Steve
Member
A designer like us ? I don't understand.
How can Alex be so firm in his stance? Objectivity has gone out the window
- Thread starter Bill33
- Start date
A designer like us ? I don't understand.
I'm not sure you were talking about a designer, but if you were then it has to be one like us (as the Intelligent Design proponents assume). Otherwise we have exactly zero idea how the designer might work.
~~ Paul
Steve
Member
I don't think I was but I might easily do so.
Why do you say the ID people assume "it has to be like us " ? I think that everything probably works by design but I have no real idea about how the designer works in the big scheme of things. Personally I don't believe any designer is anything like us, I hope not. :)
Intelligent design is all about inferring a cosmic design from human design. There is nothing else from which they can make an inference. They have to make the inferences from known designers, anyway, because otherwise it is clearly a religious project and not a scientific one.
~~ Paul
Steve
Member
Mmmm. I've listened to Stephen Meyer talk and the impression I have of ID is that he says that an Intelligence plays some active part in the process and he's seeking to show that scientifically ? In my opinion he is miles away from the religious people that believe that the world is only six thousand years old etc, although some scientists would like to pin that to him.
In my opinion it should be easy to be both a Christian and a scientist, although I'm neither. It only means a level of honesty, which both these groups seem to fail to be capable of showing, its true.
In my opinion it should be easy to be both a Christian and a scientist, although I'm neither. It only means a level of honesty, which both these groups seem to fail to be capable of showing, its true.
I believe you are correct in that he is not a YEC. However, the idea that intelligence plays a part in the process is an inference from human design. What other sort of design could it be inferred from? As soon as remarks are made about the design that doesn't follow from human design, such as the infamous "there should be deeper and deeper levels of function," then it becomes a religious exercise. How can we possibly know the mind of the designer except as similar to human design?
Well, Ken Miller at Brown University is a biologist and a Catholic. He works hard on keeping the two separate, yet still gets some crap. You've got to have a very abstract concept of god to pull it off. Otherwise you end up making empirical claims that can be tested.
~~ Paul
Steve
Member
Are you thinking this or is there some evidence somewhere ?
I think it may be different in the UK, it probably depends what you're studying and your colleagues etc. In my opinion, for what it's worth , the scientific method probably can't be used to study things like consciousness, NDE etc, a different method will have to be devised eventually.
God is by definition an abstract concept, don't you think ?
What? Am I an intelligent design advocate? No.
I don't think so, but we shall see.
And the more abstract, the more unfalsifiable it is. The most abstract concepts basically have god with no influence on the world.
~~ Paul
Steve
Member
Haha, of course your not. No, I was asking about evidence that the ID proponents all infer that any intelligence comes from a human design ?
Not that life must have been designed by a human. Instead, that the designer of life performed the design in a way that is similar to the way humans design things. The IDers have no other choice, because they cannot possibly know what other sorts of designers there are.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
Nobody knows what non-locality actually is. We have described accurately the behavior of non-locality of two-entangled particles. But we don't know what non-locality actually is. This doesn't mean science comes to a halt at non-locality. It sure didn't stop Werner Heisenberg or John Von Neumann or Erwin Schrodinger from theorizing upon the non-material aspects of quantum physics. There are many things in science we don't "know" about, including gravity. And we may possibly never know. That doesn't mean we can't observe and measure and hypothesize the behavior of those unknowns, because modern science does so all the time.
Subsequently, you are incorrect with your assertion ID'rs must assume the designer designed things similar to the way humans design things ... just because they "could not know what other sorts of designers there are". At the very heart of quantum physics lies many scientific unknowns and non-material scientific facts (that you dismiss because of your unexamined prejudices). But this certainly has not stopped quantum physicists from analyzing and measuring those unknowns.
My Best
Bertha
Last edited:
Agreed.
Right, so when the ID community discovers evidence of the designer and starts analyzing and measuring it, then we're all set, because then they know something about what other sorts of designers there are. Meanwhile, they know nothing about the designer and can only assume that it would operate like human designers. You often say "the only designed codes we know about are human ones." What if the designer had nothing to do with the genetic code but instead designed something else we would never expect, in a way we would rarely or never do it?
So it's perfectly fine to stick with trying to figure out which natural artifacts are designed, but, at this point, it can only be done with reference to human-designed artifacts. And, as Dembski has readily admitted, the only way to decide whether some artifact was designed is to rule out all possible naturalistic explanations, including the evolution explanation. This is impossible, which is why no calculation of specified complexity has been performed. Even in No Free Lunch, the calculation is rough and incomplete.
~~ Paul
Last edited:
Bertha Huse
New
ID really isn't about finding God. This in itself is a common mis-characterization For the most part ID'rs simply put forth there is some kind of "direction", "intelligence", "self-organization" taking place in biology - which so-far "undirected" "random" "non-intelligent" organization has not explained. This especially was demonstrated regarding the recent human genome project which had materialists like yourself and Michael Shermer assuring the world it would cement Darwinian biology forevermore. In fact, the genome project confirmed what ID'rs had predicted, not what the Darwinists had predicted.
What is a fine trick is playing the definition games you like to play here. For starters, science is about putting forth hypothesis that most readily explains the scientific data collected and analyzed. And if there is anything we know most intimately as human beings, it is our consciousness and our intelligence. In fact our science depends upon our intelligence. And what ID'rs are observing naturally in biological structures is the signature of intelligence i.e. self-organization, irreducible complexity, non-random direction. This is the scientific data your Skeptical prejudices that you share with Dawkins and Shermer deny. This is the scientific data that would have led you to predict different results from the human genome project. But you continue to ignore that data. You continue to deny it. Even though it is readily accessible for anyone willing to look at it.
What we also discovered in quantum physics 80 years ago, is there is a non-material aspect to the reality we experience. In fact, on a very fundamental level ie. the very fabric of reality is made up of particles that are not real until we actually observe those particles. We have also discovered in psychology and in parapsychology non-local aspects of human consciousness. Again, this is scientific data that your Skeptical prejudices simply ignore or insist cannot exist.
In addition, there are ways to rule out Hidden variables in science. John Bell did so. Therefore, once again, you are incorrect that all calculations must necessarily be rough and incomplete.
My Best,
Bertha
I have no idea what you're referring to. I agree that it's not about finding God with a capital 'G'. Well, except when some of the ID proponents let down their hair.
The question remains: Does self-organization and irreducible complexity require intelligent design? Of course the direction is nonrandom, because life must conform to the environment, so it is not random with respect to the environment. The IDers have a long way to go to convince most scientists that intelligence is required or present.
And which has nothing to do with intelligent design in biology.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
Conformity to the environment does not sufficiently explain irreducible complexity in biological structures, and it certainly has not explained how the first living single cell came into being (which by the way Darwin had a kindergarten knowledge of). Say we have two six sided dice. The environment eliminates the number 6 from both dice at best. That still leaves an enormous number of rolls, and randomness. Therefore, you are incorrect in your assumption direction is non-randomly based on the environment - there is a great deal of randomness involved assuming the Darwinian biology you defend with your unexamined prejudices. In addition, the environment fails to explain how natural selection struggles to fix advantageous traits into populations.
Physics plays a fundamental role in understanding our molecular cells and atoms in our body. Which I guess I need to remind you, make up biological organisms. I think you need to read a few more science books Paul.
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
Steve
Member
I'll bow out at this point, I was sleeping while Bertha stood in for me.
;)I still don't see that they have no other choice ? Do you mean trying to keep mainstream science happy, to keep getting funding maybe ?People express awe at all kinds of ways that Nature has 'designed' things, by nature I mean everything, the stars, QM, the human body etc. Surely many scientists suspect deep down that there is an intelligence behind it ?
I'd be amazed if there was a lot of genuine surprise if such intelligence was proved at some point. Is that arrogance on my part ?
Steve
Member
Out of interest, how many scientists today do you think have independant basically unlimited funding (by let's say a Bill Gates type wealth) and at the same time are genuinely open minded to ALL possibilities. Are there any? And if so , is it possible to get papers published without the cooperation of mainstream colleagues or whatever you need to get papers published ?
By the way, when I said you were standing in for me in the post above ,it was of course tongue in cheek. :)
Steve
Member
A new thread. ;)
The hard problem: Tom Stoppard on the limits of what science can explain
Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by Bertha Huse, Yesterday at 10:24 PM.
I referred to the environment only with regard to your comment about direction. Self-organization and irreducible complexity are separate issues.
Why does the environment fail to explain natural selection?
~~ Paul
No, I mean that since we have no evidence of a designer, all we can do is go with evidence of design. And the only kind of design we know is human design. It's possible there is evidence of a designer yet to be discovered, but meanwhile we have limited evidence.
~~ Paul