| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
30 Mar 2005 05:41:51 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
Michael Shermer comments on ID.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic
place-filler for something unexplained by science. It is saying, in
essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the
explanation must be a supernatural one. Proponents of intelligent
design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such
as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo,
they conclude, it was intelligently designed. But saying "intelligent
design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to
know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only
result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another
part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery
and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science.
---------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer30mar30,0,6816062.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
(get a login ID at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com )
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 08:17:56 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Michael Shermer comments on ID.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic
place-filler for something unexplained by science.
This is completely false. Intelligent design refers to anything
developed with an intelligent agency whether the mechanisms are
explained or unexplained.
It is saying, in
essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the
explanation must be a supernatural one.
This is also false. Intelligent design talks about design, and does not
attribute a supernatural origin to anything. Intelligent design simply
detects the attributes of design in an object -- this includes
calculators, computers, pottery, SETI signals, etc. Saying that these
are designed does not imply a supernatural designer.
Proponents of intelligent
design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such
as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo,
they conclude, it was intelligently designed.
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
But saying "intelligent
design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to
know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.
And that's a great thing, and is not in conflict w/ ID at all.
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only
result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another
part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery
and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science.
Bad theology masquerading as reason.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 01:46:12 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:424ac448$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Michael Shermer comments on ID.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic
place-filler for something unexplained by science.
This is completely false. Intelligent design refers to anything
developed with an intelligent agency whether the mechanisms are
explained or unexplained.
The article is talking about ID "theory". We already knew that
ID "theory" has nothing to do with intelligent design.
It is a completely true characterization of ID "theory".
It is saying, in
essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the
explanation must be a supernatural one.
This is also false. Intelligent design talks about design, and does not
attribute a supernatural origin to anything. Intelligent design simply
detects the attributes of design in an object -- this includes
calculators, computers, pottery, SETI signals, etc. Saying that these
are designed does not imply a supernatural designer.
Too bad ID theory isn't what you are describing. The sentence is
true.
Proponents of intelligent
design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such
as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo,
they conclude, it was intelligently designed.
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
Meaningless assertion, as a mechanism is HOW something happens.
This in turn may of "necessity" give rise to a series of different outcomes
with different probabilities, one of which is taken by "chance".
This is precisely a discussion that does not include mechanism is
meaningless.
But saying "intelligent
design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to
know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.
And that's a great thing, and is not in conflict w/ ID at all.
So you don't think IDers are scientists! What are they then?
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only
result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another
part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery
and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science.
Bad theology masquerading as reason.
I agree, that is ID "theory" in a nutshell.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 08:46:58 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:17:56 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> let us all know that:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Michael Shermer comments on ID.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic
place-filler for something unexplained by science.
This is completely false.
No, it's completely true. ID is merely "wow, it sure looks
designed, therefore goddidit".
It is saying, in
essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the
explanation must be a supernatural one.
This is also false. Intelligent design talks about design, and does not
attribute a supernatural origin to anything.
No, it's quite clear that it concludes "goddidit".
Proponents of intelligent
design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such
as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo,
they conclude, it was intelligently designed.
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
Who are "they"?
But saying "intelligent
design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to
know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.
And that's a great thing, and is not in conflict w/ ID at all.
ID has nothing.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 09:55:43 AM |
|
|
In article <424ac448$1@news.tulsaconnect.com>,
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
[snip]
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
Is chemistry a chance mechanism? Why or why not?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 10:15:10 AM |
|
|
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
Is chemistry a chance mechanism? Why or why not?
There is both necessity and chance within chemistry.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 11:48:14 AM |
|
|
JB: Do learn how to keep proper attribution.
In article <424adfc3$1@news.tulsaconnect.com>,
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
[I wrote}
Is chemistry a chance mechanism? Why or why not?
There is both necessity and chance within chemistry.
What are 5 examples of necessity, 5 of chance?
How do you distinguish between the two?
How can I do so?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 01:36:43 PM |
|
|
What are 5 examples of necessity, 5 of chance?
Are you not aware of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Are not most chemical equilibrium equations owing to probabilities of
interactions and not a permanent, set state?
It seems that within everything, there is an element of necessity (the
equilibrium equations, for instance) and of chance (which side of the
equilibrium a particular atom will stay at, for instance).
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Guillory" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
30 Mar 2005 05:10:21 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:424b0f01@news.tulsaconnect.com...
What are 5 examples of necessity, 5 of chance?
Are you not aware of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Are not most chemical equilibrium equations owing to probabilities of
interactions and not a permanent, set state?
It seems that within everything, there is an element of necessity (the
equilibrium equations, for instance) and of chance (which side of the
equilibrium a particular atom will stay at, for instance).
So are you saying the intelligent designer contains an element of chance in
his/her/its designs? How do you distinguish the chance component of the
designer from a chance component of nature?
Why is it ok for the designer to have a chance component in making
irreducible complexity, but nature cannot?
And evolution is not pure chance. Natural selection is not chance. So
how do you distinguish between a designer who's necessary design work is
partly chance, and evolution where mutational chance is combined with
nonchance natural selection?
Regards,
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 07:29:36 AM |
|
|
In article <424b0f01@news.tulsaconnect.com>,
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
Yet another context-destruction by Bartlett. Context restored here:
In article <424adfc3$1@news.tulsaconnect.com>,
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
It's actually that they have shown that chance mechanisms cannot do it.
They do not argue that the mechanism cannot be discovered, but that it
cannot be a chance mechanism.
[I wrote}
Is chemistry a chance mechanism? Why or why not?
There is both necessity and chance within chemistry.
What are 5 examples of necessity, 5 of chance?
How do you distinguish between the two?
How can I do so?
Now to the current 'response'
Are you not aware of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Are not most chemical equilibrium equations owing to probabilities of
interactions and not a permanent, set state?
It seems that within everything, there is an element of necessity (the
equilibrium equations, for instance) and of chance (which side of the
equilibrium a particular atom will stay at, for instance).
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 12:06:49 PM |
|
|
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 05:04:24 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:424c4b72$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
You aren't getting to your desired result. The way you do that is
assert no chance mechanism, etc.
Not that the explanatory filter is actually the way that design is
recognized. It is just designed to fool the gullible.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 09:10:44 AM |
|
|
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
Almost. You rule out necessity first.
You aren't getting to your desired result. The way you do that is
assert no chance mechanism, etc.
You do not have to assert that there was no chance mechanism anywhere.
Not that the explanatory filter is actually the way that design is
recognized. It is just designed to fool the gullible.
The explanatory filter is an explanatory mechanism. Meant to help show
the basic process.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
04 Apr 2005 12:41:32 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:424ec535$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
Almost. You rule out necessity first.
I understand it is not your filter, but have you asked yourself why not
my accidental filter, or another where design/no design is the
first step?
You aren't getting to your desired result. The way you do that is
assert no chance mechanism, etc.
You do not have to assert that there was no chance mechanism anywhere.
Not that the explanatory filter is actually the way that design is
recognized. It is just designed to fool the gullible.
The explanatory filter is an explanatory mechanism. Meant to help show
the basic process.
An assertion on your and Dembski's part, nothing more.
Suppose I show a 3 year old a fork, and ask him if it is a natural
object or a man-mad one. What process do you think he goes
through? An analytical procedure that considers "necessity",
"chance" and then "design"? That is the height of absurdity. What they
do is look for similarities to other objects they know about, and then put
them in
the same category.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
04 Apr 2005 01:12:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:10:44 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
Almost. You rule out necessity first.
Not that the explanatory filter is actually the way that design is
recognized. It is just designed to fool the gullible.
The explanatory filter is an explanatory mechanism. Meant to help show
the basic process.
Except it fails. First, it gives false positives; some purely natural
phenomena get called design by Dembski's filter. Second, it goes out
of its way to *avoid* actually explaining anything. Third, it rules
out real design, which involves a combination of chance and necessity.
Fourth, ID advocates steadfastly avoid points one thru three, rarely
saying anything and never saying more than "is not!"
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Cortina" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 01:07:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:10:44 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
Almost. You rule out necessity first.
Doesn't matter. The problem is the last step. This is NEVER valid (for
trying to push ANY conclusion, not simply ID). Default result should ALWAYS
be "DON'T KNOW - RESEARCH FURTHER". As nobody has come up with a way to
research ID, to confirm that something not already known to be of human
design is indeed the result of design, scientists research necessity,
chance, and combinations of the two. Interestingly, this has been extremely
successful and has lead to every single advance in science and technology
that we enjoy in the world today.
You aren't getting to your desired result. The way you do that is
assert no chance mechanism, etc.
You do not have to assert that there was no chance mechanism anywhere.
Not that the explanatory filter is actually the way that design is
recognized. It is just designed to fool the gullible.
The explanatory filter is an explanatory mechanism. Meant to help show
the basic process.
It is meant to try to claim the default position - the very definition of
an argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened naturally, so it
has to be designed. Note that if this was a valid form of argument then it
MUST be just as valid to claim that if we don't know how it was
designed/manufactured, it just has to have come about naturally.
--
Jason A Cortina
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely, "and go on
till you come to the end: then stop."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
03 Apr 2005 10:08:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:07:59 -0600, Jason Cortina
<jascortina@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:10:44 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
So sorry.
Dembski's Explanatory filter goes like this:
Chance (Y/N)
If No, the is it Necessity? (Y/N)
If No, then Design.
Almost. You rule out necessity first.
Doesn't matter. The problem is the last step.
True. But you can't even get to the last step, since the previous
steps require complete and perfect knowledge of the Universe.
This is NEVER valid (for
trying to push ANY conclusion, not simply ID). Default result should ALWAYS
be "DON'T KNOW - RESEARCH FURTHER". As nobody has come up with a way to
research ID, to confirm that something not already known to be of human
design is indeed the result of design, scientists research necessity,
chance, and combinations of the two. Interestingly, this has been extremely
successful and has lead to every single advance in science and technology
that we enjoy in the world today.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
01 Apr 2005 01:11:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:06:49 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
We detect design based on past experience. We have experience with
manufactured products. We have seen the process and can compare it
with non-manufactured products. ID, on the other hand, says the
entire universe is manufactured. What is it using for comparison?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 09:11:53 AM |
|
|
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 11:37:47 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:11:53 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> let us all know that:
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
Ask any ID'er, like Dumbski or Behe.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 04:10:33 PM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> writes:
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
Of course. IDists confuse ID with creationism. They may not
say so when dealing with school boards, but there is no doubt that every
single IDist is a creationist of the first stripe.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 11:46:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:11:53 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
Jon
I think you are playing games.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 02:31:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:11:53 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
Benjamin D. Wiker, "Who fine-tuned the universe?",
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12716.html
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Cortina" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 01:21:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:11:53 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
"ID, on the other hand, says the entire universe is manufactured."
Incorrect. Please tell me where you find that ID says that the entire
universe is manufactured. I think you are confusing Creationism with ID.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_actofcreation.htm
Dembski is fairly clear hear:
"The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a
to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too,
Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield
design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design
pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not
reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is
strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or
the origin of life."
--
Jason A Cortina
The Red Queen:
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 03:01:18 PM |
|
|
Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not
reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is
strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe
or
the origin of life."
In other words, when Dembski and Behe both cliamed that the "designer"
could be nothing but a highly advanced space alien, they were just
lying to us. Got it.
If Dembski testifies to this in Dover, the case will be over then and
there.
This case will be SUCH a slam dunk.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Cortina" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 05:26:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:06:49 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
No it is not. Your building a piece of pottery is the *application* of
design. Design has *never* been seen to be realized without some mechanism.
Without any at-least-hypothesized mechanism, you are pushing astrology,
claimed effects without cause.
--
Jason A Cortina
"Channeling is just bad ventriloquism. You use another voice,
but people can see your lips moving."
-- Penn Jillette
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 05:40:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:26:33 -0600,
Jason Cortina <jascortina@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:06:49 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
No it is not. Your building a piece of pottery is the *application* of
design. Design has *never* been seen to be realized without some mechanism.
Without any at-least-hypothesized mechanism, you are pushing astrology,
claimed effects without cause.
Precisely. Every actual scientific discipline that deals with intelligent
design concerns itself not just with the designer, but with the materials
and techniques used to turn the design into an actual product. Whether it's
an archaeologist trying to figure out how Romans made concrete foundations
or a forensics expert trying to figure out the specifics of a murder, the
where, when, how and why are what is sought.
ID can't tell us where the design was produced, when it was made into an
actual physical manifestation, how that design was made into a physical
manifestation and why the designer did it. That's because it is castrated
Creationism. At least Creationism, in its various forms does try to answer
those questions, but of course if the Discovery Institute were to walk into
a courtroom and tell the answer that they've so cleverly excised from the ID
pseudo-science, it would be over as soon as it began.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
31 Mar 2005 08:12:39 PM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2005 23:40:42 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:26:33 -0600,
Jason Cortina <jascortina@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:06:49 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
wrote:
So, while your original response -- restored above -- is that
one finds ID by finding things that cannot be chance, you now
consider everything to include chance. Nice. No such thing as ID,
or at least never to be detectable ID.
There is no actual contradiction there. My building a piece of pottery
is design, but there are chance elements involved (I may accidentally
scratch it). The existence of chance does not remove the existence of
design, nor the ability to detect it.
No it is not. Your building a piece of pottery is the *application* of
design. Design has *never* been seen to be realized without some mechanism.
Without any at-least-hypothesized mechanism, you are pushing astrology,
claimed effects without cause.
Precisely. Every actual scientific discipline that deals with intelligent
design concerns itself not just with the designer, but with the materials
and techniques used to turn the design into an actual product. Whether it's
an archaeologist trying to figure out how Romans made concrete foundations
or a forensics expert trying to figure out the specifics of a murder, the
where, when, how and why are what is sought.
ID can't tell us where the design was produced, when it was made into an
actual physical manifestation, how that design was made into a physical
manifestation and why the designer did it. That's because it is castrated
Creationism. At least Creationism, in its various forms does try to answer
those questions, but of course if the Discovery Institute were to walk into
a courtroom and tell the answer that they've so cleverly excised from the ID
pseudo-science, it would be over as soon as it began.
ID fails because there are two ways to determine design, and neither
can be used....
(a) we have natural things that weren't designed comparison. But if
everything was designed (as they imagine) there is nothing natural
with which to compare.
(b) it puts the cart before the horse. We also recognise design by
knowledge of how a designer (eg ourselves) designs things. The only
way to know design by a designer-of-everything requires we already
know enough about him/her/it to know that it designed everything.
Which presumes what it is supposed to be proving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 09:09:06 AM |
|
|
(a) we have natural things that weren't designed comparison. But if
everything was designed (as they imagine) there is nothing natural
with which to compare.
This is a good point (which I have pointed out myself), but "everything
was designed" is a creationist argument, not an ID argument.
(b) it puts the cart before the horse. We also recognise design by
knowledge of how a designer (eg ourselves) designs things. The only
way to know design by a designer-of-everything requires we already
know enough about him/her/it to know that it designed everything.
Which presumes what it is supposed to be proving.
ID does not presuppose a "designer of everything". You are confusing ID
and Creationism.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 10:05:29 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:424ec4d2$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
(a) we have natural things that weren't designed comparison. But if
everything was designed (as they imagine) there is nothing natural
with which to compare.
This is a good point (which I have pointed out myself), but "everything
was designed" is a creationist argument, not an ID argument.
(b) it puts the cart before the horse. We also recognise design by
knowledge of how a designer (eg ourselves) designs things. The only
way to know design by a designer-of-everything requires we already
know enough about him/her/it to know that it designed everything.
Which presumes what it is supposed to be proving.
ID does not presuppose a "designer of everything". You are confusing ID
and Creationism.
It does not insist (at least explicitly) a "designer of everything," but it
surely is intended to accomodate that possibility. And, of course, ID draws
most of its support from (and, indeed, most of its arguments are offered by)
people who implicitly suppose that the designer of life is the Designer of
Everything. Dembski pointedly notes that his filter is prone to false
negatives: it might fail to recognize something that *could* have been
produced by chance or necessity, but was in fact specially designed. And,
of course, IDers often have recourse to the "fine tuning" argument about
basic physical constants, implying that "law" and "chance" themselves are
designed (or at least that we ought to consider the possibility).
So, while ID allows, in principle, for the existence of undesigned things,
it also allows for the possibility that *everything*, from the bacterial
flagellum to Neptune to "chance" itself, are designed things. There is
nothing of which an ID proponent can say with any confidence is *not* the
product of design (including, one must assume, evolutionary adaption by
mutation and natural selection). So there's no way they can be sure they're
comparing designed things with undesigned things to see how they differ --
and if they really don't make assumptions about the motives and capabilities
of the Designer, there's no way to be sure He hasn't built into natural
processes the ability to produce CSI or IC.
Jon
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science |
02 Apr 2005 02:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:09:06 -0500,
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
(a) we have natural things that weren't designed comparison. But if
everything was designed (as they imagine) there is nothing natural
with which to compare.
This is a good point (which I have pointed out myself), but "everything
was designed" is a creationist argument, not an ID argument.
Yes, ID has even less of an argument. ID cannot tell us who the designer
is, how the designer went about producing whatever it is that an individual
IDer is trying to claim can only be produced by ID, it cannot tell us why.
As science goes, ID is absolutely worthless.
<snip>
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
