tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1615246129460591024..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A testable case for ID?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52440253017746006762011-04-04T11:51:58.271-07:002011-04-04T11:51:58.271-07:00Anthony wrote:
ID would eventually get more attent...Anthony wrote:<br /><i>ID would eventually get more attention. It would, like many things, just take time.</i><br /><br />This is exactly right. To overthrow 150+ years of naturalistic evolutionary thinking (and strong evidence for this in origin explanations), it will take time, thorough exploration of alternate hypotheses, etc.. To just say, with every unexplained phenomenon in the lab, 'Wow it must not have happened naturally' would kill experimental science. This is because 99.9% of all experiments are done precisely because there is something we don't understand, we need data about it. The first presumption is that there is some series of natural events we don't yet understand. <br /><br />This is what many don't understand. The presumption of natural mechanism is extremely well-worn, well-justified, and will take some strong evidence to overcome it. It would be as big as the emergence of special relativity and quantum mechanics combined. Overthrow one of the most key guiding heuristics/methodological aids in science.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23771587130876734752011-04-04T11:35:32.216-07:002011-04-04T11:35:32.216-07:00I should have said this as well,
Yes I have heard...I should have said this as well,<br /><br />Yes I have heard such exact claims as the one I posted. I haven't heard that from everyone but I have heard other very interesting statements as well...<br /><br />Tony you wrote, "I can’t help but think that high school biology textbooks, school boards, and teachers all struggle to find the best way to teach scientific facts in a way that least provokes those who feel the facts of biology offend their religious beliefs."<br /><br />I agree and I try not to be one of those who makes it more difficult.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-822814896329891542011-04-04T11:28:16.573-07:002011-04-04T11:28:16.573-07:00Tony you wrote, "... It seems more likely tha...Tony you wrote, "... It seems more likely that you view the fact that a science teacher, for instance, sees no need for God in scientific explanations as being equivalent to a statement that science proves that God does not exist. But the two are not equivalent."<br /><br />I agree that the two are not equivalent. I think my previous comments demonstrate my acceptance, to an extant, that God is not necessarily needed for scientific explanation. Not all of the teachers I referenced are biology teachers either. <br /><br />You wrote, "It is one thing to say that God is not revealed in scientific investigation, and that God appears scientifically meaningless, and another to declare that “God absolutely doesn't exist because Darwinism is absolutely true.” In fact, the last statement seems so outlandish that I doubt you would really be able to find a teacher who would agree to the statement. (Then again, maybe you do really have some odd teachers around there.)"<br /><br />Well, I don't think I am going to be able to prove my point by getting one of those teachers on here to volunteer. Lets just say that I have actually met teachers who have taken such positions. Here in Wisconsin we have some crazy people. Just look at some of the serial killers that have come out of here :). That was a total joke and I am not comparing teachers to serial killers. <br /><br />To be more serious, have you seen what Wisconsin teachers are willing to say lately? It's been all over the news for a while. Calling our governor dictator and tyrant etc. The false dilemmas, ad-hominems, appeal to authority, and appeal to motive are a dime a dozen around here right now. I'm not ripping on teachers, I have quite a few good friends who are teachers. Lets just say there are definite illogical and unscientific comparisons going on.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70273050994729438562011-04-04T11:10:48.993-07:002011-04-04T11:10:48.993-07:00Fleming: “I have found quite a few teachers who ar...Fleming: “I have found quite a few teachers who are strict Darwinists who also like to use Darwinism to make metaphysical claims saying, "God absolutely doesn't exist because Darwinism is absolutely true."”<br /><br />This seems like an exaggeration to me. It seems more likely that you view the fact that a science teacher, for instance, sees no need for God in scientific explanations as being equivalent to a statement that science proves that God does not exist. But the two are not equivalent.<br /><br />It is one thing to say that God is not revealed in scientific investigation, and that God appears scientifically meaningless, and another to declare that “God absolutely doesn't exist because Darwinism is absolutely true.” In fact, the last statement seems so outlandish that I doubt you would really be able to find a teacher who would agree to the statement. (Then again, maybe you do really have some odd teachers around there.)<br /><br />In my experience, things work the other way. I know that when I look back at my high school biology experience, for instance, we studied structures and phyla, etc., but spent very little time on evolution per se. I can’t help but think that high school biology textbooks, school boards, and teachers all struggle to find the best way to teach scientific facts in a way that least provokes those who feel the facts of biology offend their religious beliefs.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64548551715257599712011-04-04T10:54:54.126-07:002011-04-04T10:54:54.126-07:00BTW...even with altered versions in different life...BTW...even with altered versions in different life-forms it still seems to point more towards a creator than not. At least to me. I still have a lot to learn about this type of stuff.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78699745973755525232011-04-04T10:52:30.842-07:002011-04-04T10:52:30.842-07:00On your hypothetical, when I quoted you before you...On your hypothetical, when I quoted you before you had written that all things "can not" be explained naturally. I see now it was just a typo. <br /><br />I am having trouble finding more source on whether DNA was fully formed or not. I did not know that about DNA being altered in some life-forms. Looks like I will have to do more homework. Thank you.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30542060220940499502011-04-04T10:41:42.619-07:002011-04-04T10:41:42.619-07:00I forgot to include one thing. As I said earlier, ...I forgot to include one thing. As I said earlier, ID has a tough job ahead of it in terms of using natural occurrences or scientific evidence of the natural to prove God's existence. <br /><br />To do such one would have to prove what God would do or how he would have designed it. Unless someone takes Genesis 1-2 literally I don't think we have such information. It is good to note that even many of the first Church fathers did not take Genesis 1-2 literally. <br /><br />So I agree that when it comes to most scientific discovery one can look at it two ways in terms of helping prove God's existence. <br /><br />I am quite conservative but even I oppose most efforts in politics to get ID in the classroom. I don't think it would be a bad idea to teach that some people think evidence points to ID...BUT it isn't strictly scientific etc etc. In my town, and other towns around me, I have found quite a few teachers who are strict Darwinists who also like to use Darwinism to make metaphysical claims saying, "God absolutely doesn't exist because Darwinism is absolutely true." I think those who are so worried about religion or belief in God being lost in the classroom should perhaps start some efforts to get such metaphysical claims out of high school and grade school biology classes rather than trying to get non-science in. I could be wrong. I am open to thoughts on the issue.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11230034635431478272011-04-04T10:41:16.899-07:002011-04-04T10:41:16.899-07:00Anthony Fleming said...
Like DNA. It is an algori...Anthony Fleming said... <br /><i>Like DNA. It is an algorithm of biochemical code with a bult-in capacity for transcription and replication which came fully formed with the first appearance of life. </i><br /><br />Did you know that there are forms of life that use an slightly altered DNA code? If the code had come fully-formed, I don't think those altered forms would exist.<br /><br /><i>I don't think I understand. Do you mean that all observations can be explained naturally? </i><br /><br />I should have used "hypothetical". Every hypotheitical observation is consistent with ID. many hyposthetical observations can not be explained naturally.<br /><br /><i>After all, many don't call it the Cambrian explosion for nothing :)</i><br /><br />It is unique in the fossil record, as far as I know.<br /><br /><i>Still, For many, they wake up everyday and in their life seem to continue to find intelligence working amongst random events.</i><br /><br />Humans are very good at finding patterns, even in randomness.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59363892073483041082011-04-04T10:19:17.182-07:002011-04-04T10:19:17.182-07:00OneBrow,
Thank you for the response. BDK covered ...OneBrow,<br /><br />Thank you for the response. BDK covered some of those points but I appreciate your perspective as well. <br /><br />You wrote, "That is straight-forward. ID uses philosophical arguments and tries to present them as being science. Things they claim are impossible are actually explianed fairly easily."<br /><br />I agree to an extant. I think some see the evidence pointing to a creator rather than strictly natural events though.<br /><br />Like DNA. It is an algorithm of biochemical code with a bult-in capacity for transcription and replication which came fully formed with the first appearance of life. <br /><br />To me it seems that points to intelligence of some sort more than unintelligent and non-rational physical causes. <br /><br />I haven't done a lot of scientific study which is why many of these discussions are good for me. I will definitely do more reading and take classes in the future. <br /><br />You wrote, "Part fo the problem is that ID can explain anything, but not all observations can be explained naturally."<br /><br />I don't think I understand. Do you mean that all observations can be explained naturally? While I don't fully disagree, I think the definition of what is natural is often extended. It seems like if we are able to discover something, even with tools that go beyond capability of our cognitive faculties, then it is considered natural because we can observe it or "see it." In other words, because we can "figure it out" it is natural. The Bible says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). I often wonder that if we discovered God himself we would still try to classify him as Natural. <br /><br />You wrote, "Over how long a period of time would the explosion have to have occured for it not to be a "bam"? 50 million years?"<br /><br />Good question and I don't have enough knowledge in the subject to give a good answer. I think it is called the Cambrian explosion because of the relatively short time required for so many diverse life forms to come on the scene. I could look deeper but I am willing to guess it was a "bam" in comparison to other developments. After all, many don't call it the Cambrian explosion for nothing :)<br /><br />You wrote, "Some people would write it off as an unexplained, natural occurence. Some would not. I trust BDK's description of his personal standards of credulity, ut then, I happen to agree. That would convince me."<br /><br />I agree with BDK as well and even defended his position earlier. <br /><br />It is good to note that I don't hinge my belief in God on statements from ID. For one, I think there are more compelling arguments for God's existence.<br /><br />Secondly, it has always been difficult for me to accept that unintelligence will bring about true intelligence in the assumption that true independent intelligence exists. <br /><br />Lastly and probably most importantly is an understanding of intelligence outside of myself through subjective understanding in objective events. If I am to roll 5 dice and end up with all sixes I may think it was lucky, especially if playing Yahtzee. If I roll again and get all threes then I may think it was purely coincidence. If I roll again and get a straight to the five and then, on next turn, get all sixes again I may start to wonder if intelligence is involved somewhere. <br /><br />I know the analogy is weak in the sense that I start with an object which is created using intelligence. Still, For many, they wake up everyday and in their life seem to continue to find intelligence working amongst random events. I am not saying it objectively proves God, I am not that naive. Still, that's how it is with the miracles and things I have seen in my own life.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22695749281451502272011-04-04T08:17:02.402-07:002011-04-04T08:17:02.402-07:00Sure, so what I am after is an account of argument...<i>Sure, so what I am after is an account of arguments from ignorance (assuming such arguments are bad arguments) that lets our ordinary inductive inferences off the hook. I suspect that any such account would also validate ID inferences. </i><br /><br />An argument from induction relies on homogeneity (things tend to behave the same way in the same situations). ID argues for non-homogeneity, arguing that what happened in life at some point is idfferent than what we see today.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31893066207481789862011-04-04T08:11:29.144-07:002011-04-04T08:11:29.144-07:00Anthony Fleming said...
I would like to make an a...Anthony Fleming said... <br /><i>I would like to make an argument but would first like to understand part of the position against ID. </i><br /><br />That is straight-forward. ID uses philosophical arguments and tries to present them as being science. Things they claim are impossible are actually explianed fairly easily.<br /><br /><i>It seems the essential argument is, "X is a potential proof for ID but it is also a potential proof for evolution and therefore ID does not need to be the primary theory." Am I off base?</i><br /><br />Part fo the problem is that ID can explain anything, but not all observations can be explained naturally.<br /><br /><i>For one, what about the Cambrian explosion? I know it does not meet all your criteria but it does seem to be a "bam" of sorts. </i><br /><br />Over how long a period of time would the explosion have to have occured for it not to be a "bam"? 50 million years?<br /><br /><i>It seems if such an event happened people would define it as just another thing that "happens" that we didn't know would happen. </i><br /><br />Some people would write it off as an unexplained, natural occurence. Some would not. I trust BDK's description of his personal standards of credulity, ut then, I happen to agree. That would convince me.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26105627380082852962011-04-03T20:51:59.379-07:002011-04-03T20:51:59.379-07:00Oh, one last thing.
One good book to read on the ...Oh, one last thing.<br /><br />One good book to read on the subject of whether evolution itself is designed is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Design-Matrix-Consilience-Clues/dp/0978631404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301889014&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">the Design Matrix</a> by Mike Gene. He's one example of someone who A) Does not think ID is science, B) Accepts evolution, but C) approaches the question of design and teleology in evolution in a striking way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61186005650063081522011-04-03T20:49:28.268-07:002011-04-03T20:49:28.268-07:00I want to add this. "I would personally be co...I want to add this. "I would personally be convinced of Y if X took place" does not mean "Therefore we should expect X if Y is true." Jerry Coyne says he would be convinced that God exists if a 900 foot Jesus appeared to him. Does it therefore follow that the lack of a 900 foot Jesus is evidence against God's existence?<br /><br />Don't confuse someone's personal standard for evidence with an actual reasonable standard for evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77180781978179363152011-04-03T20:33:14.950-07:002011-04-03T20:33:14.950-07:00In a sense I agree with you. However, BDK has alre...<i>In a sense I agree with you. However, BDK has already addressed this by saying that ID would eventually get more attention. It would, like many things, just take time.</i><br /><br />No, it wouldn't. Not unless this was happening all over the place, under strictly observed laboratory conditions. And even then, there would be non-design possibilities entertained from the outset: Quantum fluctuations (this sort of thing happens in certain multiverse scenarios..!) Mass hallucination. Trickery (that didn't really happen - we're being duped by someone.) Teleology is apparent in evolutionary theory *as it stands*. It is ignored or explained away. Why should we believe this would change if something inexplicable started to happen?<br /><br />It's not for nothing that PZ Myers said that no evidence for God was possible in his view, because there was always a naturalistic explanation for any given phenomena, and he would always regard the naturalistic explanation as preferable. Naturalistic explanations are always possible in principle for any state of affairs, because "possibility in principle" is a very low bar.<br /><br />Here's a question: Does human-orchestrated genetic modification provide evidence for ID? What if something along the lines of, say... a scientist taking some fruitflies and BAM! he's turned them into a colony of bees, count? That's clearly ID. The response may be "that's humans doing it", but ID does not say the designer must be God: Dembski and company expressly admit that the range of possible designers could be humans, impersonal teleological processes, and more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3999957378509630902011-04-03T20:20:25.322-07:002011-04-03T20:20:25.322-07:00Anon you wrote, "And the naturalists would be...Anon you wrote, "And the naturalists would be like, WHAM, we have no idea what caused that but surely there's a naturalistic explanation, it's premature to draw any conclusions about this whatsoever, sudden changes like this are entirely compatible with naturalism, here are some hypothetical possibilities we're entertaining."<br /><br />In a sense I agree with you. However, BDK has already addressed this by saying that ID would eventually get more attention. It would, like many things, just take time.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64713029118210303622011-04-03T20:18:40.475-07:002011-04-03T20:18:40.475-07:00I've been there before and I have noticed the ...I've been there before and I have noticed the same.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2529272352016175952011-04-03T20:08:17.278-07:002011-04-03T20:08:17.278-07:00God would be like, you want evidence, here's y...<i> God would be like, you want evidence, here's your evidence! BAM! That fruit fly colony just became a colony of bees, doubter (and we have both trying to interbreed and they can't, and we have video of the female fruit flies giving birth to the bees, and can do genetic tests on both, and find that there are different chromosome numbers, e.g., more in the bees, but the bee chromosomes are not just duplicates or shuffles of the fruit fly ones, but truly unique chromosomes in the context.</i><br /><br />And the naturalists would be like, WHAM, we have no idea what caused that but surely there's a naturalistic explanation, it's premature to draw any conclusions about this whatsoever, sudden changes like this are entirely compatible with naturalism, here are some hypothetical possibilities we're entertaining.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8646702018685573482011-04-03T17:25:48.540-07:002011-04-03T17:25:48.540-07:00Yes. And of course Feser is the main Thomistic blo...Yes. And of course Feser is the main Thomistic blogger (is my impression). But be prepared to enter a hosue of mirrors over there...(lots of self reference until you loop back on the original post :))Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79124753432970824142011-04-03T13:39:31.769-07:002011-04-03T13:39:31.769-07:00I get it. I was wondering if you were referring to...I get it. I was wondering if you were referring to some groups that call themselves Thomsists or encouraging me to simply be one philosophically. I see now that it is the latter. <br /><br />I think your right though. I know a few things about being a Thomist but perhaps I should ask Ben for more info. Your referring to BenYachov right?Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39944444348487633082011-04-02T19:54:18.752-07:002011-04-02T19:54:18.752-07:00Anthony, basically those that follow in the tradit...Anthony, basically those that follow in the tradition of Aquinas. But Ben here knows about all that I know basically nada. It would be interesting to see what you thought. I found it a bit impersonal, but Ben says he doesn't.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32198006075132856052011-04-02T16:36:08.779-07:002011-04-02T16:36:08.779-07:00By the way, being a Thomist would be pretty sweet....By the way, being a Thomist would be pretty sweet. Are you talking about the ones involved in the quarterly review or the approach to theology and philosophy?Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86772781427167971582011-04-02T15:44:43.877-07:002011-04-02T15:44:43.877-07:00I'd prefer something more modern, that covers ...I'd prefer something more modern, that covers evo-devo, for instance, which has exploded since that book came out. Not sure what would fit the bill. Anyone know? 'Endless forms most beautiful' was a great book.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33376838820598277232011-04-02T15:42:34.264-07:002011-04-02T15:42:34.264-07:00Tony frankly I don't keep up to date with all ...Tony frankly I don't keep up to date with all the stuff any more, so that's why I cited Parsons. I agree that blind watchmaker does take on the design argument nicely, and directly, though. My concern was more as an introduction to evolutionary biology it is a bit narrowly adaptationist (as you already mentioned), and sometimes the rhetoric is a turn-off to someone who isn't already on the boat.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62975553000927646152011-04-02T15:25:40.985-07:002011-04-02T15:25:40.985-07:00BDK: "I don't recommend the blind watchma...BDK: "I don't recommend the blind watchmaker as a starting point it is a bit idiosyncratic and narrow in its view of evolution. It is hard sometimes to separate the poetry from the science there."<br /><br />Interesting. I read it over 20 years ago, so I should probably get another copy (I gave it away a long time ago) and look it over again. I remember enjoying it more than Greatest Show on Earth, and I think the fact that it addresses Paley pretty much head makes it more readable for someone who is curious about evolutionary theory in the context of ID. <br /><br />I've read some criticism of Dawkins for being, I think, too much of an adaptationist -- is there anything in particular that you think a layman like myself should know about Dawkins' views on evolution that maybe depart from contemporary understanding?Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36329837222569347172011-04-02T15:13:46.058-07:002011-04-02T15:13:46.058-07:00BDK...Lesson learned. I will not say that again.
...BDK...Lesson learned. I will not say that again. <br /><br />I agree with the difference between the Cambrian and your lab observation. I get it now, your terms for rejecting Cambrian could be the same ones for rejecting your lab observation but because of more data or "different data" etc you wouldn't reject it as easily. <br /><br />I know it took a long time to happen but I still can't help but see the similarities between the two (cambrian and your lab) which I don't necessarily think is solved by pointing to how long it took. To me it just doesn't seem like God is rushed being that he is not subject to time.<br /><br />ID does have a tough job ahead of it. The problem I think is proving what we should find if a God created everything. It is easier if you take Genesis literally, but even many of the early church fathers didn't do that. The point is, one almost has to be God in order to say what God would have done in order to prove that God did it. <br /><br />On the Thomist thing. I have seen you talk about being a Thomist before only it was in reference to what you would be if you were a theist or a Christian. Are you sure you don't just want me to try it out to see what it is like for you?<br /><br />:) - tonyAnthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.com