I thought that was what the whole debate is about between those who look for natural explanations of the origins of life and those who affirm a miraculous one.

But that is not what the whole debate is about (at least around here). You might want to check out ID101.

I doubt that science fiction is more popular among proponents of ID than among mainstream biologists, or vice versa.

I'm not making any point like this. The point I made was this: "I think science fiction has helped contribute to ID by helping us better appreciate what ID actually proposes and better understand why some popular anti-ID arguments fail."

I doubt that science fiction is more popular among proponents of ID than among mainstream biologists, or vice versa. Of course, if one side does have more sci-fi fans, there is an obvious joke to make, but I won't make it - I've made more than my share of obvious jokes today.

http://exploringourmatrix.blog...

Any set of observations can be explained either as the workings out of impersonal physical laws, or as the effects of a Giant Invisible Person who is making everything go.

Or, Big Giant Invisible, er, Laws.:lol:

(Or, in your words, "non-human rational agency", but it's the same thing).

Really? How do you know how big a rational agent is if it's invisible? Doesn't the adjective 'giant' spectacularly crash and burn in such a case as being, er, logically incoherent?

Which kind of explanation you prefer is mostly a matter of taste, I suppose. You can be a scientist and try to uncover laws, or you can be religious and thank the GIP for making a wonderful universe, showering you with blessings, skewering ones enemies, and whatnot.

Uncovering laws which no mind intended to obtain and which are never seen is obviously so much more rational.:lol:

What you can't do is both at the same time.

Er, why not? Are you suggesting that if something is a law it can't be instituted by a rational agent?:lol:

The function of God is to turn off the quest for explanation "” the buck stops There.

The function of any explanatorily and ontologically ultimate thing is to bring a halt to the quest for understanding. As I've pointed out to you, er, before.

That's probably a valuable thing, since explanatory ladders have to stop somewhere. You can wonder why the universe seems mathematically structured, shrug, and say God did it. But that's the point where you stop doing science.

Or you can say it's due to an observer selection effect within a multiverse, or to an impersonal cosmic necessity.:lol:

Laws and mental agents are equally invisible.

It's true. Any set of observations can be explained either as the workings out of impersonal physical laws, or as the effects of a Giant Invisible Person who is making everything go. (Or, in your words, "non-human rational agency", but it's the same thing).

Which kind of explanation you prefer is mostly a matter of taste, I suppose. You can be a scientist and try to uncover laws, or you can be religious and thank the GIP for making a wonderful universe, showering you with blessings, skewering ones enemies, and whatnot.

What you can't do is both at the same time. The function of God is to turn off the quest for explanation — the buck stops There. That's probably a valuable thing, since explanatory ladders have to stop somewhere. You can wonder why the universe seems mathematically structured, shrug, and say God did it. But that's the point where you stop doing science.

The attempt to have it both ways, to pretend that you are able to do science and religion at the same time, leads to bad science (ID) and bad religion (fundamentalism).

What's good religion? IMHO, it's the kind that is willing to dwell in uncertainty, doubt, and mystery, and provide rituals for us humans to navigate these difficult aspects of life. After all, nobody actually knows what the hell God is, if anything, so it may just be stupid to argue about whether he/she/it exists or not. I for one am pretty tired of it.

This has been a special bout of Rosh Hashana amateur theology. Accept no substitutes. Void where prohibited by Divine Law.

Yeah, but - and I know, I'm repeating myself - so what? Forget that to count ID as creationism, the definition has to be expanded far beyond where it stands now (to 'The belief that some agent or agents are behind some, most, or all natural forces and mechanisms.') If Derbyshire's point here was 'ID may seem like science, but in reality it posits that there is some kind of intelligent force behind and/or within the mechanisms of nature', well.. okay, grant him the point, but I fail to see how this damages ID on its own.

No, I think Derbyshire's point here is that ID may seem like science, but the reality is that it is just creationism in disguise (with the implication that creationism is antiscience).

Personally, I think the ID movement is indeed creationism in disguise; there is sufficient evidence of this in the Wedge document and in the Of Pandas and People incident. Furthermore, I would agree with the implied claim that creationism is anti-science, as it takes the word of the Bible as absolute truth, regardless of how that fits reality (there is plenty of evidence for common descent; the only possible reason to reject that I have come across is because ones sacred texts disagree with it). That said, I have no problem with ID science, as long as it is done as science.

See, I have a problem with the bolded part, and the flute's a good example of why.

I think part of the problem with the bone/flute is that it is a single specific instance.Science is about making generalisations. A scientist notes a number of observations, and from that he proposes a hypothesis about what he will observe in the future. Einstein proposed the theory of relativity based on some observations of the universe, but it is a general theory that can be used to explain and predict in many situations. The theory of evolution, likewise, is a general theory about what has happened to countless species, making predictions about what will be found in the genetic code (even though Darwin had no clue there even was a genetic code), in the fossil record, etc. The bone/flute is a single datum. It is not a general theory at all. All we have are two hypotheses about this one specific object.

In the case of … have their points.

Okay.

I can see the perspective of the bone/flute being carried over to the ID debate. A considerable and growing number of ID proponents accept common descent, evolution (even if they question nds), and so on. You even have some ID opponents who accept all the standard positions, but still see room for an intelligent agent behind or at work within nature. Naturally, you also have many who see no such agent. All sides are looking at the same data. Back to the flute/bone.

Right. So we have a number of cases where we look at the data, and interprete it differently, just as with the bone/flute. And just as with the bone/flute, it may never be resolved one way or the other (even less likely, I would guess).

I can give credit to the argument that neither views (telic or atelic) are within the bounds of science - say that science can do nothing but illustrate mechanism, and what those mechanisms mean is left to philosophers and (a)theologians. I can give credit to the argument that both views are within the bounds of science - the idea that, whatever its nature, the idea of a being or beings influencing or creating some or all of the universe is one which can be scientifically, if perhaps inconclusively explored through scientific means. What I can't give credit to is a double-standard where if you argue that the study of nature indicates the purpose or work of agent/agents, that's unscientific - but if you argue that the study of nature disproves the purpose or work of an agent/agents, that's a valid scientific insight. And 'Well, Derbyshire says ID is creationism' doesn't do any work towards justifying the conflicting treatment.

I see nothing intrinsically unscientific in a investigation of purpose in nature. It may be impractical, it may turn out to be wrong, but I would not say it was unscientific just because it was studying purpose. The modern theory of evolution does not say there is no purpose, only that there is no apparent purpose. Plenty of Christians accept modern theory of evolution, and still see purpose. And where the atelic theory wins over the telic is that it has substance, it makes bold predictions, and those predictions hold.

Zachriel: Whenever there is an explanatory gap, we can rely on philosophers to fill it with words.

kornbelt888: Darwinists seem to have no trouble filling explanatory gaps with just-so stories, which, last I checked, were filled with plenty of words.

As there is decisive evidence in support of Common Descent (as it applies to most taxa), that means that we can reasonably predict the existence of intermediate structures. When there is a lack of data on specific transitions, then we might conjecture as to the characteristics of those transitions. Such conjectures often lead to testable hypotheses.

As to philosophers, they have a role to play too.

Whenever there is an explanatory gap, we can rely on philosophers to fill it with words.

Darwinists seem to have no trouble filling explanatory gaps with just-so stories, which, last I checked, were filled with plenty of words.

nullasalus: We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind the existence of life on earth. Maybe we live in a multitude of undetectable universes that led to the world we know. Maybe we live in a universe devoid of deity or ultimate purpose. But we have no scientific evidence of this, and substantial evidence of natural processes reasonably sufficient to explain what we do see. Such a claim is scientifically unsupported.

Does that pass the test as well? Just curious.

There are a number of clauses, and a lot of caveats which I attempted to address. Pass what test? The question is ill-phrased. If you want something more than rhetorical games perhaps you could try to reprase what you are trying to ask or say.

The hypothesis that best explains this body of data is that the universe and life were intelligently designed by non-human rational agency.

And meanwhile, I wanted to say that you make good points. I agree - we do have the data, and there's different ways to read it. I happen to believe the data strongly indicates a rational mind behind the universe. Back when I was seriously investigating the theist/atheist debate, seeing atheists falling back on 'well there could be billions of, or even an infinite number of universes' was, to me, amazing. I still wonder what Bertrand Russell would have thought.

When asking several questions, it would behoove you to be specific, especially when casting accusations of hypocrisy.

Amazing! You quoted and replied to everything I said preceding the question… and avoided the question itself. Frankly, what you responded with just now doesn't merit a reply by me, so I'll repeat the question specifically. You lucky Zachriel you.

We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind the existence of life on earth. Maybe we live in a multitude of undetectable universes that led to the world we know. Maybe we live in a universe devoid of deity or ultimate purpose. But we have no scientific evidence of this, and substantial evidence of natural processes reasonably sufficient to explain what we do see. Such a claim is scientifically unsupported.

Does that pass the test as well? Just curious.

Yes or no, Zach. Because honestly, you seem afraid to answer this head-on. Kind of becoming a theme with you here.