In fact, I wrote that based on the assumption that you are not the type of person that would knowingly do such a thing (it would bother you).

Thanks. Why bring it up then?

You do have a problem if someday you want to claim ID is a better scientific explanation for evolution than prevailing theories. Your problem is often called "burden of proof".

I think it's already as good a guess as any out there, if not a better one. But there's that pesky word "proof". It implies an underlying truth, something which neither religion nor science can lay independent claim to. Let's face it, if this were the mid 17th century, the NCSE might have been defending the theory that maggots emerge endogenously from meat. They would claim to have a mountain of meaty, slimy evidence - but they would not have absolute proof, and they certainly wouldn't have truth.

My knee-jerk reaction to your use of a "narrow overlap" was to ask "You mean like the sharp end of a wedge?".

Yup, that's pretty knee jerk. But I always thought of it as more of a narrow gate that few pass through.:wink:

At the risk of being provocative and/or mischaracterizing again. If you aren't suggesting something that will ever be pertinent to either the religious or the scientific magisteria, why bother?

Well, I didn't say that either. I said it was a narrow overlap between the two.
But in short what I am suggesting is that the best chance that we humans have of ascertaining truth lies where religion and science are in agreement, and mutually support one another.

I would love to discuss your last comment at length. It was very well stated.

However, I don't think my client will understand why I spent the day arguing with you instead of fixing his problem. If the hotel's internet is up and working I would like to respond more fully. Would it be better here or in the last NOMA thread?

Mike, if you see this. Do you have an opinion as to which thread?

Regards,
TP

You wrote…

If you don't mind. I'm confused as to why you would characterize me as a "my way or the highway" kind of person. Especially when I began our conversation by saying I don't have a problem with OMA,"¦

If you haven't noticed, I like to debate/argue. I am provocative enough that I could be labeled a "troll" with some justification. I wrote… "you wouldn't be the first person to define 'working together' as 'my way or the highway'" as a warning where your kind of logic might lead, not as a (mis)characterization of you as a person. In fact, I wrote that based on the assumption that you are not the type of person that would knowingly do such a thing (it would bother you).

That being said, you followed up with"¦

"¦and I don't have a problem with the "shootout" version. In other words, I'm not the one with the problem.

You do have a problem if someday you want to claim ID is a better scientific explanation for evolution than prevailing theories. Your problem is often called "burden of proof".

You also wrote…

Capital "T" or little "t", we can only determine truth where religion and science intersect. It's a narrow overlap in my opinion, but if you were really interested in finding it, you wouldn't resort to mischaracterizations.

My knee-jerk reaction to your use of a "narrow overlap" was to ask "You mean like the sharp end of a wedge?". You have bring up a concept I don't remember anyone else stating in the two NOMA threads. Some people see NOMA as limiting scientific intrusion into religion. Some people see NOMA as limiting religious intrusion into science. But this is the first time I think anyone has postulated a middle no-man's land that can't intrude either.

At the risk of being provocative and/or mischaracterizing again. If you aren't suggesting something that will ever be pertinent to either the religious or the scientific magisteria, why bother?

While MikeGene maintains that ID isn't science (yet), he is making very good scientific arguments for looking at scientific data in a new light. I tread on very shaky ground to make any assumption of what Mike is doing, but I suggest he expects that someday the scientific magisteria will have to include ID aspects in its scientific theories.

I agree this is the best approach assuming I haven't "mischaracterized" his position.

Provoking Thought

Joy talked about that clear lines in the sand where everything on the other side is unknown and unknowable.

Um… slight correction, so as not to promulgate misunderstanding. It's known, unknown *OR* unknowable. There is no easy way to distinguish between unknown and unknowable, but there is reason to suspect that human mind - complete with imagination, dreams, mythologies, etc. is the ultimate arbitor. At least, for as long as we're human.

IOW, if we can think and wonder about it, it's probably under the table somewhere waiting for us to reach in and grab it, put it right up there next to the centerpiece or in its place in the table setting. If it never occurs to us, it's off in a corner somewhere in unknowable land, never to make its way close to the table.

I believe it is reasonable and useful to consider there are multiple Truths on the unknowable side of the NOMA line since no one knows the Truth and no one will, by definition. We can all live in peace. Even the rare few that believe in something as unusual as Last Thursdayism.

There are certainly stranger things than Last Thursdayism out there, some of them proposed by scientists. I agree we can live peaceably. But I do not agree that metaphysical beliefs are necessarily 'unknowable'. I suspect the most consistent metaphysical formulations' truth value is merely 'unknown'.

Claims of unique knowledge of the unknowable, even by logical argument, is a violation of NOMA. If you violate NOMA, I can violate NOMA by my code of ethics. Now we can either try to work out a common OMA model or we can do battle.

This is the danger of calling all metaphysical formulations 'unknowable' if they're actually just 'unknown'. I mean, if one is disposed to believe we have evolved, one must generally accept the evidence of our historically recent appearance as well as evidence that it's our brains/minds that evolved fastest and most uniquely. We've no reason to believe our evolution is not ongoing, and we've no grasp on what else may be directly perceivable in the future that is not directly perceivable now.

…depends entirely on how many colors there actually are in reality, so to speak. Red didn't magically pop into existence when our simian ancestors developed the equipment to see red. It was there under the table all along - we just didn't know it.

Is there a limit to what RM + NS can accomplish, in your opinion? If so, where do the boundaries lie?

For me, it's not about limits and boundaries. They may indeed exist, but I'm not confident enough to declare any. Instead, I'm more interested in whether there is good evidence to think RM + NS are indeed the "designers" of such an easily reprogrammable system. That's where point #2 comes in. After all, an easily reprogrammable system might just be what the designer ordered when having to take RM + NS into account.

If you are interested in why that is my opinion, let me know and I will explain.

If you don't mind. I'm confused as to why you would characterize me as a "my way or the highway" kind of person. Especially when I began our conversation by saying I don't have a problem with OMA, and I don't have a problem with the "shootout" version. In other words, I'm not the one with the problem.

As to Last Thursdayism's status as "truth". That was the point. I don't know the Truth (capital "T"), do you?

I know that scientific naturalism does not care what the truth is, and that religion cannot, as you say, "make scientific 'truth' by fiat".

Capital "T" or little "t", we can only determine truth where religion and science intersect. It's a narrow overlap in my opinion, but if you were really interested in finding it, you wouldn't resort to mischaracterizations.

Why do we need to appeal to their evolutionary history? This form of design seems to work just fine without knowing what the history of the bacteria is, and design ought to be inferrable without a complete history.

The human designers reprogrammed bacteria that they snatched from Nature. Unless these bacteria were very recently deposited on the planet from a non-human designer, they have an evolutionary history (even if they ultimately owe their existence to non-human design). The bacteria themselves thus exist because of a) human design and b) evolution. That design and evolution can co-exist means that no law of nature is violated in postulating a non-human design further back in deep time.

Your last comment was referencing my answer to your..

Uggh. Are we seriously going back to the ID = creationism meme?

…question. Hopefully, you understood my answer (whether or not you agreed with it).

Let me revise the sentence you took out of the middle of a paragraph…

"In my opinion, your comments imply an out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new attitude."

If you are interested in why that is my opinion, let me know and I will explain.

As to Last Thursdayism's status as "truth". That was the point. I don't know the Truth (capital "T"), do you?

Provoking Thought