Life, The Universe, And All That

[Rhubarb Mess]

It only takes a few minutes to look at post history and do a couple of sums.

 

 

Should I be purchasing stockings??

[xj2006]

With regards "evidence" for ID, I said I would post about it and I have a few moments of my lunch break left so here goes...

 

The "evidence" used is comparitive evidence, using comparisons and logic of our prior experiences. A sound scientific standard for testing something that happened in the past (ie darwin used the same method when observing the finches).

 

One brief example;

 

We have no problems admitting Mt. Rushmore was carved by an intelligent agent/cause, as opposed to natural causes like wind/water erosion (as is the case with most rock faces)

 

If there was maybe, what looks like a nose, or some other random feature, we could also rightly say it could have came about by natural causes, and therfore no intelligence is inferred. However, there are four ex presidents carved into the rock, each one recognisable from history books etc... The chances of natural causes producing something so recognisable and information rich is laughable. No one in their right mind would ask for proof of an intelligent cause. That is because the more complex and meaningful the thing in question, the more we naturally attribute or infer design.

 

The more we look into the inner workings of the cell, the more we see "evidence" of an intelligent cause. As was mentioned previously, DNA is more complex than the most complex Operating system. No matter how long we give it, this kind of information rich functional system could not have (from our learned experience) come about by natural forces.

 

Now I know the argument on the other side is "yeah but we know mt.rushmore had an intelligent cause because there are pictures of it being designed" etc.. however, imagine in 1000 years there is no physical record of the event? someone stumbling accross the mountain would never question the fact that it was a product of design.

 

I know there are some strong arguments against design, which is totally fine, and what science is all about. comparitive evidence however suggests to me (and lots of others) that there was an intelligent first cause. Be it God, the flying spaghetti monster, or something else, that is irellevent to the design argument (in my opinion).

 

 

[.:BrIDo:.]

With regards "evidence" for ID, I said I would post about it and I have a few moments of my lunch break left so here goes...

 

The "evidence" used is comparitive evidence, using comparisons and logic of our prior experiences. A sound scientific standard for testing something that happened in the past (ie darwin used the same method when observing the finches).

 

One brief example;

 

We have no problems admitting Mt. Rushmore was carved by an intelligent agent/cause, as opposed to natural causes like wind/water erosion (as is the case with most rock faces)

 

If there was maybe, what looks like a nose, or some other random feature, we could also rightly say it could have came about by natural causes, and therfore no intelligence is inferred. However, there are four ex presidents carved into the rock, each one recognisable from history books etc... The chances of natural causes producing something so recognisable and information rich is laughable. No one in their right mind would ask for proof of an intelligent cause. That is because the more complex and meaningful the thing in question, the more we naturally attribute or infer design.

 

The more we look into the inner workings of the cell, the more we see "evidence" of an intelligent cause. As was mentioned previously, DNA is more complex than the most complex Operating system. No matter how long we give it, this kind of information rich functional system could not have (from our learned experience) come about by natural forces.

 

The part in bold is an incredibly bold statement - one I don't think anyone on the planet is qualified to make, at least not based on sound scientific evidence. Regarding the operating system comparison, yes, you are correct - DNA is more complex. As complicated as an operating system is the technology (as far as computers go) has developed in the past 60/70 years. Nature has had millions of years to perfect it's system - to compare what we've achieved in such less time and then say 'You see? You can't do it!' is a flawed analogy. Indeed, what will we have invented in another thousand years, much less one million?

 

Now I know the argument on the other side is "yeah but we know mt.rushmore had an intelligent cause because there are pictures of it being designed" etc.. however, imagine in 1000 years there is no physical record of the event? someone stumbling accross the mountain would never question the fact that it was a product of design.

 

I know there are some strong arguments against design, which is totally fine, and what science is all about. comparitive evidence however suggests to me (and lots of others) that there was an intelligent first cause. Be it God, the flying spaghetti monster, or something else, that is irellevent to the design argument (in my opinion).

 

Human developments are based on our understanding of how the world works. Your mount rushmore example illustrates this well. In a thousand years, if all documentation of it's construction were lost - we would know it was man made because of what we understand about the natural processes which one could argue created it - for example, natural erosion. We could easily conclude that it had to be designed because the natural forces at work are incapable of specific, detailed, and dare i say it, intelligent design.

 

Again, we can say this, because we understand the process of natural erosion.

 

Coming back to DNA - it's not correct nor wise (as history has proven with many examples), to assume that because we do not understand the history of DNA and how it came about at present, that we will never understand. It's equally incorrect to say that it that it cannot have come about without an intelligent designer.

 

I couldn't help but think of this when you mentioned mount rushmore... :-P

 

 

 

[cappiecat]

With regards "evidence" for ID, I said I would post about it and I have a few moments of my lunch break left so here goes...

 

The more we look into the inner workings of the cell, the more we see "evidence" of an intelligent cause. As was mentioned previously, DNA is more complex than the most complex Operating system. No matter how long we give it, this kind of information rich functional system could not have (from our learned experience) come about by natural forces.

 

I know there are some strong arguments against design, which is totally fine, and what science is all about. comparitive evidence however suggests to me (and lots of others) that there was an intelligent first cause. Be it God, the flying spaghetti monster, or something else, that is irellevent to the design argument (in my opinion).

What you offer as evidence is nothing more than conjecture and opinion.

[Boozehound]

You do realise that you only live once don't you? Why not worry about all this patter when you're dead because at least then you'll know for sure who was right.

[TRVMP]

With regards "evidence" for ID, I said I would post about it and I have a few moments of my lunch break left so here goes...

 

The "evidence" used is comparitive evidence, using comparisons and logic of our prior experiences. A sound scientific standard for testing something that happened in the past (ie darwin used the same method when observing the finches).

 

One brief example;

 

We have no problems admitting Mt. Rushmore was carved by an intelligent agent/cause, as opposed to natural causes like wind/water erosion (as is the case with most rock faces)

 

If there was maybe, what looks like a nose, or some other random feature, we could also rightly say it could have came about by natural causes, and therfore no intelligence is inferred. However, there are four ex presidents carved into the rock, each one recognisable from history books etc... The chances of natural causes producing something so recognisable and information rich is laughable. No one in their right mind would ask for proof of an intelligent cause. That is because the more complex and meaningful the thing in question, the more we naturally attribute or infer design.

 

I said in an earlier post that equating complexity with design was mistake number one in the Big Book Of IDiocy, and I'm glad to return to this theme so quickly.

 

The argument from complexity finds its most sophisticated form in the "irreducible complexity" argument. Thankfully for the reality-based community, it's as easily debunked as its predecessors, such as the watchmaker argument (large parts of which are re-hashed in the above toe-curling Mt. Rushmore homily.)

 

1) First of all it is epistomologically wrong to assert that complexity equals design. It rests on the argument from ignorance ("we don't understand the full working of this, THEREFORE GOD"), the argument from incredulity ("this looks really complicated, THEREFORE GOD"), and finally the god of the gaps fallacy ("I've manufactured a few gaps in knowledge, LET'S FILL THEM WITH GOD.")

 

2) It is factually wrong to assert, as you do, that because we see the hand of a designer in Mt. Rushmore we must see it in everything else complex. The reason we know Mt. Rushmore is designed , as opposed to being almost certain but not quite knowing that it's designed, is that we have an accurate record of its cause. We cannot take the best explanation as certain without evidence.

 

3) It is historically wrong to assert that complexity is a gap in our knowledge that can only be filled by a god. Let's remember that it was commonly held - and is still not an unknown method of argument - that the human eye could not have evolved because it is a complex system that (it was argued) couldn't emerge piecemeal. In fact it has been conclusively demonstrated that the complex system of the eye *did* evolve, and that it *did* evolve piecemeal.

 

4) It is scientifically wrong to assert that, because we cannot (yet) fully account for abiogenesis, that there must be a supernatural explanation. This is, again, the god of the gaps fallacy.

 

These are just a few of the exceptions to what is a very poor argument that rests on incredulity and the assumption of a conclusion. Had I more time today I could point out why comparing the cell to Mt. Rushmore is a terrible idea as well. Hopefully you'll take my word for it.

 

The more we look into the inner workings of the cell, the more we see "evidence" of an intelligent cause.

No, we don't. And that's not a statement you can make without saying what the evidence is. As I've shown, complexity is *not* evidence of design.

 

As was mentioned previously, DNA is more complex than the most complex Operating system. No matter how long we give it, this kind of information rich functional system could not have (from our learned experience) come about by natural forces.

 

Evidence for this statement? Remember, complexity doesn't equal design.

 

Now I know the argument on the other side is "yeah but we know mt.rushmore had an intelligent cause because there are pictures of it being designed" etc.. however, imagine in 1000 years there is no physical record of the event? someone stumbling accross the mountain would never question the fact that it was a product of design.

Complexity != design.

 

I know there are some strong arguments against design, which is totally fine, and what science is all about. comparitive evidence however suggests to me (and lots of others) that there was an intelligent first cause. Be it God, the flying spaghetti monster, or something else, that is irellevent to the design argument (in my opinion).

 

Evidence seems to be irrelevant to your argument as well!

[TRVMP]

You do realise that you only live once don't you? Why not worry about all this patter when you're dead because at least then you'll know for sure who was right.

 

There's no evidence to suggest that we'll know anything at all when we're dead

[bandcton]

I’d wanted to be an active poster on this thread but unexpected ‘events’ have dictated otherwise and continue to run my agenda - I will be away for most of this week. Looks like I’ll miss its natural demise. So, I just wanted to leave you with a very short statement of where I am at in the S – R debate. It’s self-indulgent I know and I have no expectations that anything will change as a result, (although it’s nice to think that 1 or 2 might think twice before we beat up on each other every time this topic is raised). Fyi - I write as someone with 20+ years earning my living in a heavy-duty S-type environment who is, unexpectedly and with no little sense of excitement and trepidation exploring the R. My assertions (totally and proudly unprovable) are:

 

S has won this particular debate. This was clear from about the third posting. It won because it cleverly got everyone to play by S-rules (those of Scientific methodology) using S-language (like ‘prove’, ‘theorem’, etc). R went along with it not realising that when R plays at the S game (which it has - far, far too often) it is at its weakest and, as history sadly shows us is prone to behave at its worst – abuse of power, attempt to mind control, compromise with power and politics, intolerance, cruelty, etc, etc.

 

The only possible riposte from R should have been – “as stated, the problem is insoluble. There is no unified solution that both S and R will find acceptable.”

 

The only way that S and R can productively make any kind of progress with such questions as CHC’s (How does R cope with the flood of new information on nature, size and scope of universe?) is by treating it as a joint enquiry, each using their own tools, methodologies and language, with no-one looking to win or lose. Thus S might elaborate on the size of the issue and some of its characteristics while R could offer stories and truths (NOT the same as ‘proofs’) that still seem to hold good and some that the new data blows away or, at least causes a re-think.

 

For me, bottom line is when I am in an aeroplane or under a surgeon’s knife I want them to be the best S-types available; when I feel grief, loneliness or bewilderment at my place in the great vast scheme of things, I want to hear, not the parables of proof and certainty that S offers but the parables of possibility and hope that R is best at.

 

None of this is the same as saying, ‘We all need to respect each other’s opinions honestly held.’ No we don’t if it in any way threatens the sum of human happiness. Integrity remains vital.

 

Final final point. Saddest quote from the posts was from someone who said, “I'm not so interested that I'm going to read a book on it...). That is the future if S is continually win so easily - 451 degrees Fahrenheit and Bradbury as the last prophet. And I honestly believe that future really is very near. That’s why this stuff really matters.

 

Hope to see y’all on another thread somewhere, someplace. Be nice to each other and yourself,

 

bandcton

 

[Ghost]

Think a few folk on this thread have been sniffing some really good stuff

[xj2006]

These are just a few of the exceptions to what is a very poor argument that rests on incredulity and the assumption of a conclusion. Had I more time today I could point out why comparing the cell to Mt. Rushmore is a terrible idea as well. Hopefully you'll take my word for it.

 

Evidence for this statement? Remember, complexity doesn't equal design.

 

Complexity != design.

Evidence seems to be irrelevant to your argument as well!

 

Quick point as about to leave the office...

 

I was not comparing Mt.Rushmore to the workings of a cell. I am not thatstupid.

 

The brief example I used was merely to show the natural human reaction to things that we see that have the inference of design. And the scientific method used in coming to those conclusions.

 

Even Watson (or was it Crick?) said that he had to keep reminding himself that what he was seeing in the cell "was not designed" - ie his natural conclusions led him to think design.

 

So, to just throw design theory out completely without concrete proof of non-design is scientific folly in my opinion.

 

I can understand why scientists want to keep design out of "science" - as a prominent scientist once put it (can't remember his name - will find out) they (the scientific community) don't want to talk about design because they "don't want to let a divine foot in the door" (paraphrasing). And, you know what, I can completely understand that. I just wish they would be more honest and admit it.

[maccaboy]

Quick point as about to leave the office...

 

don't you know it's not allowed for anyone to have other things to do when they're in a debate on here?? The smallminded on here seem to take that as a sign of weakness!

 

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

Quick point as about to leave the office...

 

Posting from the office, whatever next. The smallminded on here like to bring that one up, even if they have no clue where you actually are.

[TRVMP]

Final final point. Saddest quote from the posts was from someone who said, “I'm not so interested that I'm going to read a book on it...). That is the future if S is continually win so easily - 451 degrees Fahrenheit and Bradbury as the last prophet. And I honestly believe that future really is very near. That’s why this stuff really matters.

 

So... because I'm not that interested in a particular book about the soul, and don't want to put it into a reading list that's already backed up onto a second shelf, I'm somehow anti-learning and anti-skeptical thinking? That's really ****ing risible, even by goddists' standards.

 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest, hysterical goddists aren't worth the energy.

[TRVMP]

Quick point as about to leave the office...

 

I was not comparing Mt.Rushmore to the workings of a cell. I am not thatstupid.

 

The brief example I used was merely to show the natural human reaction to things that we see that have the inference of design. And the scientific method used in coming to those conclusions.

 

Even Watson (or was it Crick?) said that he had to keep reminding himself that what he was seeing in the cell "was not designed" - ie his natural conclusions led him to think design.

 

So, to just throw design theory out completely without concrete proof of non-design is scientific folly in my opinion.

 

This last part is a non-sequitur. Our initial reaction (instinct?) is to see design where there may or may not be design. We then use the scientific method to figure out if there is design or not. The scientific method - and critical/skeptical thinking more broadly - allow us to either confirm or dispel our prejudices. Your holding up Crick (or whoever) as an example of your argument is in fact an example of mine: I could go outside and catch a butterfly or something and be so captivated by its beauty and grace that I'd conclude that something very benevolent and powerful put it there. Then I'd take a cursory glance at a biology textbook and realise that I'm mistaken.

 

It also ignores the point that I and others have made dozens of times now that you can't prove non-design, because you can't prove a negative.

 

I said earlier in the thread that you don't actually read what you purport to respond to, and I stand by that.

 

I can understand why scientists want to keep design out of "science" - as a prominent scientist once put it (can't remember his name - will find out) they (the scientific community) don't want to talk about design because they "don't want to let a divine foot in the door" (paraphrasing). And, you know what, I can completely understand that. I just wish they would be more honest and admit it.

 

Just a minute - who's being dishonest about it, and to what end? Science is perfectly consistent on this point: pushing evidence-free ideology without scientific basis into science classrooms and laboratories is to be ferociously resisted. I don't know of any serious scientist who would disagree with that statement. Why would they? The people advocating design "theory" getting a foot in the door are without exception anti-scientific and acting in defiance of the scientific method. This is of course their civil and human right, but it's also the right of scientists to defend a naturalistic method that's served them very well until this point.

 

Behe himself admitted under oath that in order to afford ID/irreducible complexity the status of "science", science would have to be enlarged to such an extent that astrology would also feature in its canon. That is to say, science wouldn't be science anymore. Why do you think resisting this is something that people would be dishonest about, much less are actually dishonest about? It's absolutely vital to the enterprise that IDiocy is kept cordoned off from proper science, otherwise proper science is under threat.

[TRVMP]

don't you know it's not allowed for anyone to have other things to do when they're in a debate on here?? The smallminded on here seem to take that as a sign of weakness!

 

Maccaboy, if you have something better to do please for the love of all that's good don't let us keep you.

[bandcton]

So... because I'm not that interested in a particular book about the soul, and don't want to put it into a reading list that's already backed up onto a second shelf, I'm somehow anti-learning and anti-skeptical thinking? That's really ****ing risible, even by goddists' standards.

 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest, hysterical goddists aren't worth the energy.

 

I didn't know it was you what said it so don't take on so.

Yes, you are anti-learning - or at least anti-learning if it's learning about anything that is outside your comfortable limited world-view.

Please stop being rude - that becomes sould-destroying and you are intelligent enough not to have to do it.

 

More in sorrow than in anger,

 

bandcton

[TRVMP]

I didn't know it was you what said it so don't take on so.

Yes, you are anti-learning - or at least anti-learning if it's learning about anything that is outside your comfortable limited world-view.

 

How does it follow that my not being interested in one book on one topic - or at least not interested enough to buy/borrow it and add it to my collection - make me resistant to "anything" outside my "comfortable limited world-view?"

 

The answer is, it doesn't follow, and you're grasping at staws.

 

Please stop being rude - that becomes sould-destroying and you are intelligent enough not to have to do it.

 

I said earlier: I don't care about, or pay attention to, tone trolling.

[maccaboy]

Posting from the office, whatever next. The smallminded on here like to bring that one up, even if they have no clue where you actually are.

 

.......and the smallminded can never, EVER resist taking any bait which is cast before them.......

 

 

[bandcton]

How does it follow that my not being interested in one book on one topic - or at least not interested enough to buy/borrow it and add it to my collection - make me resistant to "anything" outside my "comfortable limited world-view?"

 

The answer is, it doesn't follow, and you're grasping at staws.

I said earlier: I don't care about, or pay attention to, tone trolling.

 

Help me here. What is 'tone trolling'?

 

bandcton

[TRVMP]

Help me here. What is 'tone trolling'?

 

bandcton

 

People who publicly fret about rudeness and a perceived lack of "respect" to the detriment of the discussion at hand. Generally they make a lot of noises about a conciliatory approach - again, to the detriment of the discussion at hand.