The Problem with Paley's Watch
by BilboOver at UD, Clive Hayden has a fascinating post on the watch mechanism known as the Tourbillon. And he quoted Paley, which I gratefully copied:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there…Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
The problem with Paley's watch analogy, as I've always seen it, is that it depends upon the finder knowing something about complex, metallic machinery. But what if the finder had been a caveman, who knows nothing about complex machines or metallurgy? What then? Would he know that he had found a designed object? I think not. I think he might be curious about it. He might think it was a dead animal of some sort. Let's suppose that our caveman was mechanically inclined, and managed to open the watch without completely destroying it. He notices all the gears and how they mesh and make each other move. And he becomes inspired. "I can make something like this," he thinks. And so he gets some large stones and starts chiseling, and soon makes large gears that mesh and can be used to for making things work, and voila! We have the town of Bedrock!
Well time goes on. The watch is carefully displayed in Bedrock's public museum. Sooner or later metallurgy is invented. Now gears can be made out of metal. People start looking at the watch and wondering, "Do you think someone designed it?" As their skills progress, eventually they are able to mimic the design of the watch perfectly. Then the debate begins: "The original watch was designed!" "Oh yeah, by who?" "We don't know, but we know it just doesn't pop into existence. Somebody designed it." "That's just an argument from ignorance. Maybe there's a way for it to come about naturally, without anybody designing it." Back and forth. Back and forth.
I think that's where we're headed with the cell. We don't know how to make them, yet. Maybe (I hope) we never will. But if we do figure out how, we would have succeeded in showing that cells can be designed. And (assuming origin of life science hasn't had a "Eureka" moment), we won't know anyway the cell could come about without design. But I bet the debate won't come to an end.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
What could possibly be the use of your little fable? Are you supposing it possible that a caveman found a watch?
The problem with Paley is that he knew, from the moment he set eyes on it, that the watch was designed. He went through the charade of "deducing" that it was designed, but he well knew that watches are designed and built by humans. We know nothing of the sort about the cell.
And why don't you want us to make a cell?
Comment by pubdef — June 17, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
pubdef:
Of course he knew that the watch was designed. He described features of the watch that could only have resulted from intentional design by an advanced intelligence in order to establish a general case for induction applicable to objects of any sort.
That's an assertion obviously intended to circumvent the application of reason. Humans habitually reason from what they know and apply this to unknowns. Atheistic wagon circling is not a reason to avoid rational inferences.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
The fatal difficulty with Paley's watch argument is that it is ultimately based on an argument by analogy. As many logicians have pointed out, arguments by analogy are completely worthless. The reason for this is that there is nothing in an analogy itself that can possibly verify or falsify the analogy.
This is clearly the case with the watch = cell analogy. Paley lists off all of the characteristics of a watch that he alleges indicate to an unbiased observer that the watch has been designed. However, none of these characteristics prove anything at all, unless one cites the obvious bit of external information: that we know from experience that watches are designed and built by people. You can consult with a watch maker, or look up the details of watch construction in a book or on Wikipedia, and there you would find information that would unambiguously confirm that watches are indeed designed and constructed objects.
However, you can't do this with a cell or with any other complex entity that is not known via external means to be designed or constructed. Jacques Monod extends Paley's watch argument to a dead honeybee found on the path in the heath, and concludes that the honeybee is, like the watch, designed and constructed by an intelligent agent. But we know that this is clearly not the case: honeybees are constructed by honeybees (or, to be more precise, by honeybee genomes interacting with their environment via their phenomes). And so, we may conclude that Paley's analogy between a watch and a honeybee is, indeed, invalid (at least insofar as it applies to the construction and operation of watches versus honeybees).
The same argument holds for one of the "icons" of the ID movement: Mt. Rushmore. We know for certain that Mr. Rushmore was designed and constructed because we have records of its design and construction. These records constitute the external information that validates the inference of design in the case of Mt. Rushmore.
However, we do not have similar external information about the Old Man of the Mountain (now sadly gone from the mountains of New Hampshire). You could make an argument by analogy that both Mr. Rushmore and the Old Man of the Mountain were produced by the same processes (either via design or "natural" processes), and which ever way you argued, the argument itself would have no logical force at all. Most people would agree that Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed, whereas the Old Man of the Mountain is not. However, this inference is not directly derived from an observation of the two mountains themselves, but rather from information about their origins. We have external historical information that verifies that Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed, but we have no such information about the Old Man of the Mountain. Rather, we have historical evidence that the Old Man of the Mountain was there when the first people (who left historical records) first beheld it.
This is the case with all examples of "designed" versus "natural" objects and processes of which I am aware. What verifies that the "designed" entities were, in fact, designed is information external to the entities themselves. The same is true for the "natural" entities, and so we are left right where we started from: make arguments by assertion and analogy, which have no logical force.
For more on this, see:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/tidac-identity-analogy-and-l ogical.html
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 18, 2009 @ 10:10 am
June 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I think the, "its so easy a caveman can do it" argument can be challenged here. Lets give a little more credit to pre historic human intelligents, and lets not be swayed by Hollywoods version of primitive man. Im sure Trog would have used the same deductive reasoning as any modern human who found a specificaly designed object as obvious as a watch. There is no historical evidence of prehistoric people being imbeciles and idiots. Im sure a seven year old could make this distinction. A pear an apple and a watch, children can you tell us wich one doesent grow on trees?
Comment by themayan — June 18, 2009 @ 11:21 am
June 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I agree. I've always thought the problem with Paley's argument is that he ignores the fact that the blade of grass sitting right next to the watch doesn't strike him as designed. That's when we realize that what differentiates the watch isn't some general appearance of an abstract quality "design", but rather the specific appearance of the concrete quality of human design.
As to the OP, it's a cute idea, but completely overlooks the fact that the events that unfold are not caused by the watch being designed. The caveman and his society would imitate the workings of the watch whether it was designed or not.
Similarly, what we are approaching with the cell is the knowledge to understand how it works, just as the caveman's society was better able to understand the watch once they'd developed metalurgy. As we understand how the cell works, we can better imitate it. Again, whether cell was designed or not has nothing to do with it.
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You answer the question yourself, Pub:
We don't have a very good track record with that sort of power.
You mean that if we took a human being (someone from the sticks in Africa) and showed them both the Old Man and Mt. Rushmore, they would have no more inkling that one was designed than the other?
Hey, at least I thought they would have been inspired to build the town of Bedrock!
If you can't be smart, at least you can be cute, I always say.
Wasn't that the conclusion of my cute OP? BTW, is it "metalurgy" or "metallurgy?" I really don't know.
Comment by Bilbo — June 18, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
The actual "problem" *wink, wink* with Paley's argument is that it completely eviscerates certain people's world-view.
Comment by Jared Jammer — June 18, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Paley's watch argument gives us simple yet adequate evidence for inferring design as the most plausible explanation for the cell. The actual "problem" *wink* *wink* with the argument is that it completely eviscerates certain people's world-view. Point blank; MacNeill, Provan , Raevmo, etc. don't accept it, not because it's not perfectly valid, but because they can't accept it. Any of their responses will be nothing more than sophisticated lies designed to hide this fact. Allen MacNeill is already off to a good start.
Comment by Jared Jammer — June 18, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Pubdef you have incorporated so many philosophical abtracts to an already philosophical analogy that you missed the whole point of the argument. Substitute the watch for a ball of light that follows you around where ever you go, and your argument of perception based on preconcieved experience breaks down. Im sure a reasonably intelligent person would assume an intelligent agent of unkown origin was responsible, whether it be physical or spiritual. Paleys analogy is very simple, and that is, That somethings in nature can be better explained by design rather than undirected causes. We impliment and utilize these distinctions all the time in the field of archeology paleontolgy and forensics. The science of biochemistry and genetics are based on the intricate and exquisite design of living things on the nano molecular and macro level.
Comment by themayan — June 18, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_(biology)
Logicians have shown that evolutionary theory is “completely worthless”?
YIKES!
Comment by Rock — June 18, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I'm not seeing a Biology category at the link, Rock. Could it have been deleted so quickly?
Comment by Bilbo — June 18, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Ah, I think you meant this.
Comment by Bilbo — June 18, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Allen MacNeill:
Here's a hypothetical exposing underlying arguments that we must identify the designer before concluding design. Human astronauts arrive at a planet long suspected of once harboring life. We say once suspected because the star around which the planet orbits has largely exhausted its hydrogen supply and is enlarging as red giants tend to do. That in turn has disrupted the historic flow of energy to orbiting planets to the detriment of life hospitable conditions on the planet in question. In the 20th and 21st centuries when space travel was in its infancy the thought that astronauts would one day reach distant parts of the galaxy or even go beyond that was considered impossible. Alas betting against technology is a losing proposition and our explorers would not do that. Not after seeing an eery reminder of an ancient earth mountainous sculpture known as Mt. Rushmore. The former inhabitants of this planet may have given us a good idea of what they looked like. Odd features reminding one of a cross between humans and bears. There are no such organisms present on this planet. The temperature is no longer favorable but clearly the mountainous features before us were not the consequence of an erosion process. There is too much detail not explained by a natural weathering process. Yes, the designers of this magnificent structure must have had an intelligence that rivaled our own.
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
We'll have to start a thread on just the question of Analogy someday.
Comment by Bilbo — June 18, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
From Rock's link:
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Was it? I assumed from your starting point of Paley's watch was that your conclusion was that our advancements allowed us to understand the cell because it had been designed even though whether it was designed or not has nothing to do with us understanding or imitating it.
If that wasn't your point, why are we talking about Paley?
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
How do you know what the details are? In your hypothetical, you know because the face looks exactly like our faces. How would you know if the aliens looked entirely different, something you wouldn't recognize? You couldn't. You'd just consider it an interesting erosion pattern.
The point being that you are pointing to what could very well be an interesting erosion pattern, and claiming that logic allows you to pretend it looks like Mount Rushmore. It doesn't. The Mount Rushmore conclusion isn't based on Mount Rushmore looking like it was made by intelligence, or that Mount Rushmore is the kind of thing intelligences do; it's based on the fact that Mount Rushmore is an exact image of an intelligent being. There's no image of an intelligent being in the cell, so the reasons you know Mount Rushmore was built by intelligent beings have no relation to anything that would tell you a cell was designed by intelligent beings.
(And, least we miss it, I had to say "designed by" in the previous sentence because we know for sure how individual cells come into being, and it most certainly was not by direct actions of any intelligent being. It's by natural processes. Mount Rushmore's origin did involve human actions, so that's yet another way the analogy breaks down.)
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I took the original post as meaning that, just as the cavemen should not reject design of the watch merely because they have no experience of a candidate designer (because, as it turns out, they would be wrong — the watch was in fact designed), we should not reject design of the cell on the basis that we have no experience of a candidate designer (because we might be just as wrong as the cavemen).
My criticism is this: the factual premise of the OP is plainly fictional. If, in an analogous situation, we were to discover a designed object from the future that seems designed but is beyond the capabilities of existing technology, we would also make an error by concluding that, because there is no candidate designer, there was no design. But the entire premise is fictional! Or are you suggesting that we should consider, as a working (or workable) hypothesis, that the cell was designed with not-yet-existing technology?
Comment by pubdef — June 18, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I said:
Bradford said:
Are you saying that "reason" requires us to proceed as if we do know that the cell was designed and built by humans? Or that we have any evidence of any other candidate designer?
Comment by pubdef — June 18, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Don Provan with all due respect, the logic you seem to be using seems to be of the tortured nature. You seem to be adding much looser defined parameters to the analogy that are not based on the actual question itself wich is basicaly just the simple likley hood of infering or detecting design. Paleys analogy is actually put forth in a way that is very probable and most likely has all ready happened, that is to say, a person of a more indigenous culture comming across some ones watch, and speculating on its origins. I believe in all likelyhood that if there were a Mount Rushmore ET equivalent, even if we didnt recognize the faces as human or anything that even remotly resembles life, we would still be able to differentiate the difference between natural erosion and specified information. If not we might as well stop teaching the science of astrophysics, astrobiology, exobiology and for that matter cause and effect science…..Dean Martin once said he had so many children he screwed himself out of a seat at the dinner table. Lets not set the standards so high we screw ourselves out of a seat at the table of intellectual honesty and reason.
Comment by themayan — June 18, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
That's an assertion obviously intended to circumvent the application of reason. Humans habitually reason from what they know and apply this to unknowns. Atheistic wagon circling is not a reason to avoid rational inferences.
Reason requires two approaches. First, we accept the obligation to consider rational possibilites. Second, we analyze future data in light of all reasonable options. Does the data reinforce of refute possibility x? How does it apply to aternatives y and z? Ruling out options a priori because of personal preference does not strengthen the case for reason.
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Bradford: There is too much detail not explained by a natural weathering process. Yes, the designers of this magnificent structure must have had an intelligence that rivaled our own.
You use your eyes.
Wrong. Reread the comment. The faces looked like a cross between something human and something bearlike.
If you encountered one you would know the same way you know that an animal face differs from a human.
You'd have to be an idiot to think a detailed structure of what looked like a biological organism could be caused by erosion.
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
themayan:
And make those who do so look silly in the process.
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Once again, someone is forgetting that ID was the existing theory which was overturned. Scientists considered rational possibilities. Future data was analyzed in light of all reasonable options. Evolution was reinforced. ID was refuted. Observing the two century long process which led biologists to their current conclusions and pretending it amounts to "ruling out options a priori" is just silly.
Comment by don provan — June 19, 2009 @ 3:34 am
June 19th, 2009 at 4:01 am
I am pointing out that the examples, both Paley's and Bilbo's, are contrived. They present specific cases with very clear reasons for concluding human design, and then they pretend these cases prove a more general ability to identify design of any origin. But the generalization is a fiction.
How would you do it? Would you look for straight lines? Is that because straight lines are intrinsically intelligent, or because humans use straight lines? Would you look for smooth surfaces? Is that because smooth surfaces are inherently intelligent or because humans make smooth surfaces? Would you look for chisel marks? Is that because chisel marks are inherently intelligent, or because humans use chisels? And on and on. I predict you will not come up with one specific thing that identifies Mount Rushmore as being the result of intelligent design, you will only find things which identify Mount Rushmore as being constructed by humans.
In particular, what would you look for in Mount Rushmore that you would also find in biological systems? Do you find straight lines or smooth surfaces or chisel marks in cells? Do cells look like human faces? What similarity is there in the identification of intelligent origin in Mount Rushmore and in cells?
Bad example. Indigenous cultures finding a watch or a coke bottle would speculate on their origins, I agree. Most likely they would decide that they had an intelligent origin: the gods. Which is exactly what they conclude about rivers and mountains. So there's really no question that whatever it is that the indigenous cultures use to determine intelligent origin is unreliable. And if you think about it a little, you might realize that they are unreliable for exactly the same reasons the ID claims of intelligent origin are unreliable.
Comment by don provan — June 19, 2009 @ 4:01 am
June 19th, 2009 at 4:10 am
To look for what?
Whatever. It makes no difference. They could look like automobiles, for all it matters. What's important is that we recognize them, and it's that recognition of a familiar object which leads us to a conclusion of intelligent origin.
I recognize an animal face because of how it is similar to a human's.
If you recognized it as a biological organism. And, of course, you determined that it was a representation of a biological organism, not an actual biological organism, pertrified perhaps.
Comment by don provan — June 19, 2009 @ 4:10 am
June 19th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Don I believe that one can make the case that the Spaniards were looked at as gods because of some pre existing religious belief that my indigenous brethren Aztecs had about a prodigal white god, or it could have been Spanish mideviel propaganda, who knows, however the point is Hollywoods version of westerners being treated as dieties because they showed the chief a camera or mirror is largly exagerated by the fiction writers of the day. There have always been rational thinkers in every society, even primitive ones, even in America were we print, in God we trust on our coins and our congress says a prayer every morning. Unless you have mystical powers, there is no way you could ever know what some ones reaction is going to be. If I saw a snake I wouldnt let it bite me on the backside because of not moving away, and instead wanting to see if there were familiar patterns of symetry on it. Don Astrobiologist would be thrilled if found, but are not neccassarily looking for Mount Rushmore structures per say, only for the carbon based life forms, that could theoretically exist, and wich contain the same extraterretrial biological systems that you say would fly over our heads. The SETI people would strangle you. Nobody in cosmology is expecting earth like homologous life, most would be happy with just basic microbial ET life right now. I think your argument has been collectivly destroyed.
Comment by themayan — June 19, 2009 @ 5:41 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The familarity is the intelligent design. Recognizing design elsewhere in the universe would not require IDing the designer in advance.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2009 @ 9:28 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
A stupid analysis. It was never about evolution and always about origins. Evolution does not occur in the absence of cells and the origin of cells has never been explained.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2009 @ 9:32 am
June 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am
My point was that someone unfamiliar with metalurgy (metallurgy?) and complex machines wouldn't immediately recognize the watch as a designed object. And that once one became familiar with those technologies, and one still didn't have independent evidence of a designer for the original watch, the question of whether the original watch was designed would probably still be debated.
The hypothesis is that the cell was designed with technology not-yet-existing to us.
Comment by Bilbo — June 19, 2009 @ 10:47 am
June 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
From what I’ve read in these discussions, it is principally evolutionary scientists who are the source of the design analogies that IDers and other creationists invoke. Furthermore, at least in the hands of evolutionary biologists, these comparisons (analogies) have been elaborated, detailed, formalized and extended experimentally far beyond the level of exposition one will find in Paley.
In evolutionary biology we have quite literally systematized, formalized the argument, which is something creationists never quite pulled-off. (I believe because their ideas along those lines were markedly “designer-centric,” whereas evolutionary scientists pursued a completely different “design-centric” approach.)
Darwin, like virtually every other evolutionary theorist since, makes such positive comparisons (natural selection artificial selection, genealogy phylogeny, natural economy political economy, etc.). Unlike creationists, who are easily distracted by arguments over Mt. Rushmore and things like that, its evolutionary scientists who’ve added the substance to these “bare bones” analogies.
Any general argument against analogical thinking, no matter how logically compelling, isn’t going to change the way people think. What is required is a case-based logic, because such comparisons or analogies are going to be more or less compelling (its never really a question of “verifiable” or “falsifiable”) to a scientist in any particular case upon how much detail can be provided.
I don’t find Paley’s analogical argument compelling because life forms don’t look like pocket watches. If the argument was that life forms are like pocket watches being an intricate arrangement of parts that performs a function, then life forms and pocket watches are like just about everything else in the real world, natural and designed.
Design analogies have played a fundamental role in the development of evolutionary theory, at least since Darwin turned the creationists’ design argument (from analogy) to his own purposes. Probably every evolutionary theorist since Darwin has made the comparison (evolution design), and such comparisons have driven very productive experimental research programs, and led us to a greater understanding of biological evolution.
Biologists still employ a “:naïve theory of design” which is not really different from Paley’s (and Darwin’s) understanding. Modern evolutionary biologists, like earlier creationists, such as Paley, still refer to the intricate arrangement of parts that performs a specific function as a “design.”
I agree with Professor MacNeill completely when he observes that design per se is not the issue. It can’t be the issue! Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the attempt to account for the appearance of design—but w/o invoking a designer. Not w/o invoking design, which Darwin did and we do, because it’s the very raison d’etre of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is the attemto to explain the design of life w/o… You know who.
I don’t find Paley’s analogical argument very compelling, because his “design criteria” are far too broad. An intricate arrangement of parts that performs a specific function could describe an atom, e.g., about which Paley knew virtually nothing. A basic problem with "design theory," its a "Theory of Everything."
Besides life forms don’t look anything like pocket watches. They are far more intricate, far more complex than any humanly devised timepiece. Indeed, all life forms contain clocks as basic components. This is because an effective adaptive response requires the coordination in time and space of otherwise independently occurring events.
Which is design! To design is to coordinate otherwise independently occurring events to occur in specific times and places.
To do this you need a clock independently calibrated to, coordinating events, that otherwise not would occur on any reasonable expectation derived solely from one’s knowledge of the natural course of events.
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/05/yes_archaea_also_have_circadia.p hp
Reminding that "design" for IDers and other creationists is itself an analogy or metaphor for supernatural creation. A "meta-analogical" argument.
Comment by Rock — June 19, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
All of you fail to recognize that the conclusion one holds regarding origins is a direct result of – not science but – the conclusion one holds regarding origins.
One recognizes design when one understands the possibility of a realistic causal history involving a realistic (to him) designer. One who fails to recognize this possibility must find another believable (to him) causal history. This the naturalist does – imagining that nature is capable of producing such a thing – be it Mt. Rushmore or a living cell.
None of this has anything to do with science. It is bias – pure and simple.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 19, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
The cell is not a pocket watch because William Paley and Darwin both had no clue what a cell really is. Darwin thought it was a blob of goo, Paley thought it was more of a pocket watch. The answer? Its more of a watch made out of goo. Both Darwin and Paley and Rock were dead wrong. Context changes, design remains.
Comment by computerist — June 19, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The prevailing theory about the original of the species was intelligent design. That has been overturned, as you are implicitly conceeding.
Whether there's another issue — the origin of life itself — which is still unexplained is irrelevant to my point, except in so far as we know the ID theory about how species arose was very popular and enthusiastically defended even though it was never supported by a single peice of positive evidence, and we can see the ID theory about how life arose is the same. Whether science will provide a real explanation is beside the point.
You say that, but the things you bring up to demonstrate that you can identify intelligent design invariably, on analysis, only demonstrate that you can identify things that are like what humans do.
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I understand that that's how you approach the problem, since you do, in fact, have a preexisting, unalterable conclusion regarding origins. But not everyone starts by wanting a particular conclusion. Science in general is performed by people willing to reach whatever conclusion the evidence leads them to. Scientists tend to be impartial because science is designed to detect and prevent people warping the evidence to support their desired conclusions.
I'm sure you are imagining that yo have a realistic causal history, but in what sense is "Let there be light" either realistic or causal?
Many professional biologists are Christian, and their claim is that evolution is the realistic causal history of "God created the species." Are you overlooking that possibility?
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
That's why the Gedankenexperiment takes place on another planet uninhabited by humans. You're free to believe that a detailed sculpture found on that planet is indeterminable with respect to design. I don't even think that you believe that. Your position is but a contrivance to protect your metaphysical backside.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
So we see a mountain carved in the shape of organisms. Indeed, it is an eery reminder of what we are already quite familiar with. Your point?
Now consider you observe an almost perfect likeness of a human being. What is your conclusion?
Comment by Zachriel — June 22, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
What we are familiar with is the cognitive skill of great artistry and the knowledge that an erosion alternative is not plausible. That's a design inference without IDing the designer in advance.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
They're apparently a human-like organism with human-like behavior that once lived on a planet suitable for human-like life. We hypothesize they used human-like methods to construct a monument for human-like reasons. Then we can test the hypothesis to see if it matches the evidence. If so, it reinforces our original supposition. If not, it may still be a fruitful hypothesis as it leads to an investigation of how exactly the monument came to be.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 8:31 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
No, they are not human like organisms. They are images of biological organisms.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 10:24 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Sigh. Yes, they're images of a human-like organisms. We check our catalog of known phenomena and it matches with known artifacts. So we *hypothesize* that they were manufactured by similar creatures. Then we test our hypothesis by looking for other signs of such creatures and their activities. In other words, we have actual evidence, not some vague notion of complexity.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 11:33 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
To the contrary, Zachriel, a traveler, who never heard of Mt. Rushmore and knew nothing about sculpture, would immediately recognize that the images were designed by an advanced intelligence and could not have resulted from erosion or the infamous unknown cause. It's not the complexity either. There are complex physical entities that would be ascribed to forces of nature. The images evidence purpose even if that purpose is not fully comprehended. There is intent evident in the topography making it clear that the organism in question was deliberately portrayed and not an incidental result of a natural process.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 11:41 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Huh? It's your Gedankenexperiment.
It's an "eery reminder" of a known artifact. By the way, there are natural processes that can result in stone facsimiles of organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 11:57 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
It's an eery reminder that signs of intelligence are manifest.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
You completely ignored the point, and your own example, that of finding an "eery reminder" of a known artifact on an alien planet. It's an eery reminder that we recognize artifacts by their similarity to known examples.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
It's an eery reminder that ID critics argue circularly that we assess intelligence by known artifacts which intelligent beings create.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
What's circular about pointing out that what we know, we've learned from our experiences? Our experiences are with human designs, not with designs from many different intelligences from which we can generalize.
Now if you, just once, offered some evidence suggesting that we can generalize from our experiences to a universal idea of intelligence, then you'd really be on to something. But Paley's watch and Mount Rushmore with man/bear faces are artifacts that we can identify as human-like designs without needing to generalize, so they are worthless towards your case.
Comment by don provan — June 23, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
You've learned from your experience that humans are intelligent and that the artifacts that intelligent humans make are evidence of an intelligent source for such artifacts based in the knowledge that humans are intelligent. You like drawing circles?
That's why I referred you to an extraterrestrial source. So to make your point you pretend that science cannot make generalizations about an evolutionary process that takes place on another planet? If you see evidence that a math problem is worked out by an organism elsewhere in the galaxy you must tank your own innate intelligence and pretend no conclusions about intelligence can be drawn because our familiarity is only with humans.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
It's called a correlation. It's not circular reasoning because each of the facts can be established independently.
* Humans are reasonably intelligent organisms.
* Humans manufacture artifacts.
* Human artifacts can be categorized along with other phenomena.
* We can make reasonable correlations between various catagorized phenomena and human manufacture.
ID Advocates often claim to be able to make determinations of intelligent causation without any knowledge of the intelligent agent. But your example clearly points to a human-like organism using human-like methods on a once upon a time human-like planet and quite possibly for human-like purposes. This hypothesis can be tested by looking for other signs of human-like activities.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
What is the evidence used to support this claim?
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
That's too many inferences based on a simple visual. If the intelligence of the source is threefold that of humans is the source still human like?
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Science is not a simple process of deduction, of "inferences". It's a recursive system of investigation.
You provided a specific example of a human-like artifact. That knowledge is sufficient to devise a testable hypothesis of a human-like cause. How closely the actual cause resembles a person, or even if there is another cause entirely is something that we investigate.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I know it's a stretch. That's why I included the qualifer.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Oh my, aiguy would be turning over in his grave, if he were actually dead.
"And Elohim said, let us make man in our image and likeness."
Maybe there's something to this human-like intelligence thingy.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 23, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I understand your reluctance to specify the evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
don provan Says:
If only you were honest enough to realize that you do too.
It doesn't matter what you "want" – it's the assumptions you bring to the table.
Within the framework in which they work. The supernatural is excluded from natural science, hence it cannot be considered as a mechanism. Scientist are forced to look for natural mechanisms for what they see. The assumption is that – that's all there is. The assumption is – no God required. But I can look at any designed object and – if forced to consider only unintelligent natural forces – come up with enough evidence to show that nature could make some parts of said design. Then, if that's all I'm allowed to look at, I'd have to assume that nature built the rest of it. This is where mainstream science is with regards to explaining the origins of life.
Have you ever looked at the biosynthesis of glycoproteins in the golgi complex? Tell me how nature came up with that and then talk to me about realistic causal histories!
I am not. I know evolution happens. I can show you evidence of repeated (and repeatable) evolution of a few species of flowers in the Pacific Northwest within the last century. The problem is that this observed evolution does not use the variation+selection mechanism you all are so enamored with. You see, the theories of evolution I find most interesting are the non-Darwinian ones – such as those put forth by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse and John Davison. These are theories of evolution with more realistic mechanisms – that better explain the fossil record. These theories are like a square peg in the scientific establishment's round hole – so they are ignored. It's sad too. Dr. John Davison is probably one of the few living scientists who actually goes where the evidence leads – infuriating atheists and Christians alike.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 23, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
That one has a theistic bias does not specify the level at which we would expect to find clear evidence of intelligence. For example, I, an avowed theist, think that an intelligence is responsible for life on earth. But I'm not at all sure how the evidence for that should look to us, if any of it is available at all. It could take the form of unexpected objects in the fossil record, or DNA, or chemical origins, or life could be front loaded all the way back to the beginning of the universe without absolutely no discernable "tweaks" in the universe's history otherwise. The assumption of theism makes no demands on where any tell-tale evidence may lie. This should be obvious given the panoply of theists who run the gamut from YECs to Ken Millers. (Having said that, I think there is plenty of evidence for ID if one assumes the superior philosophical view that "all apparent things should be considered actual until demonstrated otherwise.")
Daniel Smith's point, if I understand him correctly, simply opens the door to research paths with the assumption that an intelligent agent was involve. It may yield no fruit, or it may yield fruit. But the current bias against ID is arbitrarily limiting, and the result largely of a particular philosophical/theological position. That position is obvious to us on the "other side." But I must admit, I'm caring less and less about what your side thinks about it all.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 23, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 4:15 am
If you're going to call me a liar, at least pretend to make a case that I'm lying. The fact that you have preconceptions that you cannot shake is not evidence that I have a similar problem.
Nope, sorry. I brought nothing to the table. Since I sat down, I have realized that you and I have no choice but to accept the reality we are sharing in order to interact with each other, so I do now take it as an assumption. And, of course, so do you, since you're talking to me, so we shouldn't have any disagreement about that. But you insist we cannot continue on that basis. Why?
You are mistaking science with some kind of source of metaphysical truth. But science doesn't tell you about all that there is, it only tells you about all we can observe. That isn't some kinda of arbitrary decision made by evil scientists determined to crush religion, it's just a result of the technique of empirical verification at the heart of science, and exactly what makes science so effective.
Not at all. Define God in a way that He can be observed, and science can use Him as a cause just like any other observable force. It is religion that refuses to allow science to examine God, not science that refuses to consider God.
Who prevents you from looking at whatever you want to look at? Please, be my guest. Look at God. Look at the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anything you want. The only requirement is that you come back and show me. Can you do that? Or will all your conclusions start with, "Well, first assume that God exists and created all life on Earth. Now, then, it is obvious that…"?
That's what I've been telling you: mainstream science started with a presupposition that God created life. It moved from there to where it is now. Feel free to retrace the steps, but it might be easier if you just looked at the research already done over the last 200 years.
The question was whether you had a realistic causal history. I am perfectly willing to concede that there are no realistic causal histories of the biosynthesis of glycoproteins in the goligi complex, since I know nothing about it. Are you? Or are you going to claim that "let there be light" is a realistic causal history that scientists should be studying?
If you say so. You must be really familiar with the topic to be so confident that your evaluation is correct and virtually all biologists, Christian or not, are ignoring the obviously correct answers. What are your credentials, again?
(I just did a quick web search on John Davison, and I don't really see any scientists being infuriated by him. Mostly they seem to yawn because he isn't saying anything as groundbreaking as he thinks he is. But I'm sure they're mainly just ignoring him because he's square.)
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2009 @ 4:15 am
June 24th, 2009 at 6:21 am
There "science" goes again. It is making a jump that it can not scientifically make. Even if science shows that it is possible for life to form from non-life it has not proven a naturalistic origin for life. You cannot jump to that conclusion just because you have shown that life can form from non-life. In fact. . . if life can form from non-life, that in itself suggests that there is something bigger there.
Comment by 0112358 — June 24, 2009 @ 6:21 am
June 24th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Translation: Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.
Comment by hrun — June 24, 2009 @ 7:54 am
June 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
No. . . Heads, ID has a philosopy. Tails, Naturalism has a philosophy.
Comment by 0112358 — June 24, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I have no quarrel with rational theists of this type. Mr. Smith may be such a theist, but he seems to be saying that the evidence should be interpreted according to his preconceptions. This differs from the position you are presenting, which calls for an unbiased evaluation of the evidence which may or may not turn up evidence for the assumed intervention by God.
That would be reasonable if your evaluation of "apparent" were neutral. If, on the other hand, you interpret "apparent" as meaing apparent because you assume that there's an intelligent designer at work, you're just assuming your conclusion. In practice, we see this every day in ID discussions: no, it isn't apparent that an intelligent agent was a work simply because we don't know how else it could have happened.
And I've said repeatedly that he and anyone he can convince are free to pursue those research paths if they want. I'm just pointing out that there are very good reasons to believe that those paths have already been covered, even before we look at the research record. So I wouldn't get my hopes up about those lines bearing any fruit or, for that matter, convincing many scientists to retrace them.
Good. I don't know why you ever cared about what the other side thought or, for that matter, what makes you think there are sides at all. But, given the history of how we got here by starting with a presumption of intelligent design, it seems quite likely to me that the bias against ID is not arbitrary at all, but is rather the result of previous investigations into ID which came up empty. So, at best, one would guess that current ID proposals are just rehashing things already studied. Mr. Smith's proposals certainly seem along obvious lines that it would be hard to believe the earlier scientific creationists could have possibly overlooked.
In reality, I would claim that the current ID is actually specifically designed to be impossible for science to investigate. I base this opinion on the lack of sufficient definition in any ID theoretical work. My personal guess is that this is a hard earned lesson. The previous generation of creationists approached the subject with true scientific ideas, well defined so that they could be tested. The result of that testing was that all their hypotheses were disproved.
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
By what measure do you conclude this was an unwarranted leap?
Why wouldn't it prove a naturalistic origin? If it is shown possible, including that the necessary conditions were present at the appropriate time, by what argument do you deny the conclusion?
And even if I grant you the possibility that the evidence all being consistent with a specific life-from-non-life hypothesis doesn't prove the hypothesis is true — all hypotheses can be overturned by subsequent evidence — that still leaves at the starting gate alternate hypotheses involving unknown intelligent agents operating in unknown ways at unknown times. A lack of proof of one hypothesis — absolute proof or not — doesn't help any other hypothesis.
What more evidence would we need before you wouldn't consider it a jump? Do you require a video of the actual event? Or is there a lesser level at which you would concede it was a valid scientific conclusion?
The question is what that something bigger is. You have a specific idea about what that something bigger is. No problem. Your something bigger would no longer be required to explain life if we were to show that life arose from non-life through natural processes with no evidence of intelligent intervention, but it doesn't disprove your something bigger, either.
On the other hand, nothing at all about life actually supports your something bigger over any other something bigger. Someone else might feel exactly like you, only they think the something bigger is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. No difference.
Me, I don't really worry about what the something bigger might be because I see no way of actually figuring it out, and I have no interest in just guessing.
Comment by don provan — June 24, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Everyone has preconceptions. The issue is whose are better.
There is no such thing as unbiased evaluation. Everyone starts with certain unprovable philosophical assumptions. IMO, the pragmatically productive philosophies are superior. But of course, this is yet another philosophical tenet. Have you examined your own? Are you even aware of what they are?
Wrong. This is what Zachriel tried to convey with his invalid analogy. See if you can tell the difference: "All things come from the Pink Unicorn except those things that have been demonstrated otherwise" and "All apparent things should be considered actual until demonstrated otherwise", and a more specific application, "all apparently designed things should be considered designed until demonstrated otherwise." With the latter there is a specification, loose perhaps, but a specification nevertheless. No mention of any designer as the basis. The starting point is the evidence itself and our experience with apparently designed things.
Of course, if I am a theist that believes Jesus created the world, I will naturally conclude on that basis that Jesus designed the cell. But that's beside the point. Nobody need share that assumption (and conclusion) to adopt the position that apparently designed things should be considered actually designed things until demonstrated otherwise. This is a basic part of human thinking and it is objectively superior in human experience to the alternative.
This is an astounding view given the rather large gaps in the trail. (There's more gaps than trail.) Can you give me the full account of how any cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan came about? If no, then what you are saying? What, other than a certain kind of theology (would God make it this way?), would make you conclude against ID at this point?
At any rate, the "paths" have been covered by people with a particular operating philosophy. Their conclusions are going to reflect that, naturally. Others with a modified philosophy have entered the building. I'm interested in seeing what they can do in the next 20 or 30 years. Aside from that, there's already gobs of evidence pointing toward a designer, if you accept the operating philosophy that apparently designed things should be considered actually designed unless demonstrated otherwise.
When so many "darwinists" say, in effect, "well, this stupendous evidence sure looks like it was designed by someone, but we know it isn't. There's no evidence for a designer [because that was decided up front]. Nature is blind and and did it all without any intelligence using blind variations and natural selection. How do we know this? How else could it have happened?", etc, etc. That's not science (knowledge) in the more basic sense of the word. That's philosophy masquerading as knowledge.
That's fine. There will always be smart, young whipper-snappers who will ignore the status quo.
BTW, I don't know what your yardstick for success is, but as an example, the anti-ID crowd got it wrong with respect to "junk" DNA, but the ID crowd expected function there.
The "sides" are the philosophical "camps."
The bias against ID was not empirical evidence, but rather certain kind of theology that gained ground in the 19th century. "Why would God do this, why would God do that; would a God really do this?", etc. It's OK to believe a certain philosophy or theology, but let's be clear and upfront about what they are.
Depending on the presumptive philosophy, their assessment of evidence for certain things might be consistent and "the better hypothesis", and it might not be. You'd have to be specific.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 24, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
But don't you see? We all make a choice about the something bigger. You have already made your guess. Your guess is that the something bigger is Chance. My guess is that the something bigger is God. Both these guesses have nothing to do with science.
Having shown that it is possible for life to arise from non-life and jumping to the conclusion that life has a purely naturalistic origin can not be made scientifically because no hypothesis can be made that will prove chance as the causal agent. Just as ID cannot scientifically make a God hypothesis you cannot make a Chance hypothesis.
Comment by 0112358 — June 24, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
The part you keep forgetting is that the world is apparently magical. That you can't see this apparency must be due to your lack of awareness. Your philosophical bias blinds you.
Based on the human 'sense of design', and lacking another explanation, the planetary orbits are designed. Mountains are designed. The flooding of the Nile is designed. Whatever it is you think you are arguing, it is *not* science.
You insist that your human 'sense of design' is reliable, when it's been shown repeatedly to be unreliable. You rely on this subjective sense, then try to claim it's science. It's not.
As we have historically seen, no it's not. Humans attribute design (and anthropomorphize) everything, including storm clouds, disease, and the roll of dice. Believe what you will, just don't pretend it's science.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2009 @ 7:58 am
June 25th, 2009 at 8:06 am
If we show that a mixture of q-dirt and water inevitably generates life, and that the primordial oceans were made of q-dirt and water, then we can say with a great deal of confidence that life *can* arise naturally, and that it probably *did* arise naturally. You can push back the Gap argument and say that the conditions for the existence of q-dirt and water were designed. But if we show that this is due to the natural circumstance of a collapsing nebula, a process we see repeated countless times, then the Gap is pushed further back, while failing all the while to generate testable hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2009 @ 8:06 am
June 25th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Nope. Sorry, wrong again. I really haven't. Might be chance. Might not be. I've made no choice either way.
This is rubbish. You speak as if there's still some question about whether little pixies decide which slot the roulette ball goes into. An element of chance can be shown in a process with statistical analysis.
Of course, chance plays only a small part in the natural theory. Certainly nothing like "a cause". And, actually, chance plays the same part in the God theory in that God could have whims. What luck that God decided to create the universe and everything in it!
I think the real problem here is that when you reduce the rich, detailed process known as evolution to a form as simplistic as "God did it", you end up with something equally vacuous, like "chance did it" or even "mutation and selection did it." When you do that, it would be best for you to pay more attention to what "God did it" tells you, which is literally nothing. In particular, it doesn't tell you that God's tool wasn't evolution, including its element of chance.
Comment by don provan — June 25, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I disagree. I think the issue is who can overcome theirs.
Comment by don provan — June 25, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
On the contrary, I'm saying that ID scientists should abandon the mainstream preconceptions and start interpreting the evidence from their own (whatever that may be). Things will get interesting then!
Those research paths have not been followed for 200 years. Much has been discovered since then. The "genetic revolution" in particular. (Please don't waste my time by pointing out that these discoveries were made under the current paradigm – we both know they'd have been discovered no matter the paradigm.)
The "current ID" is mired in defending the proposition it should be working from. The "current evolution" would be so mired if it had to defend every proposed evolutionary pathway. It doesn't. The "current evolutionist" works from the assumption that every living thing is a product of undirected evolution. I'm not proposing that they stop working from that assumption – I'm suggesting that those who don't hold that assumption start working from the assumption they hold.
I'd be interested in how many of these hypotheses you could actually name, and how you came to the conclusion that "all" of them have been "disproved".
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 25, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Yeah, that's what I should have said. I did make it sound like you wanted it to reflect your personal preconceptions, but I only said that because I was thinking that your preceptions and their preconceptions would be pretty much the same.
It would get interesting and fun to see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
You must be kidding. You think Christians have ignored science for the last 200 years or something? No, ID is just the latest in a long, continuous line of people trying to support the Bible with science.
Yes. Our only disagreement is that I believe that's really all they can do, while you think there's something else amazing they could be doing.
I'd be lucky to name 2 or 3, but my conclusion that they all were disproved is based on the fact that fundamentalist Christians and ID supporters would frequently bring up any that actually panned out.
Comment by don provan — June 25, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 1:43 am
What do you mean by magical?
That's entirely possible.
The theory of gravity predicts with good success where the planets will be, but I've never seen any evidence that indicates the planetary orbits are not designed. Please provide any if you have it.
"The flooding of the Nile is designed."
Are you saying you have evidence that it is not designed?
"Whatever it is you think you are arguing, it is *not* science."
I never said it was. Science assumes non-telic natural causes for everything. It operates under a different non-provable philosophy.
"Mountains are designed."
I've never personally had that impression. Have you?
"You insist that your human 'sense of design' is reliable, when it's been shown repeatedly to be unreliable.
I didn't say it was perfect. Quite the contrary. In my statement that "apparent things should be considered actual until demonstrated otherwise" is implies that sometimes apparent things may be demonstrated to be merely apparent. Scientific theories have a similar inductive weakness. It's all about what is the best explanation right now. All conclusions are subject to change.
"You rely on this subjective sense,"
Science relies on philosophical subjectivity. Are you saying you are free from it? There are some things you simply have to trust that you have right, like that you are sane and your powers of thinking are what they seem to be, that the other scientists who agree with you are really there, etc, etc. Whatever your philosophy, there is a lot you take from granted. The question is: does your approach yield more pragmatically superior results than competing philosophies in your own mind? Would an ID friendly view of life yield more pragmatically productive results with respect to understanding life? That's what Daniel Smith is getting at, I think. So far, it is not obvious that the scientific status quo approach is going to be the pragmatic winner.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 26, 2009 @ 1:43 am
June 26th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Well, go ahead and show that a mixture of q-dirt and water inevitably generates life and I, for one, will bow the knee, and never bother any of you with my skepticism again.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 26, 2009 @ 1:46 am
June 26th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Claims that planetary orbits are designed are either scientifically vacuous (designed, but no scientific evidence), false (claimed scientific evidence of design), or fallacious (e.g. redefining terminology). My point was that the original claim was unfounded.
Sure you did. You said, "My scientific philosophy is the same as yours except for one exception: 'apparent things should be considered actual things, until demonstrated otherwise.' " You are clearly redefining science to suit your needs. Scientific claims require scientific verification.
I'm not sure why you would say this. Teleology is very important to anthropology, criminology and other scientific studies.
Skepticism is an important aspect of scientific investigation. You're not showing skepticism. Indeed you are saying that your intuitive sense of design is sufficient to justify a scientific claim. That's not skepticism. Quite the contrary.
Leaving aside the questionable use of the term "prove" and "chance", 0112358 claims that no scientifically supportable hypothesis for natural abiogenesis is possible—regardless of the facts or evidence. This is an unwarranted claim. The ability to form a demonstrable theory depends on the specifics.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2009 @ 9:50 am
June 26th, 2009 at 11:26 am
It's only unfounded if your presumption is that apparently designed things are not.
What did you mean by "magical" in your previous post?
Hence the "my". The statement was made assuming the Telic Apparent Philosophy of Science (TAPS.)
Your reference to "needs" is ad hominem. The issue is whether my proposed philosophy of science is better than the status quo. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but you haven't made your case yet.
I'm talking specifically about biology.
That statement was made with the status quo philosophy of science in biology in mind. It is skeptical in your paradigm.
I didn't say that intuitive sense of design is sufficient to justify a scientific claim using your philosophy of science. Moreover, at bottom of all philosophies of science is non-provable intuitions. Are you saying you don't have any that you rely on?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 26, 2009 @ 11:26 am
June 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
One doesn't have to presuppose it is designed or presuppose it is not designed to recognize the original claim lacks foundation, that based on your personal 'sense of design', and lacking another explanation, that it is reasonable to conclude it was designed (especially knowing the 'sense of design' is very unreliable).
Unfortunately, explaining color to the blind is an exercise in futility. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, you were talking about science. Don't pretend you weren't.
Your intiution doesn't become science just because you say so. Nor is redefining terms willy-nilly philosophy.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If you show that it is possible for life to arise from non-life, all you have done is to show that it is possilbe for life to arise from non-life. Jumping from there to the assumption that this transition from non-life to life happened by chance is the non-testable hypothesis. It is no different than the non-testable hypothesis that "God did it" which you so adamantly oppose.
Comment by 0112358 — June 26, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
0112358:
Good point. It's virtually impossible to construct theoretical pathways free of the element of good fortune. For one, the organic chemicals envisioned to have been part of a reaction chain would not be the robust systems replicating cells are. An abrupt change in hospitable reaction conditions could subvert the process. No homeostasis mechanisms and other environmentally resistent features would have been present.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Well, let's try to avoid that "by chance" and see if that helps.
Imagine we show that in a vat filled with q-dirt, that life arises after some period of time. And imagine that we show that similar environments existed on Earth when life arose. In what way would you not be satisfied? Why does it matter that it was "by chance" if we show that the probabilities result in it happening after the given time has elapsed?
"Chance" isn't the cause, as you keep claiming. The environment and natural processes are the cause. As I've already pointed out, it's just "by chance" that the intelligent designer created life. Why doesn't that concern you for the same reasons?
Comment by don provan — June 26, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
dp:
If an intelligent source creates, chance is replaced by purpose.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
So. . . the natural environment and natural processes are the cause. . . Why were the natural environment and natural processes there in the first place? Were they just always there? Did God plan it that way? No scientific hypotheses can be made to test these questions. Therefore, at the basic core of your belief system you are no different than the ID proponents that you oppose.
Comment by 0112358 — June 26, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
By "those research paths" I meant scientific research based on the assumption of divine creation. To my knowledge, science has not been done under that assumption for close to 200 years.
I'd be interested in the 2 or 3 you can name. I don't know what they'd even be.
This brings me to my larger point: I've seen countless examples of this in my dealings with design opponents (usually atheists) on numerous forums: You seem to be of the opinion that science has concluded things which in reality are not even close to concluded and that science has disproved things it is no where near disproving. I said once that if you were "honest" you would see your own bias, by that I didn't mean you were lying (except maybe to yourself). I meant that the gap between what you believe science has concluded and what science has actually concluded is huge. Your mind has filled in all the blanks for you (this is something we all do). Try, since you aspire to be scientific, to separate actual evidence from your own assumptions and see how much is really known about these things you are so sure of.
That's all I'm saying about "your" side of this debate.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 26, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I don't know, but that's not the question we're asking. We're asking how it happen given what was there.
Besides, once again you're ignoring the exact same question when applied to your "explanation": why was God there in the first place? Is you explanation invalidated because you can't answer that? If not, why is the natural explanation invalidate because it can't?
Comment by don provan — June 26, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I'm dying to know what you think happened 200 years ago. Did all of the western scientists, almost all Christian, suddently die and get replaced with the raving atheists that have dominated science since? Of course not. 200 years ago, western science was dominated by Christians that were, in fact, working under the assumption of divine creation. The concensus only changed after people such as Darwin discovered that the evidence didn't fit the Christian explanation.
Let's see. A flood 7K years ago laid down the sedimentary layers we see today. All life on earth today is exactly the same as it was when it was originally created. All extinct species were killed off in a worldwide flood. How's that?
Well, I think the problem is the reverse: that you don't understand that something is presumed unproven until proven. (Did you look up the null hypothesis, as I suggested?) I try to be very careful and express it in exactly the way that you will understand: that science has seen no evidence of intelligent design. I try to avoid saying "science has proved intelligent design didn't happen" because that will confuse you: according to scientific standards it has been disproved — zero evidence has been seen — but you will misinterpret that to mean it is absolutely disproved in some larger metaphysical sense, which isn't the case. I certainly don't mean to say "science has proved God doesn't exist" — hopeully I haven't — because it simply isn't true.
But for your side, you need to understand the a lack of evidence is, in a very real sense, scientific disproof. Naturally if we just looked a couple places, then a lack of evidence would simply show us that we hadn't looked far enough, but biologists have looked all over everywhere for evidence of intelligent design, and none has turned up. You seem intent on believing it's because they wouldn't recognize it or would suppress it, but an impartial evaluation leads to the conclusion that it's because there really was none anywhere to be seen.
And you know this better than I how? All of these people complaining about ID being treated unfairly by scientists are merely misinformed about what ID's status is?
Anyway, again, you really need to understand that it isn't up to science to disprove intelligent design, it's for someone to prove intelligent design. If you have any illusions that that has happened, you are simply mistaken: it's been entirely rejected even as a working hypothesis.
OK, done. Came up empty. What positive evidence for intelligent design am I missing? I've been listening intently for many years, entirely impartial, completely open to any and all evidence, with absolutely no ax to grind, and I've seen nothing to even suggest that there's evidence for intelligent design. How did that happen?
Here's the thing: it literally makes no difference whatsoever to me what the answer is. I really could care less if every biologist in the world were fired tomorrow because it turns out they were suppressing evidence of intelligent design. In fact, I'd be thrilled if they really were, and very happy to finally discover the true story. And hallelujah if the evidence is so persuasive that it makes us all become Christians after so many have been in the dark all this time!
Can you say the same thing? If you're honest, don't you have to admit that you have a real, concrete motive for wanting intelligent design to be true? Are you sure that isn't coloring your view of things?
Comment by don provan — June 26, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I am not trying to prove that God was there in the first place. This is not a question for science. Likewise, I am not trying to disprove that the environment and natural processes have just always existed. This also is not a question for science. My point is that we all make some basic assumptions about reality that have nothing to do with science.
Since these questions are not answerable by science we can ignore them and pretend the answer does not matter, but in reality they are questions of utmost importance. If we believe there is such a thing as truth and we really desire to know it, we can at least ask which assumptions seem most reasonable. It may be possible to look at the natural world to inform our philosophy so that we begin to draw closer to the truth. We cannot know the truth in a scientific sense but there may be truth that is beyond the scope of science.
Comment by 0112358 — June 26, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:26 am
It becomes a question for science when God is used as a scientific explanation. You seem to be doing that.
I don't see why not. No one claims any environment just always existed, of course, but certainly how and when they existed are questions for science. And whether natural processes always existed, or always existed in their current form, or how they came into existence are all reasonable scientific questions, although currently we don't know how to answer them all.
Certainly we can ask which assumptions seem the most reasonable. I suggest we start by comparing all of our assumptions and seeing which ones almost all of us agree on. If necessary, we can do little tests for each other to show which assumptions are inconsistent with our perceptions. Once we've discovered which assumptions virtually all of us agree on — let's say, 99% of us have to agree on them — then I say those are the assumptions we should consider reasonable. How does that sound to you?
Yes, there may be truth beyond the scope of science. But the question is how you will demonstrate it to me after you've found it. If you can't demonstrate it, how will I know whether or not you are simply mistaken about it being truth?
Comment by don provan — June 27, 2009 @ 5:26 am
June 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I am not trying to prove any truth to you. You are welcome to have your own assumptions about the world the and no one can tell you that you are wrong with any scientific certainty. But you also can not tell other people that their assumptions are wrong with any scientific certainty. You are right in criticizing ID proponents for their attempt to prove a designer with science. You are wrong if you think that science has or can ever test with scientific certainty the assumption that the natural world has just always been around or just developed from nothing. That, however, is an assumption you are welcome to hold. ID proponents, as well, are welcome to hold the assumption that the universe was designed. Although they can not prove scientifically that they are correct, their assumptions are no less valid than your own.
Comment by 0112358 — June 27, 2009 @ 10:08 am
June 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am
That's far too strong a statement. It's basically a refusal to acknowledge that we can reasonably make statements about the past.
If we understand the physics involved in the collapse of nebula, and noting the consistency of the modern Solar System with such a collapse (and observing other such systems in various stages of their own lifecycles), then we can be reasonably certain that the Solar System formed by a similar process. Similarly, if we can show that life spontaneously forms in plausible primodial conditions, then we can be reasonably certain that life on Earth formed by a similar process.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2009 @ 11:02 am
June 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am
So you aren't seeking truth, just opinions you like. If you were really seeking truth, then you'd not only want to be able to show me it was truth, but you'd also want to confirm it was truth by getting as many people as possible to check your work. Instead, you are only interested in confirming it among people that share your assumptions, which makes your truth not universal, but simply a specific set of conclusions, whether true or not, that result from those assumptions.
Think about the concept of "insanity", and then reconsider this statement.
If someone tells us that the bridge they are building doesn't need the calculated load bearing materials because pixies will hold it up, in what sense can we not tell him his assumption about pixies is wrong with scientific certainty?
I don't hold that assumption. I don't think any scientist does, either.
But they share all of my assumptions. So they already consider my assumptions valid. This is what you seem to be missing. They take on the additional assumption that the universe was designed. I do not take a contrary assumption that the universe was not designed, I merely observe that we don't know whether the universe was designed and have no way of determining whether the universe was designed.
Scientists don't take the contrary opinon that life wasn't designed, they simply observe that we don't know whether life was designed. And then they look and see that there is no evidence that life was designed. It's true that doesn't prove that life wasn't designed, but scientists apply Occam's Razor and reject the idea scientifically — you could say they ignore the possibility, if you prefer — because it isn't needed to explain the observations. But, of course, they cannot say the assumption is wrong, as we can see from the many Christians that continue to believe the assumption even while they understand it plays no role in the creation of life that we've detected so far.
Comment by don provan — June 27, 2009 @ 11:32 am
June 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I am seeking truth because I believe that there is such a thing as truth. I would love to be able to convince you that what I believe to be true is truth but I know that I can't do that. All I can do is convince you of truth that has a scientific basis.
I am free, however, to look at the order and purpose of things in the natural world and let that inform my own assumptions about the ultimate origin of the world. You are free to look at the order and purpose of things in the natural world and not make any judgement about ultimate origins since this question is beyond the bounds of science.
Comment by 0112358 — June 27, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I obviously acknowledge that we can reasonably make statements about the past. Many of these statements, but not all, have a scientific basis. Others, though having no scientific basis, can be made, but not proven. For me, it is reasonable to observe order and purpose in the natural world and to allow that to push my philosophy closer to one that acknowledges God. It is unreasonable (for me) to to see complex order in the natural world and to continue to insist that ultimately, it is there by chance or that the environment and natural processes from which it arose are all that is there.
Comment by 0112358 — June 27, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I guess you missed my point. You want to make this a debate about ID versus naturalism, but that's not what I'm talking about. The evidence can be interpreted either way don. Why do you pretend it can't? If one works from an assumption of naturalism – all the evidence is interpreted as positive evidence for nature's ability to make life. If one works form the assumption of divine creation – all of the evidence is positive evidence for design. Do you understand this? Can you name something that is not positive evidence for design? You can't, because a supernatural agent can do anything – including purposely introduce flaws into a design. Can I name something that cannot be the product of natural causes? Of course not – anything can theoretically be the product of nature. It's all about interpretation don. I'm admitting my bias – you're not.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 27, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Zachriel,
You are right! Intuition has no place in science and it is unreliable. It has no place in any part of science. If that is what you are saying, then you win, sir!
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 27, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:16 am
And, of course, that is not my position. Intuition is often the source of scientific hypotheses.
Your claim was that what is apparent to your personal intuition (e.g. 'sense of design') should be considered actual until demonstrated otherwise, rather than as a source of generating ideas—and that this was a valid philosophy of science.
That's not science. Science requires validation of claims through the scientific method before acceptance. Your position is a willy-nilly redefinition of the term.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2009 @ 8:16 am
June 28th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Okay.
Science is an inductive process, hypothetico-deducitve, and doesn't deal in "proof".
Science doesn't deal in "ultimates" either. However, the Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory and helps explain why life is the way it is. That includes elements of contingency.
I have no objection to your beliefs about "ultimates", however, you had made this statement:
This implies that no supportable scientific theory of abiogenesis is conceivable, and that is not a valid claim.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2009 @ 9:35 am
June 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
What I said was:
If you show that it is possible for life to arise from non-life this still says nothing about the ultimate cause or why the environment and natural processes were there in the first place. If you want to jump to the conclusion that there was nothing behind it and that it just happened natually because the environment and natural processes are all that is there, you are welcome to do that. Just remember that when you make that jump you are not acting any differently than the person who jumps to the conclusion that God did it. You have jumped in a different direction but you have both jumped.
Comment by 0112358 — June 28, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
If you want to show that mountains arose from the movement of plates, this still says nothing about ultimate causes.
If you want to say that the reason someone got sick was because of a microorganism, this still says nothing about ultimate causes.
If you want to say a rock falls, this still says nothing about ultimate causes.
Of course, science doesn't purport to deal in such "ultimates".
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
So we agree that science is limited and does not deal with ultimates. We also agree that ID is not science.
That science does not provide the tools to explore ultimates does not mean that we need to ignore the questions. I believe that this is where ID has some value (though once again, not true scientific value). If we believe that there is a truth regarding ultimate origins, we can simplify down to two broad, possible answers: one, that the material world is all there is and that there is no intelligence behind it, or two, that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. To me it is rational to look at the order in the world and believe that there is intelligence behind it. It is also rational to believe that personality comes from something personal and that rationality comes from something rational. ID will never lead us to ultimate truth about God but it might push us in the right direction.
Comment by 0112358 — June 28, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Agreed. I appreciate the foundation on common ground.
Agreed—though without some empirical grounding, a convincing argument is probably not available.
But ID, as construed by nearly everyone, is a scientific claim and argument. Check out the Uncommon Descent FAQ, books by ID luminaries such as Dembski or Behe, or its modern origin cdesign proponentsists. There have even been court cases concerning teaching ID in children's science classes. You should probably adopt a different term.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 7:50 am
June 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Very well then. Do you think the MS fully accounts for the evolution of life on earth? Do you think MS as it exists presently stands against the idea of telic intervention? Do you personally have any intuition for or against telic intervention?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
There are many open questions in evolutionary theory. (There's also open questions in gravitational theory.)
There is no evidence of telic intervention (other than the obvious cases, such as domestication).
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
So, that's a no. OK.
That's not what I asked. I would appreciate an answer to my question.
For some reason you seem to have missed this question, so I'll ask it again:
Do you personally have any intuition for or against telic intervention?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Zachriel,
If an ETI or a smart human genetically modified an existing species of frog in the Amazon to make a new species, how would the MS positively detect that it was a case of telic intervention?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I avoid expressing unsupported ideas. My intuition is not the topic.
I assume by "MS" you mean evolutionary theory as presently understood. The Theory of Evolution is a robust scientific theory that explains the known evidence quite well. However, it is quite possible that someone tampered with the process, or the process resembles present models closely enough to be undetectable while still being guided somehow. There is no evidence of this, of course.
Detection would depend on the specifics. Many types of human genetic engineering are detectable, e.g. transgenic organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I would consider a theory that explains the evidence "quite well" to be able to provide a much less gap ridden explanation about how novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans developed at the genomic level. But that's just me, I guess. But maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "quite well."
So that's a no. So then, the data is consistent with telic intervention or no telic intervention with respect to the current (incomplete) specificity of the Modern Synthesis.
None of my damn business. No problem.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
But you acknowledge there may be some kinds of modifications undetectable by the Modern Synthesis as to their telic intervention?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.It's best to start with what is most easily established in order to understand how we can extrapolate this to more ancient transitions. You could start with the common descent of land vertebrates.
The evidence is consistent with someone tossing a beer bottle into the primordial nebula to become the initial seed for the Earth's formation. It's just scientifically meaningless, that's all. Silly actually.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Undetectable by scientific means. Maybe someone or something tampered with human evolution. Or maybe you're in a vat and your own memories are an illusion.
But I've said too much about that already.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
That's what I would expect someone to say who cannot actually give an account of the development of novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans at the genomic level. But by all means, extrapolate away. Let's see what you have.
Perhaps, but is that a plausible scenario in anyone's mind? What is interesting here is that you appear to admit that:
the modern synthesis does not have an account for many biological structures;
the data is consistent with other scenarios, the data does not mandate the Modern Synthesis;
the modern synthesis is unable to detect certain kinds of telic intervention;
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No, I didn't say "undetectable by scientific means." I said, "undetectable by the Modern Synthesis." "Science" and the "Modern Synthesis" are not interchangeable terms:
If the interventionists took a video of themselves doing their modification and left it for us, with step by step instructions on how to do it ourselves, that would count as empirical "detection", whereas the Modern Synthesis would be powerless.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
The Modern Synthesis is a generations-old theoretical unification of darwinism and genetics. There is much more to the Theory of Evolution than what is posited in that original formulation.
Theories don't observe. Theories don't measure. Even theories of measurement and observation don't observe and measure. Theories are explanatory frameworks.
If there were evidence, the existing explanatory framework may have to be revised or discarded. Scientific theories are like that.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Right, right.
Thanks for the exchange today.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
The evidence begins with Common Descent. Are you well-satisifed with the validity of the Theory of Common Descent?
Why would admitting the obvious be interesting? The Theory of Gravity has apparent gaps, too.
The Theory of Evolution is constantly being revised and updated. There is no reason to suspect this process to stop.
Well, duh. If an omnipotent being made the universe 6000 years ago, but made it look billions of years old. If an advanced civilization slightly altered the trajectory of hominid evolution. If a Supernatural Gardner sows planets knowing from experience that a certain seed will lead to the birth of poetic wisdom (whale song). If you're a brain in a vat (but I've said too much). Then it may not be possible to detect the intervention.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I understand it. Fire away.
It isn't necessarily interesting by itself, but it is together with the other "bullet" points.
Yes, and? I wouldn't trust my life to any areas of gravity were there were gaps. Would you? Same for the modern synthesis.
That's like a duck who's following a trail of bread crumbs. There's no reason for the duck to suspect the crumbs will stop. Apparently you trust your inductive intuition more than I do. To me, MS looks like an epicycle ridden framework. We'll just have to see how far the crumbs continue.
I've not clearly seen you admit to this before.
What no mention of pink unicorns? Do you consider all of those to be equally plausible scenarios?
At any rate, we know from mundane experience that humans can intervene and produce things in DNA for which the modern synthesis would be powerless to detect. The modern synthesis is useless for determining certain kinds of telic intervention, including mundane intervention from an ETI. (No need to invoke pink unicorns to demonstrate the point.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 30, 2009 @ 12:51 am
June 30th, 2009 at 6:28 am
That's not what I asked. I asked if you accepted the validity of the Theory of Common Descent. We have to start with what is already well-established. There's little point in discussing such ancient transitions if you wave away the very strong evidence for common descent of humans and horses.
You're still confusing fact and theory. Gravity is an observed phenomena. The Theory of Gravity is undergoing fundamental change.
And here I thought my
Discarded Beer Bottle Causing the Collapse of the Solar Nebula Theorywas worthspending billions of dollars investigating,teaching in public schools,pondering.Theories don't observe. Theories don't measure. Even theories of measurement and observation don't observe and measure. Theories are explanatory frameworks. Do you mean that the Theory of Evolution doesn't predict alien tampering with genomic history? You're right! If you're saying bioinformationists can't detect genomic tampering, you're wrong. There's an entire sub-field dedicated to just that.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2009 @ 6:28 am
June 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Yes.
How am I confused about the difference between fact and theory?
No, I meant the modern synthesis is useless for determining certain kinds of telic intervention, including mundane intervention from an ETI.
No, I meant the modern synthesis is useless for determining certain kinds of telic intervention, including mundane intervention from an ETI.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 30, 2009 @ 11:29 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because we know how natural evolution works, this provides a backdrop against which to test for anomalies. Of course, each anomaly has to be independently tested (something ID refuses to do in practice), but without some theory as to the agent, it is doubtful it could be attributed to a designer. It might just remain an unexplained anomaly.
Mundane comes from the Latin mundus for world. Ignoring the problematic usage, if it is "mundane" or commonplace, then there are methods already being used to detect genomic tampering.
Because you trust your life to a Theory of Gravity that is full of Gaps.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Many cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans evolved in very ancient lineages. There is significant knowledge of the evolution of many organs, including brains and lungs. However, there have also been important advances in understanding cell type and body plan evolution.
The evolution of cell types in animals: emerging principles from molecular studies
The genesis and evolution of homeobox gene clusters
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
From the abstracts, what Zachriel calls "important advances" seem more like small descriptive steps and limited conclusions which seem hard to classify as an overall understanding of how complex body plans evolved.
Seems to be Zachriel's default response when pressed. Thick on the rhetoric, thin on substance.
Comment by Jean — July 1, 2009 @ 7:12 am
July 1st, 2009 at 8:16 am
Hmm, judging by the fact that you simply pick out something from the abstract, I wonder if you even read the papers linked to by Zachriel. Why would you draw conclusions about the papers from a 150 word summary, rather than from the additional 20 odd pages of text?
Simply looking at an abstract and judging the work to be 'small descriptive steps and limited conclusions' very much seems to me like being thick on rhetoric by thin on substance.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2009 @ 8:16 am
July 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am
If you want to make a point by referencing a paper why not provide access to the entire paper instead of just the abstract? Or if that is not feasible then at least provide a pertinent account of the missing pages in one's own words.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2009 @ 9:59 am
July 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
Both papers are reviews– they are already summaries of primary literature (usually very condensed summaries). It might simply not be feasible to summarize such summaries.
But really, is it too much to ask for folks here to gain access (through a library) to some of this information. In a prior exchange I had with Bertvan, he was not even up to date on the information that's available on wikipedia (much less in a textbook or the primary literature).
Now, ignorance is certainly no sin. But to judge, fully knowing that one is ignorant (i.e. by not reading beyond an abstract or by not even researching a topic on wikipedia) that's just questionable behavior. Wouldn't you agree with that, Bradford?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2009 @ 10:07 am
July 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Yes, but I would add that one should not expect another to be impacted by posting abstracts of long papers.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2009 @ 10:12 am
July 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
So if one is having a discussion about details in biology, how should one attempt to impact them? In general, if one gives a short synopsis, then one gets answers like:
"How exactly does the environment "communicate" with a living organism? Let's specify a multicellular organism, just to make it interestingl."
If one then goes ahead and spends a great deal of time and effort in posting summaries, explanations and links to both wikipedia and primary literature, one gets this:
"Does the lactose itself penetrate the cell membrane and turn on the lac genes? Or does the cell sense the presence of lactose in the environment, and then initiate a mechanism of its own to turn on the lac genes?"
How should one deal with this? Maybe one should just simply assume that people who make sweeping statements about these biological processes have access to primary (or at least secondary) research literature and are up to speed in general on at least high school level biology? But that is clearly not the case.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2009 @ 10:39 am
July 1st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Admittedly a poor word choice. How about material or non-supernatural.
Sure. And there are methods used to detect crimes, but obviously some crimes leave no trace. Anyway, you've already acknowledge what I was looking for.
Where and when?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Zachriel: There is significant knowledge of the evolution of many organs, including brains and lungs. However, there have also been important advances in understanding cell type and body plan evolution.
[papers cited]
Those papers attempt to discover lineages and the action of hox genes. Worthy projects. But remember what I asked for: "Can you give me the
full accountof how any cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan came about?" Neither one of those papers gives anything close a full account.I predict that the more we understand about regulatory mechanisms, hox genes, molecular lineages, etc, the more difficult it will be to maintain a non-telic approach, except for the die hard crusties who want to shake their fist at the obvious. We'll see.
At any rate, the answer to my question was no then and is still no. Wake me up when the answer is yes.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Sorry, it was my presumption. There may not be gravity where you come from.
While the scientific theory or explanatory framework concerning gravity may be incomplete or even only valid in part, for humans the fact of gravity remains.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Yes, there is gravity outside of Virginia. My life obviously depends on gravity itself (whether I trust it or not), but when and where do I trust the theory of gravity, as you said?
What does that have to do with me trusting anything?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I agree to a point. However, what you do not know is the degree to which outside information is fed into the system. To say that you know that non-telic random variation suffices as the input to natural selection is quite simply false. Science does not even know all the particulars of how traits are acquired and transmitted. Therefore it cannot know what rates of random molecular variation is required to account for the tree of life as we know it. In order to know if an effect can occur, you have to know precisely what causes the effect. Some causes to some effects are known, and can be predicted. But some are not. And at this point, Science doesn't know the extent of it's ignorance.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
We can't reconstruct Caesar's complete family tree either. Or the trajectory of every bullet at Shiloh. So you can wave your hands about that too.
This was the comment I was addressing:
As I mentioned when I posted the links, the story is incomplete. I didn't think you were posing a straw man and I attempted an answer in the spirit of being informative.
Reviews seemed appropriate for a starting point. As kornbelt888 indicated that he accepts the validity of the Theory of Common Descent, the partial reconstruction of phylogenies should be convincing evidence of an evolutionary process. If you want a copy, just email angelmail @ zachriel.com.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
We know that evolution is capable of producing the observed patterns, and there is no evidence of telic sources of information being fed into the system.
Science doesn't know everything about anything. In any case, pointing to Gaps doesn't constitute a persuasive argument. Sure. There may be an invisible pink unicorn in the garage. That's why we use a net!
In fact, observed rates of evolution are faster than required to account for historical rates of change.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Invalid analogies. People have sex. People have babies. We know that's true because it's empirical to everyone, despite their understanding of the cellular and molecular processes of reproduction. We know that bullets when fired out the business end of a gun travel thru the air and land at reasonably predictable distances. It is empirical to anyone who cares to watch without understanding aerodynamics and gravity.
As for the evolution of life, there are fossils at the macro scale that testify, with other corroborating evidence, such as geological evidence, rather strongly that life evolved in an apparently incremental fashion over long stretches of time. There are some known processes at the micro scale that can be seen to account for some effects, but there is no full account of the connection between micro scale and macro scale. Only your imagination and intution bridges the gaps in knowledge at present.
It takes no such imagination to see that bullets go from here to there, or that Caesar probably had a father and mother, and so on. A person may not understand why they do, but they know they do. No such empirical demonstration is available for the hypothesis that random variation and natural selection led to all the large scale evolution that has occured. (If it were, this exchange wouldn't exist, and neither would this blog.)
Science does not know the extent of the its ignorance when it comes to why the tree of life is as it is. That will only be known (in retrospect) when we have bridged all gaps.
Fair enough.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
What observed patterns?
I agree there is no scientific evidence.
My pointing to gaps is not intended to be a positive argument for telic intervention, if that's what mean.
Unsure of the significance of this statement.
That's vague. Observed rates of the evolution of what are faster than required to account for the historical rates of change to what?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
It is analogous. But you can always wave your hands.
We know populations exhibit variation, including novel variation. We know populations change, including in response to selection. We directly observe evolution. And we know this process has been going on a long time. And we don't have to know anything about molecular genetics to know this.
Sure there is. We know that evolutionary processes can generate complexity. We know that biological evolution proceeds at a rate sufficient to account for the historical record. We know that there is sufficient plasticity within natural populations to account for much faster rates of evolution than required to explain the long term evolutionary history. All this without knowing anything about genetics. So you shoot for the Gap.
We also know that small changes to developmental genes can cause large changes in phylogenetic characteristics. Again, more than enough to account for the historical changes. So you're forced further into the Gap.
We can even show that cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans form phylogenetic trees supporting the same evolutionary process, with each branch representing a viable incremental divergence from common ancestors. And this type of pattern just doesn't need telic involvement. To support an ID claim would require more than just pointing to the very pattern that evolution is known to make.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Nested hierarchies. Succession of fossils. Population dynamics. Etc.
For instance, morphological rates of change.
Gingerich, Evolution and the fossil record: patterns, rates, and processes, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1987.
Then I am unsure of your claim. Oh, that's right. You suggested that your intuitive sense of design was the default position for your "philosophy of science". Perhaps you have retreated from that statement. If so, I may have no argument with your position.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I just explained why it is not analogous. Are you saying you can directly perceive the effect (the evolution of the tree of life) from the putative cause (random variation at the molecular level and natural selection) as a person can directly perceive the effect of bullets and babies from guns and sex ?
But you do have to fully understand molecular genetics and epigenetic factors to know if the random variations at the molecular level plus natural selection can offer a full account of the tree of life, and that is what this exchange is about. What you offer above is merely an account of facts in evidence, which are not in dispute. It does not address my point at all.
Please be specific.
You would have a point if all I cared about was observing that phenotypical variation occur, their rates, and assessing if the rates of that variation occured at a sufficient frequency to account for the history. But it's the source of that "sufficient plasticity" of the variation that is the point of this exchange. What you're saying is that populations are observed to change faster than what is required to account to the changes seen in the fossil record. (Aside from the point that not all variation issues from the same factors. E.g, drift can account for beak getting large and smaller, but it cannot account for the existence of the beak in the first place.) This does not address my point at all. I do not dispute this now, nor have I ever.
Please cite specifics. For example, what incremental "more than enough" "small changes to developmental genes can cause large changes in phylogenetic characteristics" produce a modern dog from the latest known pre-mammalian animal, or could produce a human brain from an ape brain, over time? There's that pesky gap again.
I agree. There is incremental divergence from whatever sources of variation. But it is unknown if the known sources of molecular variation plus natural selection can account for these incremental changes.
What produced the genes? Talk about waving away my point. (Sidebar: please cite specifics: what "more than enough" "small changes to developmental genes can cause large changes in phylogenetic characteristics" produced a modern dog from the latest pre-mammalian animal, or could produce a human brain from an ape brain?)
I agree. That doesn't address my point.
It depends on how deep you want to understand the process. (Remember, I specified "full account." And I'm not asking for pink unicorns here.) You admit that there are gaps, but you assert that no telic involvement is required to account for what is seen. That is only true at a certain level, if you're content not knowing precisely how the variation was produced at the molecular level. Within the gaps are molecular mechanisms (assumedly) responsible for all the known variations. You are comfortable citing variations, their rates, and happily concluding that they are sufficient to "account" for the tree of life. And I agree, no telic considerations are necessary if you are happy with that level of understanding, gun barrel to bullet in the sand, sex to babies. No problem. But what is not known, and what is germane to telic considerations, is the precise mechanisms involved at the molecular level. At present it is unknown if they are sufficient along with natural selection to account for the tree of life.
As for "shooting for gaps", you might have a chat with fellows like this guy. The gaps are where the unknown action is. (I wish I were young again.) There are huge gaps, and it is true that the modern synthesis cannot give full account at the molecular level for the tree of life.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I agree. See post just before this one.
Please pe-read what I wrote and see if you can glean the point I was trying to make, if you care. I admit it was clumsy. What can I say.
Unless I qualify "science", I'm talking about normal everyday science.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Zachriel,
As for "shooting for gaps", you might have a chat with fellows like this guy.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 1, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
We can directly observe evolution, that is, changes in populations and the mechanisms of those changes, such as variation and selection. We reconstruct the family relationships. Just as we observe human reproduction and reconstruct Caesar's family relationships.
Leave out the word "fully", because there are always gaps in family trees. Caesar filled in a gap of his ancestry with Venus.
Leaving that problem aside, we can directly observe plasticity and determine if it is sufficient to account for difference found in a wide variety of taxa, such as vertebrates. It doesn't require a theory of genetics to determine this. But we know that small changes to developmental genes can cause significant morphological changes and these genes themselves form a phylogenetic tree, an incremental and viable diversification from common ancestors, and this means they are consistent with natural evolution.
Evolutionary processes are a type of algorithmic process whose properties can and have been explored.
We can observe it! And we can determine recent mutational events of interest.
Stop and think for a minute. What would an evolutionary biologist say about this? Why, she would say that beaks evolved from some more primitive structure. If we closely examine embryos, jaws form from anterior gill arches, and that this evolutionary link is supported by molecular data. Imagine that! Embryonic development, descent with modification, and phylogenetic trees all pointing to one thing. Evolution.
It's because these changes accumulate a bit at a time, and that each step forms a viable organism, that it is consistent with natural evolution. Let's look at your comment again.
The answer is, yes it can. It's just a modified gill-arch. The same process as the beak getting larger and smaller. It only looks like a leap because we may not see or recognize the intermediaries.
Well, just start with a wolf to a chiguagua or a poodle. This is an incredible transformation in just a few thousand years.
While we're on jaws, let's look more closely at the reptile to mammal transition. So the gill-arch had become a jaw. Early in the twentieth century it was found that analogous embryonic structures of the jaw in reptiles became bones of the middle ear in mammals. This seemed very odd, and it was hard to even imagine a plausible evolutionary pathway to explain this. It had to be incremental. And it had to be viable at each stage of the transformation. It wasn't until decades later that fossils were found that confirmed the link. So embryonic data *predicted* the fossils.
You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make the claim any stronger. Consider the reptilian jaw bones. We expect these bones to assume natural variations in position and size. Over time, if a configuration provides a selective advantage, then it will tend to predominate in the population. All because some bones are a little smaller, or not as well attached. Soon, you have a very sensitive organ that can detect the slightest rustling of leaves.
New genes are descendents of old genes. They form families, just like organisms.
Pigliucci is interested in the evolution of evolvability. He explicitly rejects creationism. Anything else?
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I am content with this, so long as you recognize the difference between "what I believe to be true" and "truth". The former is better known as "my opinion".
Comment by don provan — July 2, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
"You can recognize truth by it's beauty and simplicity."
- Richard Feynman
Comment by chunkdz — July 2, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Yes, that is what we have been talking about. . . opinions. We have also been talking about how we might be able to inform our opinions about ultimate origins so as to get closer to the truth about questions which science is not able to answer.
You said once:
If you ever do decide to try to figure it out and you peer into the terrifying abyss of meaninglessness resulting from the opinion that ultimate origins are purely naturalistic, know that there is another opinion which results in meaning. Also know that this other opinion can be rationally accepted based on the order we see in the universe.
That order, personality and rationality developed ultimately from purely naturalistic origins to me seems much less rational, but of course, this is my opinion.
Comment by 0112358 — July 2, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I always wonder why some seem to think that a purely naturalistic origin makes life meaningless. What about a non-naturalistic origin would give your life meaning, 0112358, that it otherwise does not have?
Comment by hrun — July 2, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
I never understood this line of thinking either. Our lives mean exactly the same thing they currently mean regardless of how the universe came to be.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 12:20 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 am
The Judeo-Christian worldview acknowledges a God who is the ultimate cause of the natural world. This God is rational and personal. He has reached out to man in a historical context although man has rejected him. He desires a relationship with man.
If the universe is ultimately the result of the environment and natural processes, and these are all that is out there, personality has no meaning. Love has no meaning. Rationality has no meaning. All the things that make man man are destroyed. Man is nothing more than a complex machine that has been naturalistically "kicked up out of the primordial ooze."
If, however, there is a God who in some way (ultimately) created humans to be human with true rationality, personality and the ability to love, man is more than a machine. Meaning can then come in a rational, personal and loving relationship with a God who has reached out.
Comment by 0112358 — July 3, 2009 @ 7:06 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
This part I can follow. There is somebody who is rational, personal, who reaches out and desires a relationship.
Here you lost me. How does it follow that if the universe is environmnet and natural processes that personality, love and rationality has no meaning?
Again, I don't understand. What about the fact that God created humans a certain way (and not some other process creating humans exactly the same way) gives life meaning? Everybody agrees that humans (irrespective of their origin) are capable of rationality, personality and love. Why would that change?
Absolutely puzzling. Are you certain it is only a question of origin and not maybe something else you are not mentioning here?
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 7:14 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
I echo hrun's questions and add my own. What if god exists and did create the universe but did not deliberately create man? Does our creation have to be his intention for our lives to have meaning, or can it just be an accidental consequence of his actions and still have meaning? Does god's mere existence give everything meaning regardless of his actions, or has he done something specific to give man specifically meaning? I'm just trying to focus in on what exactly it is about god that is considered to create meaning.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 10:24 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
It's not that hard to figure this out hrun. God affords eternal significance to what we do. It's not dead and forgotten tomorow. You're a smart guy. Why are you purposely wearing blinders?
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Bradford, 112358 did not mention anything about 'eternal significance'. That's what I suspected was important, but since he/she didn't mention it, I did not assume.
So, here is the next question, why does it matter if what we do has 'eternal significance' or only transient significance?
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
You're kidding. You don't see the difference between lasting a few years and then decayed and forgotten as opposed to living forever?
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Absolutely no kidding. I can assure you that I am very serious. So what is it about God being able to remember your deeds forever that makes them more significant?
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Nothing to do with that. It's a matter of you living forever as opposed to a few years and then gone forever. You don't understand the significance of that?
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Again, no, sorry. And please believe me, I am being serious. Why do your deeds lose significance, if YOU don't live forever? What is it about you (or your soul or something else) being immortal, that changes in any way the significance of what you do?
PS: I put in these assurances of me being serious, because this seems to be a fundamental disconnect between Christians and Atheists. Clearly, this is so true to you, that it does not require any further explanation. However, I have to say that to me, the opposite is true. There is nothing at all obvious about this, so for me it requires an awful lot of explanation.
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
hrun, I don't have patience with games. I never said deeds lose significance. The deed doer gains eternal significance and if his earthly deeds are worthy the good consequences are eternal.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
There is another way to approach this as well. You assume that only though immortality can our actions last forever, yet our actions have ripples long after our death. The authors of the Bible are all dead, yet they still have a huge impact. The ideas I generate and the memes I spread will influence the remaining course of human history. The event horizon of my actions emanate outwards at the speed of light influencing the universe in ways I cannot fathom that will echo though time. I am made of recycled stars and will one day be recycled into new stars. How does my death make me less eternal?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Living a few years and then decaying was a reference to people. I guess I can't take that understanding for granted.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
You're more than your molecules Todd.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I am my information content and that information does not vanish when I die. My point is simply that an eternal soul is only one possible philosophy giving the property of "eternal" to our actions. If all it takes to have meaning is "eternal" than naturalist philosophies can impart meaning too. So clearly something more that hrun and I genuinely do not understand must be behind the theistic claims that only god can give meaning.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
So then you agree that the deeds are equally significant, one way or another. If I remember correctly, that is not what was said earlier.
So now it is the deed doer that we are focusing on? The does gains eternal significance by 'living' for an eternity? But what about living eternally gives the deed doer eternal significance? I still don't understand.
And don't accuse me of playing games. If you don't want to engage on this, fine. I'll see if 112358 wants to discuss this. I am struggling to understand your point of view. It is not clear to me.
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Who puts these positions in absolute terms? You can do meaningful things and temporal existence is meaningful This is a matter of degree and the focus is on the individual; temporal deeds reflecting a quality of the individual's eternal life.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
OK, Bradford, what's the meaning of this kind of life: I am a good Christian working for a living in a factory, I have two kids and a house wife, I go to church every Sunday and I pray to the Lord every day. I die of a heart attack at 49. I go to heaven and spend eternity close to Jesus.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
There is one other thing that I am struggling with– and that is this whole idea about 'eternal afterlife'. This is somewhat separate from the issue of the significance of ourselves or our deeds, so please bear with me.
What exactly do you envision would happen to you or your soul during this eternity of afterlife? Do you still do stuff? Are you simply 'existing' in some void? I assume there is supposed to be eternal happiness as well, but how exactly does this come about? Are there pleasures that are being given out? Or is your soul simply happy? Do you still interact with other souls? Can you find your loved ones? Or can you find new loved ones? Friends?
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
You don't understand why existing as opposed to not existing is significant?
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Remember what started this discussion? It was this statement by 112358:
To me that does not sound like a matter of degree. Those sound like very categorical statements.
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I do understand that. But the premise is that we all exist on this earth where we can do deeds of significance for roughly the same amount of time. Then, you and 112358 believe that some people go on to existing forever. I would like to know what makes you deeds more significant? Is it simply the reward of eternal existence that makes them more significant?
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 3:01 am
hrun and Todd,
I understand that on the surface, humaness with or without God, seems to be equivalent. Some people, however, probe the depths of meaning in their questioning and take ideas to their logical conclusion. These are the people who understand the meaninglessness of life without God.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that humanity is ultimately the result of naturalistic processes leads to despair. If man is just some kind of complex machine resulting from and determined by his environment it becomes questionable whether he can truely love, truely communicate, have rational thoughts and meaningful relationships. Do machines love? Do machines truely communicate or have rational thoughts and meaningful relationships? If all we are is material which has been cobbled together by the environment and natural processes, our humaness is destroyed.
The good news is that it is possible to rationally acknowledge God because of what we know about man and what we see in the natural world. God can be accepted rationally because man is rational, capable of love, capable of relationships and capable of communication.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition fits what we observe to be true of man and life. He is a rational being, he is a loving being, he is a personal being and he is able to communicate. We are truly able to do these things because we have been somehow created by God and have been in some way "created in his image".
Comment by 0112358 — July 4, 2009 @ 3:01 am
July 4th, 2009 at 7:58 am
How? Why? Have you talked to atheists lately? Are they despairing?
How does the origin of humans determine if they can love? Love something humans experience and act on. No matter what their origins.
You lost me again.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:58 am
July 4th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I said that:
Most people do not think through their beliefs or take them to their logical conclusion so are still able to live without despairing.
I am not saying that an athiest can't love or that his life is truely meaningless.
All of us, regardless of our beliefs, have meaningful lives because we are all created in the image of God. The athiest, however, who believes that ultimately, man is the result of purely naturalistic processes has to make an irrational leap of faith to believe that his life truely has meaning. Someone who believes that God created man can rationally believe that he can live meaningfully. He does not need to make that leap of faith.
Comment by 0112358 — July 4, 2009 @ 8:17 am
July 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Wow, the arrogance is stunning. Not just are atheists wrong in not believing in god. But then they are wrong again because they don't despair.
Tell us, 112358, why is despair the logical conclusion for atheists?
I didn't say you said atheists can't love. I asked you specifically how the origin of humans determines if they can love or not. Irrespective of how we are created, the acts and feelings of humans remain the same. Why would the origin determine the meaning of the acts?
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 11:28 am
July 4th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Ah, I see, obviously your viewpoint is perfect and infalible and everyone else is just lacking understanding. Apparently god doesn't prevent arrogance when he imparts meaning to your otherwise meaningless life.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 4, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Todd and hrun,
If you remember, you were the ones asking me to explain my position. I was trying to clarify my position for you. You are welcome to accept it or reject it. I am not trying to force anything on you.
Comment by 0112358 — July 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Sure, 0112358, you are just clarifying your position. Others would say that you are clarifying EVERYBODIES position.
Atheism means that life has no meaning.
Atheism means that love has no meaning. Personality has no meaning, …
Atheism in its logical conclusion leads to despair.
And even though all those atheists that know better than you (you know, because they actually are atheist) disagree with you, you don't care. You know better. That's why I said in a different thread: Be careful about making sweeping statements about any group– but in particular about groups that you are not actually a member of.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
July 5th, 2009 at 12:02 am
hrun,
The ideas that I have been talking about are not my ideas. They come from people who have struggled with issues of existence and come to terms with them. Some have moved from athiesm to a belief in God. They are the ones who have described the despair. If you are interested, "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis would be a good place to start.
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2009 @ 12:02 am
July 5th, 2009 at 12:59 am
You are mistaking my confidence in what I believe for arrogance. Trust me when I tell you I do not hold my beliefs arrogantly. I know no other way to find meaning in my own life than to hold on to a belief in God. From what I know of the world I feel that I can hold onto this belief without throwing away my reason.
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2009 @ 12:59 am
July 5th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Sure. And I have talked to many a former Christian who turned atheist because they realized that this whole god concept is just silly.
And OF COURSE you were talking about your ideas. Otherwise you would not claim that 'the logical conclusion' of atheism is despair. You would have simply said that some atheists end in up despairing. Btw… a fate that happens to theists as well.
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 1:19 am
July 5th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Oh… I am mistaking your confidence for arrogance. Thanks for clearing that up.
And if you actually read what I called arrogance, it was not about your beliefs… if was about your silly assertion that atheism taken to its logical conclusion leads to despair. This has nothing to do with your beliefs. It's just you calling all the non-despairing atheists illogical.
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 1:22 am
July 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
No, actually I was referring to your confidence that you understand what I believe when you have clearly demonstrated that you do not.
I understand how god gives many people's lives meaning. I understand how sports does the same for other people. I've know some for whom art added that meaning and for still others it was philosophy. And I know there are other ways but apparently your way requires you to reject the validity of all these other ways. It seems to me that you are using your ignorance of other sources of meaning as the primary justification for sticking to your current source of meaning.
I will agree to disagree on this point.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 5, 2009 @ 11:59 am
July 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
If man is a machine without a soul can you explain to me how these things bring meaning to life. I've spouted off about my beliefs long enough without much success in communicating what I've been meaning to communicate. Perhaps you can do a better job of communicating to me how the things you list above bring meaning.
Comment by 0112358 — July 6, 2009 @ 12:39 am
July 6th, 2009 at 1:06 am
No I can't, and yet it is self evident that they do. Perhaps a psychologist or a neurologist could explain it, perhaps even they can't. I could share my opinions on the topic, but they are just opinions and the theists around here get all huffy when science advocates talk philosophy.
So you tell me, if man is god's creation with a soul can you explain to me how this brings meaning to life? So far your answer seems to be, "it just does." Sounds similar to my answer.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 6, 2009 @ 1:06 am
July 6th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Quite so. And I've been pointing out that the things you've been bringing up "to inform our opinions" are just more opinions.
I have meaning. And I have figured it out, every bit as well as you have. Better, in fact, since I, at least, can distinguish opinions from fact, and I understand that opinions embraced as facts for no reason other than "giving meaning" are the worst opinions of all.
What puzzles me about your opinion is why you think God wouldn't use "purely naturalistic origins". It's as if you think God's too stupid to have done it the way scientists think He did.
Comment by don provan — July 6, 2009 @ 4:20 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
What I said was:
That God created the universe says nothing about how he did it. True science can freely explore the natural world but it cannot go beyond that to ultimate causes.
Once again, if science eventually finds that life did indeed arise from the primordial ooze the question remains:
From the order we see in the natural world and what we know about ourselves as human beings I have tried to show that a belief in God is reasonable. You are right that it does come down to opinion. Atheism also comes down to opinion. We can each ask ourselves which opinion seems most reasonable.
Comment by 0112358 — July 7, 2009 @ 8:39 am
July 7th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Has science discovered how God did it or not? Does your observation of "order" undermine anything science has claimed about origins?
The very idea that there are "ultimate" causes is a creation of religion.
If we ask ourselves which is most reasonable, and then depend on additional opinions such as "God exists" to answer, what have we gained?
Where no hypotheses can be made, the null hypothesis wins. The answer is, "We don't know," not "We don't know so we can make up any answer we like and call it 'reasonable'."
Comment by don provan — July 7, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The Christian religion say that ultimately God did it.
The religion of Atheism says that ultimately the environment and natural causes did it.
Just because religions have different ultimates does not mean that one of them is not true.
Where no hypothesis can be made there is no null hypothesis. You can not have a null hypothesis unless you have a hypothesis.
Given two mutually exclusive ultimates we certainly can use our reason to determine which we feel is most reasonable. We may come to different conclusions but we should at least be convinced in our own minds
Comment by 0112358 — July 7, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Correct. Christianity has an ultimate answer, which is why it encourages people to expect and demand ultimate answers, as you do.
If there were such a religion, I suppose it might say that. It's hard to imagine.
As practiced, atheists simply observe actual causes and do not demand or expect ultimate causes. Personally, I find ultimate causes uninteresting, and I suspect such an attitude is typical for atheists, as well. Indeed, most atheists react to presentation of an "ultimate cause" by asking what caused it.
Nor does it provide any reason at all to think that one of them is true. Just because religions present ultimates does not mean any ultimate actually exists or that the possibility should be considered important.
Wrong. Sorry. The entire point of the null hypothesis is that it applies everywhere.
Don't you see that what you're saying here automatically tells us that you aren't talking about ultimates, after all? It's almost silly: "In my opinion, this is the ultimate answer."
It's just your opinion. It's just an answer. The only reason anyone wants to bless it as "ultimate" is to make seem more important that it really is. In the case of religion, calling an answer "ultimate" mainly just encourages you to scoff at perfectly legimate questions about where the ultimate came from.
Comment by don provan — July 7, 2009 @ 8:42 pm