physics.

Edwin Taylor

and

Nevertheless, many physicists have contended that the action principle formulation of mechanics is more fundamental than the mechanistic formulation…Max Plank also felt the action formulation was a more fundamental view of natural phenomena than the mechanistic approach, primarily because he was partial to teleological explanations for religious reasons…..

Helmholtz assertion that action principles can suggest new physical laws has been confirmed in the twentieth century. The German mathematician Hilbert discovered the final form of the Einstein field equations independently of Einstein by combining hints coming from earlier attempts by Einstein to construct gravitational field equations with the requirement that the equations be derived from a ‘simple’ action integral. In this case adopting the attitude that the action–and hence by implication, a teleological process–is basic to nature led to a major discovery.

Barrow and Tipler
Anthropic Cosmological Principle

The structure of physical reality exists. One might view it from a teleoogical perspective philosophically, but the math strictly speaking doesn't say a behavior of a system is purposeful, but that is how some interpreted the existence of structure long ago.

Today, the existence of structure is used to argue their is no need of an Intelligent Designer because if structures exist to explain behaviors of systems, then all things can be explained in terms of a mathematical structures rather than an intelligent designer. But that wasn't the argument many year ago as can be seen by one of the pioneers of classical mechanics, Maupertuis.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 8, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Good to see you again, Joy! You have been sorely missed.

Once again, even though our politics are worlds apart, I find myself in complete agreement with you. Even over 3 years ago, lol!

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 8, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Sal:

It is my intention to find evidence consistent with the idea that there is a God

Hi Sal,

Can I offer you a bit of advice?

Stop looking for evidence of God.

Why would I say such a thing? Well the reason is simple: "evidence" is all in the eye of the beholder. Someone who interprets what he sees, starting from a belief in God, can see everything as evidence of God; while a person who doesn't believe can view the same evidence and see nothing that points to God.

So the problem is not one of evidence but one of philosophy. It is my contention that the philosophical proofs of God (such as Aquinas' Five Ways) are far stronger than any evidential argument for (or against) God. This is because philosophical proofs are just that: proofs based on reason and logic. They have more in common with mathematical proofs than scientific hypotheses. As such, they are immune to evidential argumentation.

In short, believe in God because that's the philosophically sound thing to do – then interpret the evidence you see within that framework.

(I'd heartily recommend Ed Feser's blog if you want to immerse yourself in a completely different way of looking at the world and science. There are some really, really smart people there who regularly expose the gaping holes in atheist philosophy with sound reasoning. I've learned a lot just lurking there.)

I'm on the libertarian side of the Republican party.

Ron Paul 2012?
(If so – me too!!!)

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 8, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

olegt Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Techne:

The Scholastic approach appears to be perfectly compatible with modern physics to me. you may argue there are no consequences, that is fine, i just think you can't coherently explain any process without implying formal and final causality. You are welcome to try of course.

War and Peace is also perfectly compatible with modern physics. However, there is no reason to insist that scientists use literary devices to conduct scientific research or to teach students. In fact, scientists have been perfectly able to pass on their knowledge from generation to generation without relying on either Tolstoy or scholastics.

You can try and make anything sound nonsensical, but I think if you describe the process properly it will make more sense than your attempt here.

I tell you what, try and describe the processes without making use of formal and final causality. You may not explicitly make use of it but you can't coherently describe your above-mentioned processes without making use of terms that imply formal and final causality.

There is no reason to try, it's been done many times and we keep doing that. Open a physics textbook and read a chapter or two. Or watch Feynman's lectures.

Comment by olegt — December 8, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

Joy Says:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Hiya, chunk! Missed your face… er, moniker. Been crazy busy trying to get the grandsons into and through college (did you know grandparents' income doesn't count on aid forms, unless they adopt the grandkids they're raising? I didn't…), keep the homestead afloat, etc. Then last March a terrible thing happened in northern Japan.

Started early on raising money with several international players for Geiger-Mullers (disgustingly expensive, and hard to get), get them to the people affected in the transitory zone, teach them how to do the job of properly monitoring their environment, and then teaching them how to deal with what they were being forced to live with. Full evac a mere 12 miles as the crow flies. Cesium/strontium contamination is all the way to the west coast, south of Tokyo.

Re-wrote 'Home Health Physics', a bare pamphlet when we wrote it to distribute in south-central PA back when TMI-2 melted down. Just got the translation to Japanese in, it'll be live on LuLu tomorrow morning. More translations coming if we sell enough to cover the translators. Useful info, with a healthy skepticism of 'official' pronouncements that even the Japanese have learned over these past 9 months to take with a large salt lick handy. They're trying hard to do for themselves. We're trying hard to help.

And to Mister Angry Old Guy, hey. I'm officially 'old' now too, having hit 60 last summer. I never thought I'd get to be 30, so 60 is like a whole new way of looking at things. My politics are still where they've always been, but real life has conspired to make the status quo such a losing proposition that hardly anybody's buying it anymore. It's just that we harbor differing proposed solutions, that's all. 4 city cops sat next to us and my sister and brother-in-law tonight at a pizza place in town. Hubby said loudly he felt really 'safe' from choking on white garlic pizza. I said more quietly that we should all bow our heads and thank God we weren't in a park in NYC or Oakland or San Francisco or Tulsa or Cleveland or D.C. or…

I "care" about ID because I am philosophically predisposed to believe-in ID. I always have, it has informed how I relate to the world since long before I remember. Where I part company with reasonable advocacy is when it becomes aligned closely with a political philosophy that I am most definitely NOT predisposed to believe-in. I'd like it if believing or not believing in intelligent design of some description or other were not a false litmus test on a lot of things that are in no way related.

But that's just me. Good to see you.

Comment by Joy — December 8, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

Techne Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:04 am
War and Peace is also perfectly compatible with modern physics. However, there is no reason to insist that scientists use literary devices to conduct scientific research or to teach students. In fact, scientists have been perfectly able to pass on their knowledge from generation to generation without relying on either Tolstoy or scholastics.

Sure, there is no reason to insist that scientists use literary devices to conduct scientific research or to teach students, they do it already.

Now as pointed out before, with every empirical result there are several basic metaphysical assumptions and metaphysical interpretations. Say what you want, but you just can't get away from this fact. Now obviously one wants a coherent and consistent metaphysical view, whether it is materialist, Cartesian, Scholastic, panpsychist etc. is of course debatable. To dismiss them all as "literary" devices is just naive IMO. You can't pass on knowledge without literary devices.

There is no reason to try, it's been done many times and we keep doing that. Open a physics textbook and read a chapter or two. Or watch Feynman's lectures.

I guess I missed the part where formal and final causality are not implicit in those descriptions.

Comment by Techne — December 9, 2011 @ 4:04 am

Euphrates Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:19 am
A type of anti-teleological argument positivists like to make when confronted with the utility of teleology in biology can generally be represented like this:

1) We can learn some things about material and efficient causes without reference to formal and final causes (premiss)
We can learn all things about material and efficient causes without reference to formal and final causes (conclusion)

At the start it looks like a good argument. The premiss is fairly robust; even Aristotle discussed material and efficient causes without reference to final and formal causality from time to time. The problem is this argument is just a laughably bad non-sequitur (fallacy of composition).

Comment by Euphrates — December 9, 2011 @ 4:19 am

olegt Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Techne:

You can't pass on knowledge without literary devices.

Of course we use language to convey scientific knowledge. My point is that one does not need to study literature or philosophy in order to do that. It's nice to be read up on philosophy, just like it's nice to be able to read Japanese. But neither is a required skill to be a successful scientist. Feynman is a great proof of that.

I guess I missed the part where formal and final causality are not implicit in those descriptions.

How the heck does final causality apply to electron?

Comment by olegt — December 9, 2011 @ 9:33 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Daniel Smith:

Well the reason is simple: "evidence" is all in the eye of the beholder.

If evidence is in the eye of the beholder, then philosophy much more so!

This is because philosophical proofs are just that: proofs based on reason and logic.

If philosophy cannot deduce from pure logic the value of Planck's constant, why should it be expected to deduce great questions like the existence of the CREATOR of Planck's constant.

The view of the purity of human reasoning and it's immutability was what hindered the advance of empirical science.

If I had to take sides in the debate between:

Rationalists and Empiricists

I'd fall in the camp of empiricist.

A tenet of rationalism:

The Superiority of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience

Rationalism can't deduce Plank's constant or the Universal Gravitational Constant, and that's why engineers and physicists build space ships, not theologians, and that's why empiricism in the modern day is favored over pure rationalism.

Mathematics is a purely logical enterprise, but it does not define reality, it only describes logically consistent structures. Mathematics might describe an infinite set of logically consistent structures much like engineers will describe an infinite number of ways to build a skyscraper, but you'll only know what the structure of the Empire State building is by seeing it or contacting the intelligent designers who built it or studying the claims of the eye witnesses or builders, not talking to philosophers.

In much the same way, why should we expect philosophy to understand the creator when it cannot even comprehend the lesser questions of the things He created (like Planck's constant or the non-Euclidean structure of space).

With respect to Origin of Life we cannot access direct observations, we are left with best guesses where neither empiricism nor rationalism can be conclusive, maybe only the Grace of God leaving adequate clues to help us sort out which idea is more promising over another. What one ultimately concludes will have an element of faith in ultimately unprovable claims.

Hi Sal,

Can I offer you a bit of advice?

Stop looking for evidence of God.

Why would I say such a thing? Well the reason is simple: "evidence" is all in the eye of the beholder. Someone who interprets what he sees, starting from a belief in God, can see everything as evidence of God; while a person who doesn't believe can view the same evidence and see nothing that points to God.

So the problem is not one of evidence but one of philosophy.

I prefer to study finance, engineering, physics, chemistry, and the Bible over Aquinas. I know philosophy means a lot to you and others at TT, but its not for me. I'm a pragmatist at heart. Sorry.

. It is my contention that the philosophical proofs of God (such as Aquinas' Five Ways) are far stronger than any evidential argument for (or against) God

Philosphy cannot tell us whether Christ was raised from the dead, and that is a central questioin for Christians. Like the origin of life, the question cannot be conclusively answered by facts we have access today or pure logical reasoning.

The Chrisitian faith does not proceed by philosophy nor empiricism alone, but acceptance of propositions that are received with reasonable faith.

I find it unreasonable that life emerged spontaneously by chemical and physical processes for the simple reason that software cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, and life is software. A miracle is a more believable explanation.

And I think I've witnessed miracles that proceeded from prayers in the name of Christ, and the historical record suggests the Apostles were real and they witnessed the resurrection. John Sanford's work suggests that Adam and Eve were real. I could go on, but the point is, these are more of interest to me in knowing if the Christian God is real.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 9, 2011 @ 9:43 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:52 am
With respect to Rosehouse's claim that ID as an intellectual movement has died, I'd say it's not worth arguing about.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the ID movement is dead, but here is an illustration of the "illusion" of design persisting.

Whittaker Chambers was a spy for Stalin. He became horrified to see what Stalin actually did with communism. He was an atheist and became a Christian and left the communist party.

http://www.creationtips.com/de...

“It was shortly before we moved to Alger Hiss's apartment in Washington. My daughter was in her high chair. I was watching her eat. She was the most miraculous thing that had ever happened in my life. I liked to watch her even when she smeared porridge on her face or dropped it meditatively on the floor. My eye came to rest on the delicate convolutions of her ear — those intricate, perfect ears.

“The thought passed through my mind: 'No, those ears were not created by any chance coming together of atoms in nature (the Communist view). They could have been created only by immense design.'

“The thought was involuntary and unwanted. I crowded it out of my mind. But I never wholly forgot it or the occasion. I had to crowd it out of my mind. If I had completed it, I should have had to say: Design presupposes God. I did not then know that, at that moment, the finger of God was first laid upon my forehead.”

And such sentiments are the reasons I think the hypothesis of ID will never die.

And for more on Whittaker Chambers:
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdL...

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 9, 2011 @ 11:52 am

Rock Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Rock is gone…?

[Stifle sob. Choke.] Why didn’t anyone tell me?!

I may stink, but I’m still twitchin’!

[BTW, I will be attending my wake and it is BYOB. Keep in mind that the wake will last for days, so bring plenty of beer.]

I don't understand what's so diffiuclt about it, Techne. Systems biology is teleological because its a science, and science is teleological. Science is teleological because biology, life, is teleological.

I'm sure I can't even understand the very notion of science, of "knowledge of," "ateleologically." Uh. I'm just not very imaginative. I get bored easily and sometimes it just seems like death. LOL

Comment by Rock — December 9, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Techne wrote:

"Now as pointed out before, with every empirical result there are several basic metaphysical assumptions and metaphysical interpretations. Say what you want, but you just can't get away from this fact."

I think the key question for both philosophy and science is, "Why is the universe intelligible?"

As Einstein said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

Notice that this question is not a scientific question. Rather, the universes intelligibility is something that science must assume apriori in order to even do science. In other words, if the universe was not intelligible science would not be possible.

The theist argues that the universe's intelligibility is caused by an eternally existing transcendent intelligence or mind. I would argue that that it is simply the best explanation. What is materialist's/naturalist's argument for the universe's intelligibility?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 9, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

don provan Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER: I think the key question for both philosophy and science is, "Why is the universe intelligible?"

No, science really could care less why the universe is intelligible.

Rather, the universes intelligibility is something that science must assume apriori in order to even do science.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong again. The intelligibility of the universe is a hypothesis which has been experimentally confirmed, not an a priori assumption.

Comment by don provan — December 9, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Rock Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
As Einstein said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

As the universe said, "The only comprehensible thing about Einstein is that he is incomprehensible.”

I don’t buy that “pan-teleological” stuff, btw. God created everything, and God does nothing in vain, w/o purpose, therefore everything has a purpose. Voila! Teleology!

Yawn.

Comment by Rock — December 9, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Rock: "I don’t buy that “pan-teleological” stuff, btw. God created everything, and God does nothing in vain, w/o purpose, therefore everything has a purpose. Voila! Teleology!"

That's an opinion; not an explanation… Which proves my point… Thankyou!

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 9, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

don provan Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Salvador T. Cordova: And such sentiments are the reasons I think the hypothesis of ID will never die.

Let's distinguish "the hypothesis of ID", which I'd say is the subject of the ID movement, with "the idea of ID", which is what your story illustrates.

The ID movement of which Rosenhouse speaks sought to establish that there is a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design. I would say that this is the effort Rosenhouse is saying is dead.

Many Christians have rejected the ID movement all along without rejecting the idea that God created the universe. Yes, that idea is obviously alive and well.

Comment by don provan — December 9, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Actually, Rock, your "opinion" is more a an airy-wave-of-the-hand sour grapes type rationalization than it is a genuine opinion.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 9, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

don provan Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
chunkdz: Here's just one well known example of how systems biology is using ID principles to exploit evolution. This is Front-Loaded Evolution demonstrated at the protein level. Utterly telic, goal-oriented and purposeful.

Are you saying that this research was inspired by teleological research? From what I can see, ID and its teleological element had nothing to do with this and it would have happened even if the ID movement had never existed. But perhaps you know some background I don't that shows the relation.

Comment by don provan — December 9, 2011 @ 1:52 pm

Techne Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Olegt:

Of course we use language to convey scientific knowledge. My point is that one does not need to study literature or philosophy in order to do that. It's nice to be read up on philosophy, just like it's nice to be able to read Japanese. But neither is a required skill to be a successful scientist. Feynman is a great proof of that.

Olegt, I think I agree that you don't need to philosophy in order convey scientific knowledge, in fact that is pretty obvious. My point is that you can't pass on scientific knowledge per se without some basic metaphysical assumptions about for example what matter is, how you view change, what you think of causality etc. You may not be aware of it and this is where philosophy comes in. You need at least some knowledge of philosophy and various philosophical systems in order to contrast your views against others.

Feynman is no different, he had his metaphysical views and assumptions. I thought this was quite interesting. See if you can spot the metaphysics.

How the heck does final causality apply to electron?

How does it not ? I challenge you to pick your favorite particle and describe its behavior or a process without implicitly using formal and final causality.

Comment by Techne — December 9, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Rock Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Why is the universe intelligible? Why is anything intelligible? JAD says its not a scientific question. But I think it is. JAD ruled out my answer. Since I don’t have a philosophical or theological answer to that question, but only a scientific one, I am just airly waving my hands. What else can I do but sit on my thumb and turn like a top? I don’t take the question seriously because the only answer I have to offer has been ruled out.

This is what makes so many of these discussions, which are about subjects I otherwise find very interesting, boring. All the discussions must circle around the assumptions shared by the IDers and their critics.

It’s you guy’s game. You make the rules. I don’t get to play because I won’t play by the (your) rules so I’m relegated to the sidelines. But don’t say I don’t want to play because I do. I just think that what the rules are should be part of the game.

One of the reasons, btw, that I think the Universe is intelligible. Because its rules are not arbitrary philosophical or theological rules.

Theories of Everything make everything intelligible. Right?

Comment by Rock — December 9, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Hi Joy,

Glad to hear things are well with you. Congrats on becoming a sexagenarian!

Wish I'd been with you at the pizza joint – I would have asked the cops to please pass the pepper spray. (goes great with meatball parmesan!)

Comment by chunkdz — December 9, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Provan:

"From what I can see, ID and its teleological element had nothing to do with this"

Read the paper:

"The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory"

Notice that the phrase "intelligent design" is used to describe both the ID that was on trial in Dover and the ID that was in use in the lab, but that the controversy was only about schools, not science labs.

"The paper investigated whether catalytic functionality could be rationally engineered into a protein, without recourse to the high-throughput screening techniques necessary for directed evolution."

"Rationally engineered" is another way of saying Intelligently Designed. Notice that they are intentionally avoiding directed evolution in favor of Front-Loaded Evolution. ID proponent Mike Gene has written extensively on promiscuous proteins and the utility of protein as a design medium.

Apparently, intelligent design does not need irreducible complexity after all.

Here the authors reference the work of Michael Behe and conclude that Irreducible complexity is not a problem for them. (Which I think was Behe's point)

The design strategy presented by Yoshikuni et al is particularly exciting in the context of metabolic engineering. This field, focused on the redesign of organisms for the production of valuable chemicals or other ends.

Purposeful design of organisms – I wonder what "other ends" might be?

So, scientists everywhere may soon begin their own intelligent designs… and so far, it looks like the best designs are the simplest. At the protein level, at least, it looks like irreducible complexity is out and a rather reducible simplicity is in. Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

A call for intelligent design to proliferate, a nod to front-loading, another reference to Mike Behe, and a final hurrah for intelligent design.

Yup! No Intelligent Design there!

Comment by chunkdz — December 9, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Sal:

Rationalism can't deduce Plank's constant or the Universal Gravitational Constant, and that's why engineers and physicists build space ships, not theologians, and that's why empiricism in the modern day is favored over pure rationalism.

I was not suggesting that science can be replaced by philosophy.

But let's examine this a bit…

We are aware of the concepts of squareness and circularity such that we know there cannot be such a thing as a square circle. Now, to someone who lives solely by empiricism, that is something that cannot be known. For an empiricist, squareness is defined only by observed squares and circularity only by observed circles. We may, at any moment, discover a square circle! Then the concepts of squareness and circularity would have to be thrown out! Of course, if this is the case, then there are no certainties, there are no absolutes, there is nothing that can be known beyond what the sensory evidence can tell us.

I doubt you really believe that!

All I'm saying here is that the philosophical concept of God is far more sound than the concept of atheism (which leads to lots of absurd contradictions.) You don't need to search for evidence to empirically show that God exists (though all evidence is consistent with that) because God is the only rational explanation for the universe! And, just like the square circle, if you want to make a strictly empirical case for God, you're making a case that can be overthrown at any moment by new evidence! Such is the peril of empiricism.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 9, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Rock wrote,

Why is the universe intelligible? Why is anything intelligible? JAD says its not a scientific question. But I think it is. JAD ruled out my answer. Since I don’t have a philosophical or theological answer to that question, but only a scientific one, I am just airly waving my hands. What else can I do but sit on my thumb and turn like a top? I don’t take the question seriously because the only answer I have to offer has been ruled out.

What is your answer?

Once again, the belief that the universe is intelligible is not something that has been, or can be proven empirically by using inductive logic. It is something that must be assumed. Furthermore how do you know that your rational faculties are reliable? If they are not how can you say the universe is intelligible.

There are a number of assumptions we need to make to even do science. Here is a list of five:

1. There is an objective reality.

2. Objective reality is intelligible and can be rationally understood.

3. The universe operates according to "law-like" regularities.

4. Cause and effect are real not just apparent.

5. The regularities (or "laws") according to which the universe operates are uniform across space and time.

I think we might refer to these kind of assumptions or beleifs as properly basic beliefs.

Let's try this again. I asked, "Why is the universe intelligible?"

Rock replied, "I don’t buy that “pan-teleological” stuff, btw. God created everything, and God does nothing in vain, w/o purpose, therefore everything has a purpose. Voila! Teleology!"

However, that reply does not answer the question. Rather, it ridicules and attacks my explanation without really refuting it.

The theist's answer is that the universe is intelligible because it is the result of an intelligent being.

We commonly call this intelligent being a being God.

An eternally existing transcendent Mind explains the origin of the universe.

An eternally existing transcendent Mind explains the fine tuning of the universe.

All the main monotheist religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on revelation. General revelation is God revealing himself in nature; Special revelation is God revealing himself propositionally, verbally or in writing.

Obviously if God is a transcendent Mind He can communicate propositionally.

Of course, God's existence also provides an objective grounding for morality and ethics.

It also means that the universe and mankind does have an ultimate meaning and purpose.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 9, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

velikovskys Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Jad

The theist's answer is that the universe is intelligible because it is the result of an intelligent being.

Could that intelligent being create an intelligible , non-teleological universe?

Comment by velikovskys — December 9, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

MikeGene Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
If anyone truly is interested in that serious discussion, here is an evolutionary thought experiment to ponder.

Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Joy and MikeGene posting at TT again… just like the good ol' days! Someone call stunney and bradford and we can ressurect this bad boy in no time

Comment by Rob R. — December 9, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
If anyone truly is interested in that serious discussion, here is an evolutionary thought experiment to ponder.

The transformed cladogram (your diagram where you said: "In fact, the following arrangement makes this more clear.") relating vertabrates in no way suggests that primates are descended from fish. It leaves the common ancestor in doubt.

If one argues that primates descended from fish, why couldn't we argue, based on the taxonomy alone that fish descended from piramtes! Dawkins in Blindwatchmaker referred to the controversy that taxonomists were able to create venn diagrams that had no reference to what group was ancestral to whom. And that is exactly the ambiguity the cladogram suggests. If anything, it suggest that fish cannot evolve to primates, but rather there is some hypothetical ancestor we have not yet seen (or as the creationists would say, there is no ancestor at all!)

One can observe hierarchical relationships without any assumption of ancestry as Linnaeus did.

How would I interepret the data if we did not have fish. Would would still see the heirarchy that mammals are part of protists. Yes.

The nesting might suggest common ancestry, but in a forced sort of way with each creature looking like something from the X-files:

A protist begat a bony skeleton, begat a four-limbed, begat an amniotic egg, begat hair, begat primates.

But this makes no sense, as a taxonomic feature isn't an ancestral creature!

Looking at the first cladogram one would definitely say the nesting precludes mammals from descending from fish. That was the argument that Denton made. The hierarchical relationships PRECLUDE sister groups from being ancestral to others or at least ensure that the taxonomy alone cannot tell you who descended from home.

For example in the first cladogram: primates and sharkes and birds and fish are sister groups. What's stopping one from saying fish descended from birds? Nothing from the cladogram. The cladogram almost suggest the common ancestor is undiscoverable…

One can believe in common descent, one can believe the hierarchy exists because of common desecent, but the problem is the sister groups are so distiinct, it precludes one sister group (like fish) being the parent of the other sister groups.

To your question, how would we interpret the data. We would say the primates came from protists. The diagram that looks like a tree (where primates descended from fish) seems actually in contradiction to the cladogram where the fish are sister groups to primates. The tree (in black and white) seems logically in conflict with the cladogram.

And that's why Dawkins had unkind words for the "transformed cladists" because their taxonomical analysis, akin to Linnaeus, was in conflict with evolutioanry ideas.

Now if you believe in front loading, a proto organism that gave birth to all the sister groups makes more sense to me, but at that point, it's not much different from the astonishing leaps in creationism. It would suggest if front loading works, that it does so via hopeful monsters and punctuated equilibria, not smooth continous transitions.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 9, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:12 am
velikovskys,

Could that intelligent being create an intelligible , non-teleological universe?

I don't know. I really haven't thought about that. For now I am interestested in seeing if non-theists have any real explanations for why our universe is intelligible. Notice that intelligibility is not the same as design. It can explain design but it is not the same as design. Non-theists, for example, can (and do) argue that any design we see in the uinverse could be apparent design. (We can say the same thing about teleology.) However, you cannot not do that with intelligibility. Once again, theists have an explantion for intelligibility. What is the non-theists explanation? "Apparent intelligibility" just does not work.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 10, 2011 @ 12:12 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Mike,

Also, the cladogram is abbreviated because otherwise it wouldn't fit on the page. That appreviation tends to make the shark class ancestral! What is ommited is data like that which can be lifted from Wiki. Shark's have the following cladistics:

Kingdom:

Animalia

Phylum:

Chordata

Class:

Chondrichthyes

Subclass:

Elasmobranchii

Superorder:

Selachimorpha

Orders

Carcharhiniformes
Heterodontiformes
Hexanchiformes
Lamniformes
Orectolobiformes
Pristiophoriformes
Squaliformes
Squatiniformes
† Symmoriida
† Cladoselachiformes
† Xenacanthida (Xenacantiformes)
† Eugeneodontida
† Hybodontiformes

The abbreviation makes the clado gram look slanted rather than a pyramid, and that slanting tends to make it appear to the un-initiated that the sharks or fish are ancestral to birds, but that is an illusion.

Needless to say, one could abbriviate the cladogram and make it appear that birds are ancestors of sharks!

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 10, 2011 @ 9:36 am

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
For those who continue believe that empirical science is not based on any underlying metaphysical assumptions here are some quotes (provided by a reviewer) from Joe Rosen's book, The Capricious Cosmos: Universe beyond Law.

"… It must be admitted, it seems to me, that from a purely logical standpoint solipsism is the only compelling metaphysical position among them all. Indeed, the reality to me of everything beyond my own existence is really based on arbitrary assumptions that I choose to make.

For example, it is an assumption – perhaps, reasonable, maybe not, but nevertheless arbitrary – that my self is somehow inherently attached to a body. It is a further assumption that my body is equipped with sense organs that certain sensations I am aware of result from activity of those organs. Then it is also an assumption that the activity of my sense organs is a result of stimulation by some reality external to my body. And so on and so forth. Am I just imaging in that I am hitting imagined keys that bring these imagined words into imagined existence? "…

Thus we know that even if certain aspects of perceived reality can be assumed to five a literal description of objective reality, there are other aspects that do not. We know that science does not give us full comprehension and understanding of objective reality… The objective reality that science has led us to believe in is partially hidden from us… Science allows us a few clear glimpses of parts of it as well as provocative hints about more of it. Most of objective reality, however, will very likely remain inaccessible to humankind via science….

Since, science does not, and most probably cannot, give us anything near full comprehension and understanding of objective reality, there seems no reason why other, nonscientific modes of comprehension and understanding should not afford us hints and clues to that reality. As long as objective reality, which science guides us to believe in, itself lies beyond the domain of science, lets us not shut ourselves off to the possibility that we might possess other channels to it. Indeed, why should not intuition, belief, feeling, art, music, and poetry be allowed to contribute whatever insight them might offer? Such modes of comprehension, as irrational and subjective as they are and perhaps even because of their irrationality and subjectivity, might complement, and thus strengthen, the contribution of science to our quest for objective reality."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capric...

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 10, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
velikovskys:

Could that intelligent being create an intelligible , non-teleological universe?

In order to answer that we'd have to know what a non-teleological universe would look like. I think it would be useful here to inject some Aquinas – since his Fifth Way is based on the universe being teleological.

Aquinas begins his Fifth Way thus:

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.

So the evidence that nature is teleological (i.e. acts for an end) is that the things in nature act always, or nearly always, in the same way. Nature is regular and predictable.

From that we can extrapolate that a non-teleological universe would be one where the things in nature would NOT act always, or nearly always, in the same way. IOW, a non-teleological universe would be random.

One implication of such a universe would be that science would be impossible. If today fire is hot but tomorrow fire is cold, how could a scientist formulate 'the hypothesis of fire'? It would be impossible (not to mention the fact that scientists probably wouldn't exist anyway!)

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 10, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

velikovskys Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Daniel
So the evidence that nature is teleological (i.e. acts for an end) is that the things in nature act always, or nearly always, in the same way. Nature is regular and predictable

So in your and Aquinas' view intelligible and teleological go hand in hand?

From that we can extrapolate that a non-teleological universe would be one where the things in nature would NOT act always, or nearly always, in the same way. IOW, a non-teleological universe would be random.

I understand from a practical view that random,irregular universe would be a problem. But from a purely philosophical argument why must nature be regular to be teleological? What is the catchphrase" as a thing acts so it is"? If a hypothetical universe was chaotic and intelligible wouldn't that be teleological as well? it just seems that teleological doesn't have a null set. The quantum world seems unpredictable on some level, does this refute its teleology? I bet not. Is there a link between predictability and teleology that I am missing?

Comment by velikovskys — December 10, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
I was thinking of velikovskys question in terms of it's logical possibility. To paraphrase: 'Is it logically possible that an omnipotent intelligent being (God) could create an intelligible , non-teleological universe?' Of course, what does a non-teleological universe look like? Is our universe non-teleological? What do the non-theists believe here? What does velikovskys believe about our universe? Maybe he thinks he has us backed into a corner here. Is the universe from his perspective obviously non-teleolgical? But if that is what he believes, how does he know it's true?

Most theologians, including Aquinas, believe that an omnipotent God CANNOT do the logically impossible. So, for example, God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, or make 2+2=5. With that in mind, is the idea of God creating an intelligible but non-teleological universe logically possible? I don't know. On the other hand, would God have sufficient reasons for creating such a universe? There I would have to say probably not. Indeed, it seems to me that such an idea is absurd. In other words, why would God want to even do such a thing?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 10, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
velikovskys:

So in your and Aquinas' view intelligible and teleological go hand in hand?

Not at all. We can understand randomness so non-teleology is intelligible.

I guess I never really answered your original question about whether God could create a non-teleological universe. Of course he could. It would be a universe where everything is random.

Aquinas argues (in the part of the fifth way I didn't quote) that teleology can only come from a mind. That is the essence of the fifth way. So the REAL question is whether a teleological universe can come from something random?

But from a purely philosophical argument why must nature be regular to be teleological?

It needn't be – but it is. The question is "Why?" What causes every known part of nature to reliably act as it is observed to?

If a hypothetical universe was chaotic and intelligible wouldn't that be teleological as well?

Nope. Teleological means 'goal oriented'. Random means 'no goal'. They are opposites (though both are intelligible.)

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 10, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
The quantum world seems unpredictable on some level, does this refute its teleology?

If it is truly random, then it is not teleological. I don't know enough about the quantum world to know if it is truly random or whether its "randomness" is predictable.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 10, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Here is Aquinas' view on omnipotence that I referred to in my preceding post.

Thomas Aquinas advanced a version of the omnipotence paradox by asking whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees. As Aquinas put it in Summa contra Gentiles:

“ Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the centre to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles."[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 10, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 10th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Don Provan wrote:

Let's distinguish "the hypothesis of ID", which I'd say is the subject of the ID movement, with "the idea of ID", which is what your story illustrates.

The ID movement of which Rosenhouse speaks sought to establish that there is a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design. I would say that this is the effort Rosenhouse is saying is dead.

Many Christians have rejected the ID movement all along without rejecting the idea that God created the universe. Yes, that idea is obviously alive and well.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with a lot of what you said.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 10, 2011 @ 11:27 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Einstein had many other things to say about how the "intelligibility of the world" implies the existence of "a superior mind" or God.

For example, in 1929 Einstein he wrote, “a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”

So did Einstein believe in God or was he using "God" as just a metaphor to describe the rational order that we see in the universe?

Einstein explicitly said that he was neither an atheist or a pantheist…

“I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but it doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me, is that attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

He also wrote:

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214)”

But, on the other hand, he also wrote:

“I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”

So to be fair Einstein's view of God was a philosophical, or "deistic," one not a religious one.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 11, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I think the question that needs answered is this:
Given that the universe IS teleological, what other possible explanation is there besides God?

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 11, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

velikovskys Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
JAD
What does velikovskys believe about our universe? Maybe he thinks he has us backed into a corner here

I believe the universe exists as an objective reality and it is intelligible at some level. Not trying to challenge your beliefs, just clarifying whether intelligibility and teleology can exist separately. I take it that you believe one without the other is an absurd notion.

As to my belief whether the universe is non-teleological , perhaps my understanding of the concept is sketchy. An electron act/ creates an electromagnetic field, that proves it teleological, is this correct?

Comment by velikovskys — December 11, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

velikovskys Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Daniel
Given that the universe IS teleological, what other possible explanation is there besides God?

What is the goal of the universe? Our present scientific knowledge predicts a very cold dark place.

Comment by velikovskys — December 11, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

don provan Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
chunkdz: Read the paper:

Have you read the paper? You're quoting an ID slanted article about the paper, not the paper itself.

Comment by don provan — December 11, 2011 @ 9:35 pm

don provan Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Daniel Smith: I think the question that needs answered is this:
Given that the universe IS teleological, what other possible explanation is there besides God?

Something else, as yet unidentified but equally plausible.

For example, something as powerful as God yet is nothing like the Bible describes and is not aware of and has no interest at all in humans.

Although a more typical answer would be something that can create teleological features without being intelligent. Or, if you have trouble imagining that, something that is intelligent but is not conscious.

The bottom line is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, so you actually have to support your hypothesis with evidence. You can't just declare victory because you've imagined one possibility and don't like the possibilities anyone else can imagine.

Comment by don provan — December 11, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

Rock Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 10:50 am
JAD, your list of assumptions I must make to do science is loaded with hidden assumptions about science.

First (1.), there is an objective reality. The “hidden” assumption is that science is only about what is “objective” and “real.” But its not. What is subjective and unreal are ineliminable elements of science. Subjectivity and unreality are as objectively real as anything else, if anything is objectively real. “If,” as someone once said, is the biggest two-letter word in the English language. If objective reality is objectively real then, seems to me, the scientific thing to do would be to test the hypothesis. Now I have a working hypothesis, rather than an assumption. Whether or not there is such a thing as “objective reality” remains to be discovered, not assumed. The conclusion that anything is objectively real depends upon the results of a test You know the procedure. (We should also be careful and allow for the possibility that we are correct in assuming something’s true—because it is true!)

Second (2.), objective reality is intelligible and can be rationally understood. But what is subjective and unreal are also intelligible and rationally understood. Everything’s tied up in a neat little package, huh? What is subject/objective, unreal/real are all intelligible! But there is always that pesky remainder—and its not a small remainder either. It’s everything I know nothing about. And that’s a lot! What is necessary, scientifically, to assume about what is unknown? Nothing’s necessary to assume about what is unknown, but on the basis of the discovery, not “assumption,” that because (3.) “The universe [often] operates according to ‘law-like’ regularities,” what is unknown will be related to or resemble what is known. Notice, I formulated my assumption as a hypothesis, a prediction.

4. Cause-and-effect are real only when they are real and not apparent only.

And (5.) in modern physics (cosmogeny) we don’t assume that the laws of physics are uniform across space and time. At one time physicists may have assumed so, but it illustrates the risk involved in assuming that what you don’t know will resemble what you do know.

“Why is the universe intelligible?”—JAD

How could it be any different?

Comment by Rock — December 12, 2011 @ 10:50 am

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Provan:

You're quoting an ID slanted article about the paper, not the paper itself.

You mean that paper entitled:

"Designed divergent evolution of enzyme function"

Yeah no design thinking there either! Lol!

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 11:34 am

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Rock

If objective reality is objectively real then, seems to me, the scientific thing to do would be to test the hypothesis. Now I have a working hypothesis, rather than an assumption.

Sophistry.

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 11:49 am

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
chunkdz,

If you can make a case, make it. The question is whether any teleological thinking stemming from the ID movement had anything to do with the paper. Pointing out that the paper used the term "designed" in the title doesn't come close. In fact, just judging from what's in the article, my bet would be that the paper is talking about the researchers' designs, although it wouldn't make any difference if they were talking about nature's designs.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Sal,

I was just looking back in the thread for something else when I saw the thoughtful reply you made to me way up in the thread which I'd missed in the flurry of comments. It raised some very interesting points, but I think a discussion of it would get lost here while also being off topic, since you're discussing an "ID" that's very different that what Rosenhouse addresses (or, for that matter, what Telic Thoughts addresses).

There is one quick point I'd like to make:

Salvador T. Cordova: I respect the Aethistic position, but until aetheists can articulate, on logical grounds, why life is meaningful without God, then in the interim, even if I only had suspicions that God exists…to me that's enough to press forward and search for evidence of God.

No disrespect, but I always find it so sad to hear something like this because it says that you consider yourself so unworthy that any dreams and goals you can come up with yourself are automatically incapable of giving your life meaning. What kind of life is that even if God supplies you with your only meaningful direction?

Now I can't read your mind, but when I look at this line of thought in general, I typically find that it leads to an astonishingly selfish bottom line: if I personally am not immortal, what's the point? Leave that idea aside and all the standard Christian goals — bringing joy, relieving suffering, raising families, improving the community, even advancing civilization — have all the same values with or without God as the creator.

None of that is a reason for you to stop searching, it's just a response to your request for an explanation of why life is meaningful to an atheist, just in case you run into one you want to talk to about it.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 12:45 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Daniel Smith: We are aware of the concepts of squareness and circularity such that we know there cannot be such a thing as a square circle. Now, to someone who lives solely by empiricism, that is something that cannot be known.

What makes squares and circles are matters of definition, not discovery.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Don Provan, before:

…as if ID or ID thinking had anything at all to do with those developments.

Don Provan, after:

The question is whether any teleological thinking stemming from the ID movement had anything to do with the paper.

Shift goalposts much? Yeah. Sure you do. Shame on you.

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Provan:

my bet would be that the paper is talking about the researchers' designs, although it wouldn't make any difference if they were talking about nature's designs.

If life on earth was actually front-loaded, would you attribute that design to the front-loader or to "nature"?

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Rock wrote,

If objective reality is objectively real then, seems to me, the scientific thing to do would be to test the hypothesis. Now I have a working hypothesis, rather than an assumption. Whether or not there is such a thing as “objective reality” remains to be discovered, not assumed.

In the movie, The Matrix, Morpheus asks Neo: "Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"

Of course in the Matrix the brains are still embodied, so it is possible to escape the Matrix into the real world. But what if the brains were unembodied and kept alive in a vat? How would you ever be able to learn that there really is an objective world "out there"? Philosophers have explored that hypothesis as well.

The skeptical hypothesis that one is a brain in a vat with systematically delusory experience is modelled on the Cartesian Evil Genius hypothesis, according to which one is a victim of thoroughgoing error induced by a God-like deceiver. The skeptic argues that one does not know that the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis is false, since if the hypothesis were true, one's experience would be just as it actually is. Therefore, according to the skeptic, one does not know any propositions about the external world (propositions which would be false if the vat hypothesis were true).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

Of course the only way that I can see to test such a hypothesis is with thought experiments. (Is that what you mean by science?) But on the other hand, if it is all a dream maybe you could try pinching yourself… (Notice, that I used your favorite word IF )

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 12, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
chunkdz: If life on earth was actually front-loaded, would you attribute that design to the front-loader or to "nature"?

Well, first you need to explain the question by defining those terms. Specifically, tell me the difference between "the front-loader" and "nature". I'm particularly interesting in how "life is front-loaded" could imply anything other than "the front-loader" whether that front-loader is nature or not. But after you do that, I'll still not do any personal attribution, I'll simply ask what the hypothetical evidence shows. I have no preconceptions to defend.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Don Provan:

Specifically, tell me the difference between "the front-loader" and "nature".

Purpose.

I have no preconceptions to defend.

If that were true then you wouldn't need to shift goalposts.

Liar.

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
chunkdz: Shift goalposts much? Yeah. Sure you do. Shame on you.

The subject is whether ID is dead. I'll take this post as a concession that ID had nothing to do with the research you indirectly cited.

If you're actually being serious, then stop posturing. The problem with your argument as presented so far is that you haven't established that this research is teleological. Instead, you and the article you're citing are merely picking out terms that seem teleological in order to claim credit for teleology where none is due.

Now it's true that all I've seen is the abstract of the paper. While that doesn't really seem very teleological, I'm still fully prepared for you to show how important teleology was, so please do so. From what I can see, imagining design in nature is what led to this research with no dependence or concerns about whether this design was front-loaded or had an intelligent source. I'd be happy to have that analysis corrected if you can show it's invalid. Saying, "See? 'Design'!" doesn't do it.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Purpose.

So, to fill in the huge holes — which, of course, you will now object to — I gather you're saying that when you say "the front-loader", what you really meant to say was "a front-loader acting with purpose", and when you say "nature", you mean "something acting without purpose". I'm not sure that really clears things up much, but I'll take it as one idea.

So, as I promised, I'm now going to ask what your hypothetical evidence showing that life was front-loaded tells us about whether the front-loading was done with purpose.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER: How would you ever be able to learn that there really is an objective world "out there"?

What difference would it make? No, seriously: exactly what difference would it make? If you say the difference would be A, B, and C, then that's how you'd be able to learn there is really an objective world. If you say it wouldn't make any difference, then why worry about it? In fact, it makes sense to label the world we can explore as "objective reality" even in the face of being able to imagining other possible substrata.

It turns out that science has already more than once revealed that objective reality wasn't really what we thought it was, by the way. The hypotheses about the nature of reality are always being tested and, once in a while, they are disproved. Philosophers have never done anything like that.

Philosophers have explored that hypothesis as well.

And philosophers have gotten nowhere with it.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Provan:

So, to fill in the huge holes – which, of course, you will now object to

Oh no. Don the goalpost shifter is now resorting to snide insults. Surprise, surprise.

I gather you're saying that when you say "the front-loader", what you really meant to say was "a front-loader acting with purpose", and when you say "nature", you mean "something acting without purpose". I'm not sure that really clears things up much, but I'll take it as one idea.

A ten year old can grasp the difference, yet Don Provan remains obtuse.

So, as I promised, I'm now going to ask what your hypothetical evidence showing that life was front-loaded tells us about whether the front-loading was done with purpose.

Front-Loaded Evolution is purposeful.

It's unfathomable to me that you have been yammering away on this site for years and years and still haven't the slightest clue about one of the most popular topics around here.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

-Martin Luther King

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 3:05 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
velikovskys wrote,

"I believe the universe exists as an objective reality and it is intelligible at some level. Not trying to challenge your beliefs, just clarifying whether intelligibility and teleology can exist separately. I take it that you believe one without the other is an absurd notion.

As to my belief whether the universe is non-teleological , perhaps my understanding of the concept is sketchy. An electron act/ creates an electromagnetic field, that proves it teleological, is this correct?"

I cannot come up with an argument which demonstrates that intelligibility necessarily entails teleology, so in that sense I guess I would have to concede that it is not logically impossible that an omnipotent intelligent being could create a non-teleological universe. My argument is, why would he?

For example, if you asked me if it's logically possible that Barak Obama could run down the field naked during half time at the Super Bowl. Yeah it's possible, but it's not going to happen. In that sense I think it is absurd that an infinite intelligent being would create a non-teleological, or an ateleological, universe.

I think we can see that the universe as a whole has characteristcs that certainly seem to be teleological.

For example, it has a beginning, it will come to an end (via heat death) someday in the distant future.

Also, it is fine tuned to evolve not only atoms and molecules, but stars, galaxies and planets, as well as the chemistry needed for living things. It's hard for me to believe that that is just the result of a some lucky accidents.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 12, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

computerist Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
ID is more alive than ever.
Another thing is certain, the awareness level on Darwinian mysticism is at its all time high.

Comment by computerist — December 12, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
velikovskys:

What is the goal of the universe? Our present scientific knowledge predicts a very cold dark place.

That's a good question. I don't know. In teleology, the "goal" is whatever end a thing tends toward. I wasn't actually thinking about the universe as a whole when I said that. I was thinking more about the things that make up the universe.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 12, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
chunkdz: Front-Loaded Evolution is purposeful.

OK, so now we can understand that your original question to me was, "If life was created purposefully, would you consider it created purposefully?"

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
don provan:

Something else, as yet unidentified but equally plausible.

For example, something as powerful as God yet is nothing like the Bible describes and is not aware of and has no interest at all in humans.

First off, to be "as powerful as God" the thing you're describing would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and timeless. It would also have to be the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the mind behind all intention, etc. How could something like that be unaware of, or have no interest in, humans?

Although a more typical answer would be something that can create teleological features without being intelligent.

OK…

Or, if you have trouble imagining that, something that is intelligent but is not conscious.

OK…

The bottom line is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, so you actually have to support your hypothesis with evidence.

I don't have a "hypothesis". I'm not appealing to empirical evidence (other than that we observe the things in the universe to be teleological – i.e. regular and predictable.) I'm appealing to reason and logic in my search for an explanation for this basic observed fact of nature.

You can't just declare victory because you've imagined one possibility and don't like the possibilities anyone else can imagine.

I'm open to your "possibilities". You need to flesh them out more though. You need to define an "unconscious intelligence" or an "unintelligent creator of teleology" and show how they fit into an overall metaphysical framework that adequately explains what we observe and satisfies the rules of logic and reason. You need to show how your answer is superior to the rigorous philosophies of the Scholastics and other classical theists.

If you aren't willing to do that, then I can only assume that it is you who doesn't like what others are saying.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 12, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
It's getting harder and harder to take teleology seriously here. JOHN_A_DESIGNER says that having a beginning or an end is enough to make something teleological, while Daniel Smith tells us that tending towards something is enough. From those, one would conclude that teleology is a pointless concept since everything has to be considered teleological.

If you really want teleology to have a use in science, I think you have to have a concrete concept that makes imagining that something has a purpose insufficient compared to something actually having a purpose. If you consider the former teleology, then that's fine, use whatever term you like even if no one else finds it useful, but imagined purpose definitely has nothing to do with ID.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

don provan Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Daniel Smith: First off, to be "as powerful as God" the thing you're describing would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and timeless.

You're adding characteristics not relevant to your explanation, but rather than try to debate that with you, allow me to instead change my statement by replacing "as powerful as God" to "powerful enough to create the universe."

I'm appealing to reason and logic in my search for an explanation for this basic observed fact of nature.

OK, I must have missed that part. All I heard ("I think the question that needs answered is this:") was an assertion that there were no other possible explanations ("Given that the universe IS teleological, what other possible explanation is there besides God?"), not any positive logical arguments supporting your explanation.

I'm open to your "possibilities". You need to flesh them out more though.

No, see, that's the point: I only have to flesh them out as much as you've fleshed yours out. I only have to support them as much as you've supported yours. That's what makes "what else could it be?" is such an easily deflected argument.

Comment by don provan — December 12, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Provan:

OK, so now we can understand that your original question to me was, "If life was created purposefully, would you consider it created purposefully?"

No, I asked whether you would attribute design to the front-loader or to nature. It's a valid question since front-loading designed the first cells but nature designed the organisms we see today.

It's slightly similar to asking whether Henry Ford gets the credit for designing the 2011 Mustang, but I wouldn't run with that.

Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2011 @ 10:01 pm

velikovskys Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
JAD
In that sense I think it is absurd that an infinite intelligent being would create a non-teleological, or an ateleological, universe

I am unconvinced that our finite mind can extrapolate much about an infinitely intelligent being, at all.Except of course that He is the reason the Broncos are winning.
.
I think we can see that the universe as a whole has characteristcs that certainly seem to be teleological.

Our minds and language certainly work that way. We work towards ends, goals. I am just not sure that the divine is the source of the apparent teleology, it seems just as likely that the intelligent beings, which we have actual experience with, are capable and motivated to overlay the world with teleological framework

Comment by velikovskys — December 12, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

Rock Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 10:56 am
ID is dead, and its no wonder! Nothing could survive under that heap of pseudo-philosophical rubbish.

But it wasn’t an accident! It was murder! JAD murdered ID! It was philocide!

I’m I supposed to understand that as an example of “ID-as-philosophy,” JAD? An insanity plea masquerading as a philosophy?!

But wait! ID’s not dead! We managed to save the brain and we’re keeping it alive in a bell jar! Whew! Lucky 4U JAD.

Nonetheless, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
Any questions?

Comment by Rock — December 13, 2011 @ 10:56 am

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
This is my very first post at Telic Thoughts on July 13, 2006:

This is my first time commenting at Telic thoughts. So, let me introduce myself . I am a true life designer. I design heavey construction machinery for a living, something that requires that I think rigorously not only about how something functions and is utilized but also how in the world are we going to manufacture this thing. No doubt it is my aptitude as a designer that attracted me to ID, which I think raises some interesting questions & ideas. However, I would not describe myself as an ID advocate. I think as a scientific theory ID over reaches. I think ID's value (and it does have some real value) is from a metaphysical (philosophical/theological) perspective. However, what amazes me after following the argument on line for several years is some of the utter hostility and contempt towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind. These self described defenders of science seem tireless in their efforts to banish ID from the face of the earth. Why is this? Maybe one of these critics could enlighten me? Fair minded criticism is good… shrill hysteria and conspiracy theories strike me as totally irrational. Are you saying new idea's in science are dangerous? I don't understand that kind of thinking. IMO that is exactly the kind of thinking that is driven by some kind of confirmation bias.
http://telicthoughts.com/confi...

Surprisingly I haven’t changed my views much at all. Maybe I am really set in my ways. On the other hand, I saw myself then and I see myself now as someone who has fairly moderate in my views.

Ironically the critics haven’t changed at all either. It still amazes me the “utter hostility and contempt” some of them have “towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind.” Back then I asked them the reasons for their thinking and feelings. I am still waiting for a straight answer.

I haven't killed ID it is the critics who have successfully demonized and marginalized it. But why have they done this? What are they afraid of?
It almost like they are being driven by superstition.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 13, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

don provan Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER: Ironically the critics haven’t changed at all either. It still amazes me the “utter hostility and contempt” some of them have “towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind.”

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall ever seeing any long term critic here show contempt towards anything that suggests designing intelligence. It would be a very pointless approach to TT. Critics here attack arguments with no merit regardless of what they suggest.

For example, I often start my participation in a conversation by conceding designing intelligence, and the ID points raised still hold very little water.

I haven't killed ID it is the critics who have successfully demonized and marginalized it. But why have they done this?

For my part, I criticize ID to help it improve, although I have to admit I've pretty much given up hoping that will ever happen. Like you, most IDers come into this with preconceptions about what the debate is about and what motives critics have, and then hold fast to them through any points to the contrary.

I'm hoping Sal rejoins the discussion, since he recent posts suggest that he's an exception. I'm agree with a lot of what he's said in this thread, yet his position remains consistent with his belief in God as the Creator.

Comment by don provan — December 13, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

don provan Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
chunkdz,

Oh, I get it. You're trying to get me to give you a personal opinion about something nebulous and unimportant. I've never understood why you think my opinion is so important.

Amusingly, your example with Ford and the Mustang underscores exactly how silly your question is. So does Ford get credit? Why does "get credit" matter?

Comment by don provan — December 13, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Never mind.

Comment by chunkdz — December 13, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
don provan:

Daniel Smith tells us that tending towards something is enough. From those, one would conclude that teleology is a pointless concept since everything has to be considered teleological.

I'm just using the common definition of teleology. If everything is teleological, there must be an explanation for that – don't you think?

If you really want teleology to have a use in science

If things were not teleological, science would be impossible. I would think that counts as "useful"!

I think you have to have a concrete concept that makes imagining that something has a purpose insufficient compared to something actually having a purpose.

Who's "imagining" this teleology don? Are you denying that pretty much everything in nature tends towards definable ends? What are you saying here?

OK, I must have missed that part. All I heard ("I think the question that needs answered is this:") was an assertion that there were no other possible explanations ("Given that the universe IS teleological, what other possible explanation is there besides God?"), not any positive logical arguments supporting your explanation.

You probably missed the lead-up to that where I cited Aquinas (as I often do here.) I would think that, by now, you would realize that I am referring to the fifth way (and the other 4 ways as well) when I talk about the metaphysical case for God (which is where this line of thought started in my response to Sal.) I am not just asserting something here.

No, see, that's the point: I only have to flesh them out as much as you've fleshed yours out. I only have to support them as much as you've supported yours. That's what makes "what else could it be?" is such an easily deflected argument.

Again, I'm clearly referring to the philosophical case for God based on the observed teleology in nature. If you think that hasn't been "fleshed out" extensively, you are quite mistaken. (Do I have to quote the volumes written on it every time I reference it?) I was challenging you to show how your explanations are superior (or at least equal) to that. I think you'll find that defending your "possibilities" is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 13, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Shhhh Daniel, it's tough to fight giants when you keep interrupting with your fancy-schmancy philosophizin'.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 13, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

themayan Says:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:15 am
"ID is Dead" Very interesting, and also kind of funny. Just when biologist are now using the aid of design theorist and theories to try to figure out just how all this complicated stuff works. Yeah thats right, I said stuff. This whole "ID is dead" BS is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Systems Biology using Axiomatic Design and Complexity Theory
One of the goals of systems biology is to understand the functions of a biological system in terms of the behavior and interactions of its molecular constituents. The task is difficult because both the physiological functions and the physical and chemical structures of biological systems consist of many levels of aggregation and hierarchy. In this work, we are trying to present a roadmap for establishing the relationship between the high-level functions and molecular-level interactions is presented. It is based on the application of Axiomatic Design theory and complexity theory that have been developed for engineered systems.
http://web.mit.edu/pccs/resear...

Comment by themayan — January 24, 2012 @ 5:15 am

mickelodian Says:
February 4th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Posted by Salavdore Cordova
"The persistence of this minority is telling. It will persist unless evolutionary theory adequately explains the emergence of machine-like properties of biological systems."

Promise that can you?

Well given the research into tPNA not long now then ehh? or will the goalposts shift after that to something else. maybe a little further back to IED (intelligent Earth Design)… or IGD (intelligent Galaxy Design) where no doubt removing one planet or asteroid would make the universe implode or something…

Anyway evolution only deals with how 'LIVING' organisms diversify in the world to be honest… it doesn't get involved in questions of what structures gave rise to life to begin with, how the earth got here, when or how the sun formed, what lead to the galaxy, where that came from or where the universe came from… Creationists will need to descend on physicists and astronomers for that.

Which is where I guess the aforementioned goalposts will be moved to no doubt the day after the worlds first tPNA self replicating structure is announced.

Either way ID is dead… still dead… it was dead 100 years ago, and 100 years before that… but it seems some people will cling to any old crap they can despite the obvious.

Tune in next week for a creationists argument as to why powered flight is impossible…complete with quotes from Lord Kelvin! And also an outline by William Dempski as to why Green is Red, and Red is Green… he might be a little late due to a propensity for smash ups at the traffic lights!

Comment by mickelodian — February 4, 2012 @ 10:22 am

Daniel Smith Says:
February 5th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
will the goalposts shift after that to something else

This is the main problem I see with ID – it relies on "complexity" (specified or otherwise) to infer design.

For those of us who embrace Thomist ID (the Fifth Way), the "goalposts" are at the very foundation: Every observed entity in this universe behaves as if it has a goal, a purpose, an intent beyond itself. Every observed entity in this universe acts as if it has a job to do. Yet only a tiny percentage of those entities have minds (which would explain their goal-oriented behavior.) Thus, there MUST BE a Mind at the very foundation of this universe.

Foundational ID – ya gotta love it!

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 5, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 5th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
mickelodian wrote:

Either way ID is dead… still dead… it was dead 100 years ago, and 100 years before that… but it seems some people will cling to any old crap they can despite the obvious.

Thank you for saving us from the lumbering giants, dear man from La Mancha!

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 5, 2012 @ 10:19 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 5th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Found a picture of mickelodian showing us how he makes the most of his precious few finite moments on the planet.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 5, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

velikovskys Says:
February 5th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Mr angry old:

Thank you for saving us from the lumbering giants, dear man from La Mancha!

Hey that is my insult.

Speaking of Giants

Velikovskys(January 4)
"Actually I think the Giants may be peaking at the right time, Eli Manning is always dangerous"

Giants edge Patriots in thriller; it was Madonna dance party at half

I had no prediction concerning Madonna

sorry for lack of productivity

Comment by velikovskys — February 5, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:18 am
velikovskys wrote:

I had no prediction concerning Madonna

In that case, I blame you for Madonna. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Black-Eyed Peas, however, are a tragedy that no one should have to shoulder the blame for. Sometimes bad things just happen.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 6, 2012 @ 8:18 am

Daniel Smith Says:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Shoulda been Rammstein.
Now THAT would be a halftime show!

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 6, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

themayan Says:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
mickelodian, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Neo Darwinism/ The Modern Synthesis i.e. The theory of Evolution "only deals with how 'LIVING' organisms diversify"

The word evolution encompasses more than just Neo Darwinism.
There is also the concept of "chemical evolution" and "universal evolution" among others. Lets make sure we properly define these terms and distinctions.

Comment by themayan — February 6, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
February 8th, 2012 at 12:23 am
Anyway evolution only deals with how 'LIVING' organisms diversify in the world to be honest… it doesn't get involved in questions of what structures gave rise to life to begin with,

By that perspective, evolutionism doesn't explain the origin of life, which means it doesn't explain the origin of the computer-like designs in life.

Therefore, the question of the design's origin is not explained by evolutinism nor will it every be.

Which is where I guess the aforementioned goalposts will be moved to no doubt the day after the worlds first tPNA self replicating structure is announced.

self-replication in and of itself isn't the issue. Even crystalline structures self-replicate. It is self replication via Turing machines.

All experiments which avoid this issue equivocate the problem being solved.

They solve a problem that wasn't the one that is at the heart of the matter.

OOL researchers move the goalposts by lowering them.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2012 @ 12:23 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

ID is dead.

163 Responses to “ID is dead.”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books