I prefer comparing ID to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). SETI is searching for a narrow-band radio transmission, because
1) There is no known natural (non-intelligent) process that produces narrow-band radio transmissions. 2) There is a known intelligent process that produces narrow-band radio transmissions (people using radio transmitters). 3) We understand why we produce narrow-band radio transmissions: It takes less power to produce them and is a effective way of communicating with someone who has a radio receiver. 4) If we found a narrow-band radio transmission from outer space that also had a complex mathematical signal (say the prime numbers from 2 to 101) this would greatly strengthen the inference that the transmission was intelligently produced, since a) There is no know natural (non-intelligent) process to produce such a complex mathematical signal. b) Mathematics is considered a universal language, that someone who was capable of building a radio transmitter would understand. Therefore, sending such a signal would be a further indication of intelligence.
Now if we compare this with ID, I think we can see significant similarities, for example: 5) There is no known natural (non-biological) process to produce nucleotides or proteins, both essential to life as we know it. 6) There are known intelligent processes that produce nucleotides and proteins: biologists in biology labs. 7) We understand why biologists would produce nucleotides and proteins: in order to study and understand life and eventually try to reproduce it. 8) The more complex the string of nucleotides and proteins that are produced, the more likely that it was intelligence that produced it. Origin of life researcher Eugene Koonin has proposed a multiverse in order to understand how the bare minimum number of nucleotides came into being in order for life to begin. If there isn't a multiverse, the other option would be intelligence of some kind.
Of course, the weakness in my argument is that biologists are composed of nucleotides and proteins. We would need to proposed a theoretical intelligence that was not composed of nucleotides or proteins, or perhaps time travel.
The other similarity between ID and SETI is that in both cases even if what is postulated exists, the methods of looking are weak enough that they may never work as hoped.
HERE is an interesting article on the Catholic position on evolution and cosmology. I particularly like the line, "... the reason why Catholics not only have no problem with, but positively love theories of evolution and the Big Bang. It simply comes down to the fact that Catholics are in love with truth, and that they believe truth is fundamentally unified" (my emphasis).
By 1996, the world had long since accepted evolution theory. But according to this article: "As Pope John Paul II observes in the message to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences noted earlier, evolutionary theory doesn’t explain how man is made in the image and likeness of God with an intellectual soul that can survive the death of the body" it is clear that the church still hasn't fully embraced evolution theory, which posits unguided evolutionary change, not evolution toward some goal.
"evolutionary theory doesn’t explain how man is made in the image and likeness of God with an intellectual soul that can survive the death of the body"
The Catholic church does not accept evolution theory as long as they cling to this theistic non-science. How can they say they have no problem with evolution if they reject the core of evolution theory?
Hah! What you call the "core" of evolution is nothing more than the pseudo-philosophical and decidedly a-scientific appendages laden onto an otherwise scientific construct.
Evolution purely as a description of biological processes is fine. It's when you stray into nonsensical mumbo-jumbo such as "blind" or "unguided" that you go off the rails. You call yourself "skeptical" - can you not see that there is no evidence whatsoever (empirical or otherwise) for such modifiers? Why do you insist then that others must believe in them?
By that comment, you have just exposed yourself as utterly unworthy of the name you have chosen for yourself. You claim (falsely) to only believe what the evidence shows you, yet you unquestionably profess adherence to a pseudo-scientific amateur philosophy attached to what could have been (but no longer is) a straightforward scientific construct, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, solely to prop up your chosen belief system.
That is the complete opposite of skepticism. Yours, my friend, is a true "faith-based" worldview.
Plank to Skep: "Evolution purely as a description of biological processes is fine. It's when you stray into nonsensical mumbo-jumbo such as "blind" or "unguided" that you go off the rails. You call yourself "skeptical" - can you not see that there is no evidence whatsoever (empirical or otherwise) for such modifiers? Why do you insist then that others must believe in them?"
Blind or unguided is exactly what happens.
HERE at this site records: "An excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, the lizards each adapted to their respective environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards each changed body shape in response to the flora in their environment. In fact, scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. Scientists estimate that this change was on the order of 200 darwins, which are measured units of evolutionary change. In comparison, the average rate observed in the fossil record is only 0.6 darwins."(Gingerich, 1983) (Image Source 1)
The site lists many observable, researched and investigated instances of evolution in action.
The issue is not my views on the subject. The issue is that whichever way you believe (guided or unguided), it is not a scientific viewpoint, but a philosophical one. It is not a question science has anything to say about.
It is most definitely not. A biologist can tell you how evolution works. He can tell you nothing about why it works - at least, not until he takes off his science hat and puts on his philosophic one.
Unfortunately, Dawkins is well known for his amateurish pronouncements on fields outside of his expertise (such as philosophy). Coyne's opinion (and that's all that it is) is fatally compromised by his going-in materialist premises which predetermine the outcome. He is the opposite of objective.
1. Because of the atheist's predetermined materialist mindset, only one possibility is allowable vis-a-vis evolution, which is it must be blind or unguided. He is not open at all to any other possibility.
2. The theist is free to choose either alternative, because in the end, whichever it is, is irrelevant to the ultimate question(s). God does not depend on how life was formed. There is no "God of the Gaps", except in the atheist's imagination.
So which of the two above mindsets is the more objective? The one that allows for only one acceptable outcome, or the one which is open to either?
Plank: "im-skeptical, The issue is not my views on the subject. The issue is that whichever way you believe (guided or unguided), it is not a scientific viewpoint, but a philosophical one. It is not a question science has anything to say about."
Plank: "So which of the two above mindsets is the more objective? The one that allows for only one acceptable outcome, or the one which is open to either?"
It's all well and good to have an open mind but yours is a sieve, a colander. If you believe that you can converse and socially engage with [putative] live non-human agents across the natural/supernatural divide, you will believe anything, and all manner of monsters, ghosts, cherubim, angels, evil spirits, gods and devils that go bump in the night. As the French philosopher Paul Henri Thiry astutely concluded: Theology is but the ignorance of natural cuases reduced to a system."
Give us a break with all this nonsense about the 'objectivity' of the superstitious supernatural mindset. It simply isn't credible and doesn't cut it anymore.
The theist's mindset has been drilled into his head since early childhood. He is free to choose theism or hell.
The atheist is free to choose the view that is most consistent with evidence and logic, regardless of any threat of eternal punishment that the theist faces.
[Me]: "There is no known natural (non-biological) process to produce nucleotides or proteins, both essential to life as we know it."
IM-Skeptical: "But there are known biological processes. What the ID people need to look for is something that isn't produced by nature."
Yes, there are known biological processes, but this wouldn't help in explaining the origin of life, since by definition, those biological processes didn't exist at the time.
The ID science community does not describe how life began (as part of ID science). All they say is that it was designed by some intelligent agent. They do not say who or how or when it happened.
26 comments:
I prefer comparing ID to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). SETI is searching for a narrow-band radio transmission, because
1) There is no known natural (non-intelligent) process that produces narrow-band radio transmissions.
2) There is a known intelligent process that produces narrow-band radio transmissions (people using radio transmitters).
3) We understand why we produce narrow-band radio transmissions: It takes less power to produce them and is a effective way of communicating with someone who has a radio receiver.
4) If we found a narrow-band radio transmission from outer space that also had a complex mathematical signal (say the prime numbers from 2 to 101) this would greatly strengthen the inference that the transmission was intelligently produced, since
a) There is no know natural (non-intelligent) process to produce such a complex mathematical signal.
b) Mathematics is considered a universal language, that someone who was capable of building a radio transmitter would understand. Therefore, sending such a signal would be a further indication of intelligence.
Now if we compare this with ID, I think we can see significant similarities, for example:
5) There is no known natural (non-biological) process to produce nucleotides or proteins, both essential to life as we know it.
6) There are known intelligent processes that produce nucleotides and proteins: biologists in biology labs.
7) We understand why biologists would produce nucleotides and proteins: in order to study and understand life and eventually try to reproduce it.
8) The more complex the string of nucleotides and proteins that are produced, the more likely that it was intelligence that produced it. Origin of life researcher Eugene Koonin has proposed a multiverse in order to understand how the bare minimum number of nucleotides came into being in order for life to begin. If there isn't a multiverse, the other option would be intelligence of some kind.
Of course, the weakness in my argument is that biologists are composed of nucleotides and proteins. We would need to proposed a theoretical intelligence that was not composed of nucleotides or proteins, or perhaps time travel.
The other similarity between ID and SETI is that in both cases even if what is postulated exists, the methods of looking are weak enough that they may never work as hoped.
"There is no known natural (non-biological) process to produce nucleotides or proteins, both essential to life as we know it."
But there are known biological processes. What the ID people need to look for is something that isn't produced by nature.
HERE is an interesting article on the Catholic position on evolution and cosmology. I particularly like the line, "... the reason why Catholics not only have no problem with, but positively love theories of evolution and the Big Bang. It simply comes down to the fact that Catholics are in love with truth, and that they believe truth is fundamentally unified" (my emphasis).
planks,
By 1996, the world had long since accepted evolution theory. But according to this article: "As Pope John Paul II observes in the message to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences noted earlier, evolutionary theory doesn’t explain how man is made in the image and likeness of God with an intellectual soul that can survive the death of the body" it is clear that the church still hasn't fully embraced evolution theory, which posits unguided evolutionary change, not evolution toward some goal.
"evolutionary theory doesn’t explain how man is made in the image and likeness of God with an intellectual soul that can survive the death of the body"
100% true. What's your problem?
"What's your problem?"
The Catholic church does not accept evolution theory as long as they cling to this theistic non-science. How can they say they have no problem with evolution if they reject the core of evolution theory?
Hah! What you call the "core" of evolution is nothing more than the pseudo-philosophical and decidedly a-scientific appendages laden onto an otherwise scientific construct.
Evolution purely as a description of biological processes is fine. It's when you stray into nonsensical mumbo-jumbo such as "blind" or "unguided" that you go off the rails. You call yourself "skeptical" - can you not see that there is no evidence whatsoever (empirical or otherwise) for such modifiers? Why do you insist then that others must believe in them?
Mumbo-jumbo indeed.
By that comment, you have just exposed yourself as utterly unworthy of the name you have chosen for yourself. You claim (falsely) to only believe what the evidence shows you, yet you unquestionably profess adherence to a pseudo-scientific amateur philosophy attached to what could have been (but no longer is) a straightforward scientific construct, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, solely to prop up your chosen belief system.
That is the complete opposite of skepticism. Yours, my friend, is a true "faith-based" worldview.
"That is the complete opposite of skepticism. Yours, my friend, is a true "faith-based" worldview."
Mine is a scientific and naturalist worldview. Unlike yours.
Plank to Skep: "Evolution purely as a description of biological processes is fine. It's when you stray into nonsensical mumbo-jumbo such as "blind" or "unguided" that you go off the rails. You call yourself "skeptical" - can you not see that there is no evidence whatsoever (empirical or otherwise) for such modifiers? Why do you insist then that others must believe in them?"
Blind or unguided is exactly what happens.
HERE at this site records:
"An excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, the lizards each adapted to their respective environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards each changed body shape in response to the flora in their environment. In fact, scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. Scientists estimate that this change was on the order of 200 darwins, which are measured units of evolutionary change. In comparison, the average rate observed in the fossil record is only 0.6 darwins."(Gingerich, 1983) (Image Source 1)
The site lists many observable, researched and investigated instances of evolution in action.
But for you, 'Goddidit,' didn't he, Plank?
planks,
Here's some more reading material that can help to alleviate your ignorance on the topic of guided vs unguided evolution:
Jerry Coyne - Why Evolution is True
Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth
Both available for free.
im-skeptical,
The issue is not my views on the subject. The issue is that whichever way you believe (guided or unguided), it is not a scientific viewpoint, but a philosophical one. It is not a question science has anything to say about.
"It is not a question science has anything to say about."
It is a matter of scientific investigation, supported by a wealth of evidence. Please refer to the reading material I suggested.
"It is a matter of scientific investigation"
It is most definitely not. A biologist can tell you how evolution works. He can tell you nothing about why it works - at least, not until he takes off his science hat and puts on his philosophic one.
Unfortunately, Dawkins is well known for his amateurish pronouncements on fields outside of his expertise (such as philosophy). Coyne's opinion (and that's all that it is) is fatally compromised by his going-in materialist premises which predetermine the outcome. He is the opposite of objective.
"He is the opposite of objective."
And you are the epitome of objectiveness. Right.
Im-skeptical,
Think about this:
1. Because of the atheist's predetermined materialist mindset, only one possibility is allowable vis-a-vis evolution, which is it must be blind or unguided. He is not open at all to any other possibility.
2. The theist is free to choose either alternative, because in the end, whichever it is, is irrelevant to the ultimate question(s). God does not depend on how life was formed. There is no "God of the Gaps", except in the atheist's imagination.
So which of the two above mindsets is the more objective? The one that allows for only one acceptable outcome, or the one which is open to either?
Plank:
"im-skeptical,
The issue is not my views on the subject. The issue is that whichever way you believe (guided or unguided), it is not a scientific viewpoint, but a philosophical one. It is not a question science has anything to say about."
How convenient.
Plank: "So which of the two above mindsets is the more objective? The one that allows for only one acceptable outcome, or the one which is open to either?"
It's all well and good to have an open mind but yours is a sieve, a colander. If you believe that you can converse and socially engage with [putative] live non-human agents across the natural/supernatural divide, you will believe anything, and all manner of monsters, ghosts, cherubim, angels, evil spirits, gods and devils that go bump in the night. As the French philosopher Paul Henri Thiry astutely concluded: Theology is but the ignorance of natural cuases reduced to a system."
Give us a break with all this nonsense about the 'objectivity' of the superstitious supernatural mindset. It simply isn't credible and doesn't cut it anymore.
"the theist is free to choose either alternative"
The theist's mindset has been drilled into his head since early childhood. He is free to choose theism or hell.
The atheist is free to choose the view that is most consistent with evidence and logic, regardless of any threat of eternal punishment that the theist faces.
[Me]: "There is no known natural (non-biological) process to produce nucleotides or proteins, both essential to life as we know it."
IM-Skeptical: "But there are known biological processes. What the ID people need to look for is something that isn't produced by nature."
Yes, there are known biological processes, but this wouldn't help in explaining the origin of life, since by definition, those biological processes didn't exist at the time.
Bilbo,
The ID science community does not describe how life began (as part of ID science). All they say is that it was designed by some intelligent agent. They do not say who or how or when it happened.
Theism or hell? I didn't hear that in my church. My mother, the first to teach me about God, didn't believe in hell.
And as I have opined elsewhere on your site, I strongly suspect Heaven and Hell are the same place.
But "theism or hell" is a convenient strawman for the nonbeliever to comfort one's self with. Much easier to deal with that people's actual beliefs.
Post a Comment