Comments on: Thought Food

By: MikeGene

MikeGene — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:49:59 +0000

THE notions we acquire of contrivance and design arise from comparing our observations on the works of other beings with the intentions of which we are conscious in our own undertakings.

- Charles Babbage

By: Rock

Rock — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:14:54 +0000

To design is to objectify the subjective. Another name for design is "science."

By: steve

steve — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:39:53 +0000

I don't think it's possible or useful to try to prove generic design. Whenever we want to understand important outcomes that were intentionally produced, we always have to build up a model with some details, we never settle with recognizing that there was design. We want to know that it was the Rosenbergs with a dead drop behind a mailbox at the behest of the Soviets, we don't just try to prove that Spy occured and settle with that. We don't just say that Murder occured, we figure out that the husband did it for the insurance money and transported the body in a boat. In all these kind of designed events work is done to build up a model that has details. If ID wants to take a shot at explaining biology it needs to do the same. Tell us whodunit, and how, and in what order, and etc. Imagine a detective who said I'm going to prove this was murder, but I refuse to specify anything about who it was, or how it was done, or when it occurred, or for what reason. I think that the reason the creationism journal has published 7 issues since Kitzmiller v Dover

http://creationontheweb.com/co...

and the ID journal has published 0

http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

is because the ID refusal to specify anything about the designer makes it impossible to create much of a model.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:22:46 +0000

Can we create a computer program that perfectly identifies design? No. We can't even create a computer program that recognizes objects of a general sort in a reliable way. (The best we have can recognize very specific objects like faces or tennis balls 95% of the time)

But say you built a detector to detect design. And you turned it on, and the 'DESIGNED' indicator lights up. And you point it at something else, and the light is on. And you point it every direction, at the ground, at the sky, and the little LED just won't go off. It stays always lit, all the time.

Aha! you say. This just proves that everything in the universe is designed. Good job. And your friend comes over and says, well, how do you know it's working correctly? How do you know there's not a short or some hidden error? Show me that when you point it at an undesigned thing the light turns off. What do you do?

By: Rock

Rock — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:02:14 +0000

Don't despair. Evolutionary science to the rescue! Seems we don't have to rely on our "subjective" evaluations. Ironically, methods developed over the last 75 years by evolutionary biologists seem to work just as effectively in "detecting design."

http://www.theburkelab.org/rep...

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:34:56 +0000

hrun, Husserl believed that historical reactivation is needed to reconnect with ontic meaning. You can read about both Husserl and Schelling directly, you don't need my interpretation of these great thinkers. I only note that Schelling was one of the first evolutionists. And if you can merely tolerate my thinking, then you might be able to understand my Amazon book reviews; and two books on the list relate directly to Husserl and Schelling, so you might want to go there first. But I will simply agree with Husserl, there must be a reactivation; there must be full disclosure behind the heat generated by our contrived meanings. And so full disclosure is essential to find ontic meaning in the confusion presented by heated contrivances.

By: hrun

hrun — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:09:38 +0000

Stephen, honestly your posts remind me of my experiments with Yahoo's Babel Fish, when I tried to have Mandarin text translated into English.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:25:30 +0000

Something is being felt, but oddly the articulations are not very clear. Full disclosure would otherwise be such an easy thing to declare. But there remains a self evident clinging to contrived meanings that find themselves intelligently designed. Its only the tension that remains.

By: Todd Berkebile

Todd Berkebile — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:15:42 +0000

Stephen: Given that natural selection is context dependent, then it follows that the concept of the blind watchmaker requires full disclosure: Because one can only claim that the watchmaker is blind with a false leap to the conclusion that natural selection is context independent.

Once again I do not understand why that follows. Nothing about the blind watchmaker requires the conclusion that natural selection is context independent. In fact the opposite seems true, natural selection completely depends on context. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "context" Otherwise I still do not understand your position.

By: Raevmo

Raevmo — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:13:57 +0000

Stephen:

Given that natural selection is context dependent, then it follows that the concept of the blind watchmaker requires full disclosure:

The blind watchmaker is not a concept. It's a metaphor that sounds good and helps selling books. And it's apparently an effective meme, mostly used by ID proponents trying to discredit evolutionary biology.

Because one can only claim that the watchmaker is blind with a false leap to the conclusion that natural selection is context independent.

Since nobody is making that leap, what's the relevance of your complaint?