tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2335786200676998042..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: You Guys Lost: Was the Question of Design Settled in the Nineteenth CenturyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69939977928291597992011-01-07T19:01:05.993-07:002011-01-07T19:01:05.993-07:00Hi Al, my response to the question of the huge uni...Hi Al, my response to the question of the huge universe is generally Chesterton's.<br /><br />"Big? If it were any smaller it couldn't be called the universe."<br /><br />Thanks for your responses. Food for thought anyway.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81100653967460270512011-01-07T12:19:55.746-07:002011-01-07T12:19:55.746-07:00This seems to have worked now, splitting up my pos...This seems to have worked now, splitting up my post into little pieces. Odd that this should have been necessary.<br /><br />BTW, I like your blog, Duke.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77139756380285268412011-01-07T12:18:32.021-07:002011-01-07T12:18:32.021-07:00As a speculative philosophy it has a lot to offer....<i>As a speculative philosophy it has a lot to offer. Unfortunately I was raised an engineer and speculation leaves me cold. Sorry.</i><br /><br />For a large part science lives by speculation (or rather, hypothesis) and testing. That is how science progresses. And a lot of what had been hypothesis in origin-of-life research has been successfully tested, particularly in the last decade.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91634178245352754992011-01-07T12:18:02.520-07:002011-01-07T12:18:02.520-07:00Could your hypothetical origin of life scenario wo...<i>Could your hypothetical origin of life scenario work? Maybe. But is it as efficient and effective as direct causation?</i><br /><br />That seems an odd question to ask. It is akin to asking (as atheists like to do), why didn't God create by direct causation just a solar system if humans were so important, why be so 'inefficient' and create this huge universe? God apparently made the universe to create itself, as it were, so there is no compelling philosophical reason to assume that it should be different with the origin of life.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36643897408293170722011-01-07T12:16:59.764-07:002011-01-07T12:16:59.764-07:00Can you produce both proteins and sugars within th...<i>Can you produce both proteins and sugars within the same mixture?</i><br /><br />This is not necessary. According to the now widely accepted RNA World hypothesis, nucleotides (which at least for pyrimidine nucleotides can be made in one chain of reactions, sidestepping sugar and base, see my article) came first. Proteins came (probably much) later.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4843758246982624082011-01-07T12:09:55.130-07:002011-01-07T12:09:55.130-07:00For some reason my post appears and disappears aga...For some reason my post appears and disappears again. At some point I may give up.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14082085850625183372011-01-06T15:16:50.628-07:002011-01-06T15:16:50.628-07:00Al, interesting article.
How far do origin of lif...Al, interesting article.<br /><br />How far do origin of life experiments get, starting with the highly contaminated, very dilute chemical mixtures that would be found in nature?<br /><br />Can you produce both proteins and sugars within the same mixture?<br /><br /><i>From the context (design vs. natural causes) it should have been obvious that I was talking about supernatural design. Of course humans design, and so do bees with their beehives.</i><br /><br />Bees build, in accordance with the pattern that bees build with. Birds build nests too. Humans design. There is a difference.<br /><br />You're also erecting a false dichotomy between natural and supernatural. The question is one of intelligence and intentionality.<br /><br />Could your hypothetical origin of life scenario work? Maybe. But is it as efficient and effective as direct causation?<br /><br />As a speculative philosophy it has a lot to offer. Unfortunately I was raised an engineer and speculation leaves me cold. Sorry.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1198203435103370592011-01-06T14:09:55.106-07:002011-01-06T14:09:55.106-07:00Duke of Earl:
Then by your standards neither fore...Duke of Earl:<br /><br /><i>Then by your standards neither forensics nor archaeology are fields of science?<br /><br />Seeking for natural explanations does not mean closing your eyes to the possibility of intelligent causation.<br /><br />What forensics, archaeology and origins science have in common is that they are not "in the lab" type sciences. They are claims about the unobserved, unrepeatable past. You can create a plausible story around a pottery shard and you can create a plausible story around a fossilized bone, but that story remains just a story.</i><br /><br />From the context (design vs. natural causes) it should have been obvious that I was talking about supernatural design. Of course humans design, and so do bees with their beehives.<br /><br /><i>Intelligent agents (scientists) reverse engineering living cells in order to create other life forms does little to rebut the proposition that intelligence was required to get life in the first place.</i><br /><br />Well now you are talking about supernatural design. In order to put the first living cells together, it was most likely not necessary, see my article:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html<br /><br />However, I do believe that the laws of nature allowing for the emergence of life were designed, see:<br /><br />http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm<br /><br />Also, I believe in a rational soul that is a special creation of God for each human being.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33517470950048775072011-01-05T20:40:12.472-07:002011-01-05T20:40:12.472-07:00Seeking for explanation by natural causes does not...Seeking for explanation by natural causes does not mean natural causes always exist for something.<br /><br />For instance, let's suppose someone like me is right and humanity appeared by fiat creation of God. <br /><br />Then that would mean that if you're looking for naturalistic means, you're going to fail. I believe those of us who are Christians would definitely agree you won't find a naturalistic means for the resurrection.<br /><br />Does that mean give up? No. It just means be open. If you rule it out from the outcome, don't be surprised if the only explanations you have are naturalistic.<br /><br />Can design be purely scientific? Not at all! Neither can naturalism! Design is an inference drawn from the data, and I think as a Thomist, it's most valid when applied to final causes. <br /><br />(By the way, the fifth way of Thomas for all concerned is not at all about I.D. as commonly understood today. While I can understand some Christians being against I.D. on scientific grounds, we all do realize if we're Christians that there is a designer theologically regardless of if he used an evolutionary process or not to create. I personally wish I.D. would focus more on final causes)<br /><br />As a non-scientist, I will say I am open to both sides and frankly, it doesn't make too much of a difference to me. Science cannot answer the question of existence and that is the big one.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60397420450229857212011-01-05T18:06:46.086-07:002011-01-05T18:06:46.086-07:00Graham, based on my reading, no matter how good th...Graham, based on my reading, no matter how good the evidence you present, he'll just claim that it's manufactured as a post hoc rationalisation of the early Jesus movement.<br /><br />Having no evidence to support his claims doesn't matter. MSU (making stuff up) is the way to go.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69250069236375575952011-01-05T17:43:01.801-07:002011-01-05T17:43:01.801-07:00http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/01/great-r...http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/01/great-resurrection-debate.htmlMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7207733864085043872011-01-05T17:42:27.966-07:002011-01-05T17:42:27.966-07:00@ Al
Design is not a scientific theory at all and...@ Al<br /><br /><i>Design is not a scientific theory at all and can never be, given the methodology of science which always seeks for explanation by natural causes.</i><br /><br />Then by your standards neither forensics nor archaeology are fields of science?<br /><br />Seeking for natural explanations does not mean closing your eyes to the possibility of intelligent causation.<br /><br />What forensics, archaeology and origins science have in common is that they are not "in the lab" type sciences. They are claims about the unobserved, unrepeatable past. You can create a plausible story around a pottery shard and you can create a plausible story around a fossilized bone, but that story remains just a story.<br /><br />Intelligent agents (scientists) reverse engineering living cells in order to create other life forms does little to rebut the proposition that intelligence was required to get life in the first place.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5095495869369224382011-01-05T17:41:24.663-07:002011-01-05T17:41:24.663-07:00Sorry, I forgot to post the address of the debate....Sorry, I forgot to post the address of the debate. Dr Shane McKee, the sickeningly intelligent and overqualified host is trying to encourage some debate on these issues in Northern Ireland. If you can acclimatise to the scathing humour of the Northern Irish, you should all enjoy it. <br /><br />http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/<br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40273629153881804092011-01-05T17:35:58.888-07:002011-01-05T17:35:58.888-07:00BDK
You might enjoy this debate. I think the host...BDK<br /><br />You might enjoy this debate. I think the host would enjoy having you for morale and support!(and anyone else who wants to pop along too!)Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62122963917599666212011-01-04T12:35:32.713-07:002011-01-04T12:35:32.713-07:00OK that is clear, and that might make for a more c...OK that is clear, and that might make for a more charitable reading of some of the vitalists I've been reading (though this is tricky, as most of them were publishing before Darwin so were locked into a more final-cause --> intelligent designer way of thinking).Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55614420164870314802011-01-04T12:13:54.309-07:002011-01-04T12:13:54.309-07:00Yes I am giving an intended agent because there ar...Yes I am giving an intended agent because there are still objects that are acting and they are acting for an end now. Even if that end is reproducing for one species, that is still an end. The question is how is it that existents that do not possess the ability to act on their own behalf or acting towards an end. From what I see, evolution makes no sense apart from some sort of teleology and is implied when it says that the more fit species survive and reproduce, to which there is an end of survival and reproducing. Do we necessarily know of an end beyond that? No, nor do we need to. It does not mean there isn't one even if we fail to know it.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8656870488981448322011-01-04T12:10:22.139-07:002011-01-04T12:10:22.139-07:00But you still seem to be inserting an intending ag...But you still seem to be inserting an intending agent. While Dawkins' program did that in a sense (by picking the criterioni of success), natural selection requires no such interventions. The filter is reproduction, not some rational agent's decision. That's why I was curious if you thought natural selection might count as an agent in the limited sense that it can ground final cause in nature.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67421957082235339872011-01-04T07:50:25.745-07:002011-01-04T07:50:25.745-07:00Hi BDK.
I am aware changes can be negative in nat...Hi BDK.<br /><br />I am aware changes can be negative in nature, such as a birth defect. (My wife and I are both disabled so I am familiar with this, though we're still quite functioning in the world) However, the changes that are more prone to make a creature survive are the most likely to be passed on if I'm understanding the theory right.<br /><br />As for natural selection, by all means a natural force can be an instrumental means. Let's suppose for instance, not knowing your worldview, that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God was a real event. Could it be God suddenly rained down fire from the sky? Of course. That would be a direct means. Could it be he used a volcano eruption however to rain down fire on the wicked cities? Of course. The volcano did not act with the intention of destroying cities, but it was used as a means. <br /><br />In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins does something similar with a computer program. Now if a human can do it with a computer, I see no reason to think God, who is much more intelligent, can do it with the universe as a whole.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73670739297375682992011-01-03T20:42:34.687-07:002011-01-03T20:42:34.687-07:00Nick thanks for helping me understand this, I am n...Nick thanks for helping me understand this, I am no Aristotle specialist perhaps I should not have used the term 'final cause', I was basically just parroting Whewell (an Anglican priest) and the other vitalist arguments I've been marinating in lately for my research.<br /><br />But when you say:<br />"That however is saying that every agent, in an Aristotlean-Thomistic sense, acts towards an end and every non-agent acts towards an end only when directed by an agent."<br /><br />When you say this it makes me wonder if it is it really a straw man to say that the final cause concept involves reference to a "designer" (or agent)? Are you saying that natural selection is an agent?<br /><br />I knew you didn't mean Platonic forms, I'd still be wary of talking about selection that way. As long as you are clear that evolution could involve losing eyes, decreasing complexity, that kind of thing then likely no big deal. Natural selection is a localized optimization on a fitness landscape, and I assume that's what you mean.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47674009193371599402011-01-03T19:45:59.530-07:002011-01-03T19:45:59.530-07:00BDK: He gave a route to eliminate final causality ...BDK: He gave a route to eliminate final causality in the sense that many creationists were using the term, in a way that implied an agent's design intention (as in the Whewell quote above). <br /><br />Reply: Which comes again from breaking away from medieval thought largely built on Aristotleanism. Most objections today to such thought don't touch it at all. They just go after a straw man.<br /><br />BDK: But you are right that 'final cause' understood generally enough to include biological function or purpose, naturalistically delineated, is still around. We talk about the function of various body parts all the time.<br /><br />Reply: Correct. Whatever other purposes an eye might serve, surely one of them at least is seeing. Not knowing what purpose something serves does not mean it serves no purpose. We could find one for the appendix someday for instance.<br /><br />The idea of final causality is not just knowing the end, but believing that something is directed to an end. That however is saying that every agent, in an Aristotlean-Thomistic sense, acts towards an end and every non-agent acts towards an end only when directed by an agent.<br /><br />BDK: I'd be wary of phrases like "better and better forms" though.<br /><br />Reply; By this, I do not mean forms in the sense of Platonism, but rather that evolution seeks to have creatures improve to be more fit and thus reproduce. A more fit species is more likely to reproduce than a less fit one.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35426877048280628402011-01-03T19:06:06.160-07:002011-01-03T19:06:06.160-07:00He gave a route to eliminate final causality in th...He gave a route to eliminate final causality in the sense that many creationists were using the term, in a way that implied an agent's design intention (as in the Whewell quote above). But you are right that 'final cause' understood generally enough to include biological function or purpose, naturalistically delineated, is still around. We talk about the function of various body parts all the time.<br /><br />I'd be wary of phrases like "better and better forms" though.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55156815771143458782011-01-03T15:07:20.408-07:002011-01-03T15:07:20.408-07:00Philosophers were trying to move away from a medie...Philosophers were trying to move away from a medieval view and moving towards a more mechanistic view vis a vis Descartes and Newton. Final Causality however was not eliminated by Darwin nor does evolution necessitate a lack of final causality. In fact, evolution entails it as there is the idea that creatures are evolving to better and better forms. If God guided the process, that does not rule out design in any way. An excellent look at this can be found in Gilson's "From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again."Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28405573546600632822011-01-03T14:49:56.103-07:002011-01-03T14:49:56.103-07:00Anon: I'm just reporting what the philosophers...Anon: I'm just reporting what the philosophers were arguing at the time, whether you like their arguments or not. <br /><br />Contrary to what you claimed it was not considered easy (and often not considered possible) to imagine the appearance of design in nature in a mechanical universe. This was based on conceptual arguments about watches and such, and intending agents that produce them (for instance, the Whewell quote I gave above is representative of a large sector of philosophers).<br /><br />I'm not sure why you are getting your pickle in a knot over this. My claim wasn't particularly strong or controversial: Darwin put a wrench in their conceivability arguments. That's it. Not all philosophers were making these arguments, but many did, it was an extremely common argument thread in discussions of the origin of species, and even discussions of the mechanism individual ontogeny.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50386530769623360642011-01-03T14:12:51.558-07:002011-01-03T14:12:51.558-07:00Philosophers always claimed that there was no way ...<i>Philosophers always claimed that there was no way to explain the apparent design in nature without a conscious designer. That was Paley's argument.</i><br /><br />No, philosophers didn't always claim that. Amazingly, atheists managed to exist prior to Darwin. You're the one who cast this discussion in terms of the "conceptually impossible". It's incorrect. There's a difference between an explanation being conceptually possible and merely popular. Darwin added nothing in the arena of broad conceptualization.<br /><br /><i>Seeing final causes in nature was taken as ineliminable, and the only explanation of such final causes could be an intending agent. Or so it was argued. </i><br /><br />And yet final causes were being rejected or ruled out of the scientific arena far before Darwin. Once again, "conceptualizing", the bar you chose, is a very low bar.<br /><br />What's more, "final causes" weren't dashed by Darwin, just as Paley's argument was barely related to the scholastic argument for final causation. If you're confusing final cause claims with Paley's argument, you're drastically misinformed on the subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55718141930617960812011-01-03T09:01:24.411-07:002011-01-03T09:01:24.411-07:00Anon said:
"Also, the track record of science...Anon said:<br />"Also, the track record of science indicates it isn't about scientists showing philosophers are full of shit. Rather goes across those borders, don't you think? Philosophers love to do it to other philosophers. Scientists love to do it to other scientists ..."<br /><br />Yes, good point. This would only reinforce my claim that Darwin's motivations may well have been orthogonal to natural/supernatural fights. <br /><br />At any rate, that article included a lot of psychoanalysis, I was just providing alternative psychoanalysis that would undermine the author's original speculations.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com