« Cultivate the Moral Imagination to Develop Character | Main | What Apologetics Books Would You Recommend? »

January 13, 2014

Comments

Rubbish. Naively fixing your point of view on the basis of insufficient evidence is stupid and shown to be prone to error and its lazy to say that others should have to work to prove you wrong.
So, for example, it was stupid for sailors to navigate under the ptolemaic system?

Is that it?

TGS,

Again you write:

And you have no comparators - as I’ve said time and time now.

Perhaps you missed my question / comment earlier:

1. Biological organisms and the natural world were the first things to exist.
2. Biological organisms and the natural world are not designed.
3. Design exists outside of the biological and natural realm.
4. Design came into existence
5. Therefore, there once was no comparator for what we call design.

What do you disagree with in the above?

WisdomLover

You have heard of evolution?

Your assumptions are naive. You are piling dodgy assumption onto dodgy assumption.

It's just lazy thinking.

Look, it's your assertion. Back it up with evidence.

WL,

What do you mean when you say a thing in nature appears designed?

TGS-

Whatever dude. Go back and read my argument. If you have a problem with one of the premises, and you think you can attack it with something that doesn't lead to universal skepticism, then have at it. I'm not intellectually lazy, but I'm way too lazy to continue with you otherwise.

Ron-

I won't accept the "in nature" rider, because it is too easy to use that to illegitimately smuggle in "undesigned".

So the question is "What do you mean when you say a thing appears designed?"

Has it occurred to you that that question might be a lot like "What do you mean when you say a thing appears pink?"?

I mean, I don't think I have any definition at all in mind when I look at a cave painting and say "designed".

But it sure is designed, and I sure do see that about the cave painting.

WL, What do you mean when you say a biological thing appears designed?

Oh, wait. Maybe that is the answer. You mean that you just know - looking at the pink or the cave painting or the biological thing - that it is designed. Is that right? It's automatic, maybe. Not the product of, say, going through a checklist or some other involved process. Yes?

Once again, I won't accept any qualifier, like "biological thing" that might be used to smuggle in "undesigned".

The question that must be answered, if it can be answered, is "What do you mean when you say a thing appears designed?"

I certainly don't have a checklist when I determine that a cave painting is designed. Do you? Why should it be different for, say, DNA?

But even if I did have a checklist, it doesn't follow that what I mean by "designed" is that I can check everything off my list. "Pink" certainly works that way. I may have a fancy checklist involving wavelengths, photons and what have you that allows me to test for pink. But that's obviously not what I or anyone means by "pink" (because all of us knew what "pink" meant long before we'd ever heard of wavelengths and photons).

I think we should at least entertain the idea that the question about the meaning of "designed" cannot really be answered in a satisfactory way. That does not mean that "design" is a meaningless or useless term (any more than "pink" is).

TGS:

"You claim something, back it up with evidence."

This is part of the problem with these smartest guy in the room materialist types. Evidence is whatever happens to fit their conclusions. TGS doesn't consider philosophical difficulties to be counter evidence against his preferred sense perception. When a logical difficulty is observed, it is simply doesn't carry the weight of some physical observation. It is once again, science without constraint when the heirarchy in discliplines is not respected. Theology, Philosophy, then the Physical sciences.

You cannot do [honest] physical science without philosophical oversight...the reason is that there are no brute facts. This is as axiomatic as any law of logic--if you dispute it, you prove it to be so.

Everything is viewed through prior assumptions and if one doesn't recognize that, or in the case of philosophy degree holding commenters, flat our disregard checking/inspecting prior commitments for coherency to assure that the observation is speaking in the least hindered way, the "evidence" doesn't lead, it follows.

Now in the case of observation, aka sense perceptions, they can never alone be proof of anything. Without proper justification behind and under, the yeild of a scientific investigation can not be trusted--evolutionary theory suffers this flaw and the sheer volumn of pseudo science done by practitioners of the religion of materialism means there is a lot of unjustified/speculative conclusions being propagated.

In the case of observation providing evidence of a particular theory or conclusion, if there are logical leaps, or as is often the case, contradictions found in the practitioners reasoning or interpretation of the obsrvations, in such a case, the weight of that evidence ought to be minimized or even disregarded completely. If you dont care about coherency, you weight the evidence accordingly.

TGS says dont sneak God into the discussion, thats back door Creationism but dispensing with philosophical constraints up front is nothing less than back door Atheism, aka methodological naturalism. You dont get logic with atheism, and you dont get morals with atheism--you dont even have justification to utter a word in debate or complain that you dont get to. Pay no never mind though, press on...TGS said he'd do philosophy, but it doesn't seem as though that this is true-if it were true, he'd retreat from boasting about what "we" know and dont know.

Wisdom Lover

Ok lets try again.

"There are in nature multiple and varied instances of apparent design."

Ok, but 'design' needs to be defined.

"As a general rule, we assume that appearance=reality unless and until there are strong reasons not to."

We have to bear in kind what the goal is here. We are trying to establish, in the case of biological organisms, how they came to assume the forms they have.
"Appearance = reality" is useful in forming a hypothesis - but you are drawing a firm conclusion on the basis of this one observation.
And I've given examples of how this leap to a conclusion is naive.
You have presented NO FURTHER evidence than this to support your conclusion and you are dogmatically sticking to your conclusion;
a. In the face of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, which provides a mechanism - and you have not presented a mechanism
b. The deep suspicion is that this stance is maintained because it fits with your religious beliefs.

If you were to say - "well its just a hypothesis, Im working on it" that would be better - but you havent even hinted that thats the case. you KNOW things were designed, because thats the way they appear.

"No strong reasons have been presented in the case of apparent design not to assume appearance=reality."

They have. Ive given other examples of why this leap to a conclusion is naive, and wider, evolution knocks the naive conclusion back into the stone age.

The rest isnt worth considering.

BradB

"Evidence is whatever happens to fit their conclusions."

If you had some, you could draw that conclusion. You dont have any

"the heirarchy in discliplines is not respected. Theology, Philosophy, then the Physical sciences."

What hierarchy in disciplines? They are all different ways of acquiring knowledge. This needs justification. Im loving the "you must respect my authority" thrust here as well - funny. If all else fails just claim you are bigger/more senior. That doesnt cut much with me because Im an Ex paratrooper and dont take kindly to bullying.

"the reason is that there are no brute facts. This is as axiomatic as any law of logic--if you dispute it, you prove it to be so."

So there is a brute fact - there are no brute facts. In this paradox you undo yourself.

And further, you have brute facts. You may not realise it, but the clues are there - your axiom is that God is a brute fact. So everyone has axioms - you have to have axioms to acquire knowledge

"Everything is viewed through prior assumptions" thanks for confirming my point and undoing yours.

"Now in the case of observation, aka sense perceptions, they can never alone be proof of anything."

Firstly, this rather renders WL's observation/conclusion useless doesnt it? But Ive had this conversation with you before. If you want to do philosophy, fine. Science makes no ontological claims. If scientists do/have claimed that their sense perceptions (observational reality) = reality then they are being naive. That IS NOT a dodge - how would you do an experiment to confirm or deny this? You can't, so despite your hand waving, science does have limits.

"the yeild of a scientific investigation can not be trusted--evolutionary theory suffers this flaw and the sheer volumn of pseudo science done by practitioners of the religion of materialism means there is a lot of unjustified/speculative conclusions being propagated."

Always amusing that 'science cant be trusted' and you typed that on a computer. You do take medecine sometimes? You have flown in a plane, driven a car, consume electricity? Science - it works and its the best tool we have for working out models that concur with observational reality. When we say it's true, thats what is meant; true = 'it's models concur with observational reality'.

"dispensing with philosophical constraints up front" dealt with that

"back door Atheism, aka methodological naturalism" Laughable. Atheism = lack of belief in deity(ies) Thats it. What has that got to do with Meth Nat? There are plenty of religious scientists who understand this which supports my argument and delivers a death blow to yours.

Yet again you are attempting an uber derail. It just makes sense, for reasons Ive given before, for the person making the claim to stump up the evidence.

The claimants here are STUDIOUSLY ignoring that burden and ABSOLUTELY have presented nothing more than the bald assertion that "we know biological organisms (DNA in Amy's case) were designed because they look that way". That which is presented without evidence gets dismissed summarily.

TGS,

Why won't you answer? Simple enough question:

And you have no comparators - as I’ve said time and time.

1. Biological organisms and the natural world were the first things to exist.
2. Biological organisms and the natural world are not designed.
3. Design exists outside of the biological and natural realm.
4. Design came into existence
5. Therefore, there once was no comparator for what we call design.

What do you disagree with in the above?

WL,

So, regardless of the thing in question, you conclude 'designed' in the same way that you condlude 'pink'?

KWM

I would say that because we (humans) only understand what design is in the context of things we have created - they are the only comparators we have - its difficult to apply to the natural world.

'Design came into existence' is clumsy. I would say the 'designer' came first although it wouldnt have recognised itself as such.

Objects began to be manipulated according to a plan - and the term design was coined. The derivation of the word seems to support that.

Fundamentally I dont disagree with you - is there some sort of semantic point coming along in lieu of evidence.

You'll recall, I'm not the one claiming 'design' for biological organsims. I can describe a process called evolution and have a stack of evidence for that process, which achieves "the appearance of design". So I don't need the design hypothesis.

WL,

In ohter words, do you conclude 'designed' (only) by looking at the thing - as we all do with 'pink'.

TGS,

I would say that because we (humans) only understand what design is in the context of things we have created - they are the only comparators we have - its difficult to apply to the natural world.

Things we have created? Comparators don’t just pop into existence as it relates to "things we have created". You act as if design comparators are just so. Eternal comparators.

I would say the 'designer' came first although it wouldnt have recognised itself as such.

But how did the designer recognize that it had, in fact, designed anything? There were no comparators. Because, on the timeline, we know design has to come before the comparator. As inferred above (1-5). As a matter of fact.

Objects began to be manipulated according to a plan - and the term design was coined. The derivation of the word seems to support that.

Began to be manipulated? So something wasn’t designed until it was completely manipulated? This is bordering on silliness. The first nanosecond something began to be manipulated was it not design? Of course, in the absence of your mandatory comparator, how would the designer know?

Fundamentally I dont disagree with you - is there some sort of semantic point coming along in lieu of evidence.

If you don’t fundamentally disagree with 1-5, then you’re basically saying that you just sit at the end of a long line of appearance = reality mistakes. You’re perpetuating the error that was made a long time ago.

I would at least blush a little bit thinking about it if I were you.

KWM

I saw this coming - this IS a semantic argument.

This goes back to 'what is design?'

That isnt my problem because Im not asserting 'design'.

I think your point is that when I say there are no comparators to asses whether biological organisms were designed?

Reading back I spotted this from an earlier post:

"The observation is "things appear designed". I have no great qualms with that, although I would say its a slightly colloquial way of putting it. But the naive leap is then to say "so they are designed" because one should have a comparator by which to do so.
This is just isn’t true. One does not need a comparator to say things are as they appear. This is demonstrably false."

I suppose you are right - people can say 'things appear designed' - I wouldn't disagree. I know how I would come to that conclusion tho - and that brings us to the point of comparators. However, to then to go from that observation to "therefore biological organisms were designed" is naive. Because things arent always what they seem - flat earth etc etc.

In summary, this is just another derail. You are so sure things are designed, tell me how you know.

You need to bring more evidence to bear

4 th sentence should read:

"I think your point is that when I say there are no comparators to asses whether biological organisms were designed, that isn't justified"?

You are claiming design, tell me how you know?

In think RonH has posed the same question.

"What hierarchy in disciplines? They are all different ways of acquiring knowledge. This needs justification. Im loving the "you must respect my authority" thrust here as well - funny. If all else fails just claim you are bigger/more senior. That doesnt cut much with me because Im an Ex paratrooper and dont take kindly to bullying."

then:"So there is a brute fact - there are no brute facts. In this paradox you undo yourself.

And further, you have brute facts. You may not realise it, but the clues are there - your axiom is that God is a brute fact. So everyone has axioms - you have to have axioms to acquire knowledge"

Ok Great Subrendo your sloppy thinking is all over your last response, so then lets do some ground work to see if you have something/anything compelling to say. It is just opinion if you cant let the force of logic be your bulldog.

First, you say you have a degree in philosophy, so this shouldn't be hard to follow: You cannot reason in the first place without relying on the laws of logic. Since physical science doesn't provide them for the physical scientist you must rely on something prior-the discipline of Philosophy. Next, to do philosophy-justifiably, you must account for logic, and sorry, there is only one place that happens-Theology[Biblical Christian theology uniquely has a coherent justification for experience]. This is so oversimplified but should suffice.

A brute fact is something so plain and speaks so clearly it cannot be mistaken.

In your mocking challenge, tell me how the statement that "there are no brute facts" can be challenged unless even the statement itself is not brute enough that it fails in being universally acccepted. You call it a paradox, well even if so, that doesn't detract from its self justifying truth attribute.

sorry, out of time. I have to get to work, and dont have time to go further til later today.

I've been reading this exchange with great amusement.

The Great Suprendo (amusing, which I appreciate) writes:

Besides, I then presented some actual science to present evidence for a natural process by which DNA came about. Infinitely more evidence then anyone else here has managed to present. Studiously ignored.


S, buddy, do you seriously present this as origin of DNA evidence? Really? I applaud the effort, but, this dog won't hunt.

While interesting, this research does not at all address or solve the chicken or egg problem of complex proteins and DNA/RNA. DNA/RNA requires complex molecular machinery composed of complex proteins to be synthesized.

Complex molecular machinery composed of complex proteins requires DNA/RNA to be built.

Neither DNA/RNA nor complex molecular machinery have ever been observed to arise spontaneously, in nature, through any "natural process". Don't pretend that copying an abstract full of jargon proves your point.

I think you were better off with the Pixies, S. Stick with what you know.... maybe throw in an orbiting teacup or two. Bertrand would be proud.

At this time, design sure seems more plausible. This doesn't get you to God, mind you, but to dismiss it out of hand, because of your presuppositions, seems to be unintelligent.

Goat Head 5

Brad B

So how do we account for Theology? I assume your answer is God? Does Theology not apply Logic? Im hoping the answer is yes - so we are already in difficulty.

Then where does Mathematics fit in?

How do we account for God? Ah he's the one brute fact. Ah - an axiom.

Logic, Maths and Science and Philosophy work well together (arguable they are even inextricably linked) and yield results. We could argue all day about whether logic and/or Maths are actually empirical (and therefore kind of science), and get into a debate about realism and anti realism. But you can't draw firm conclusions. But the existence of that debate suggest less of a hierarchy of acquiring knowledge, and more of a tool kit to solve problems.

Thankfully people have realised that these are interesting issues rather than problems that must be solved before scientists actually do some work.

So your attempt to put Theology as the foundation of all thinking is fraught with difficulty.

And irrelevant in supporting the assertion that biological organisms were designed.

So there is one brute fact - there are no brute facts? But that means there is one..... but there arent any.... see what I mean?

GoatHead5

I've got plenty more evidence if you'd like it - did you read the paper?

And I presented one piece of evidence in a very active area for research.

So 'design' is more plausible? How do you know DNA was 'designed'?

At the bottom of this should be a mechanism - I think the best you can provide is God did it - which isnt particularly

1. useful
2. Illuminating

TGS,

In think RonH has posed the same question.
I'm asking what 'appear' means in different cases.

To conclude 'appears pink', I use one meaning of 'appear'.

To conclude 'appears murdered' I use another.

And for 'appears designed', yet another.

To conclude 'pink' (assuming normal lighting), I need to look at the thing itself and recall the name I was taught for the sensation. That's about it.

To conclude 'murdered', I need more background. I might need to look at other objects. I might have to recall many of my past experiences. I might need to study some of the experiences of others. I might need to consider the claims of relavant scientific theory. Etc.

Concluding 'designed' is more like concluding 'murdered' than it is like concluding 'pink'. You need more background knowledge.

Also, the strength of a conclusion of 'designed' needs to be proportioned to the weight of all available evidence - just like the strength of a conclsion of 'murdered'.

So, what I was saying by asking those questions to WL was: the meaning of 'appears designed' in this discussion should take all appropirate evidence into account - not just how the thing itself looks.

Even if you don't believe the theory of evolution, its existence and it's history should degrade your confidence in concluding that a biological thing is designed.

Perhaps even a creationist can admit this?

Even if, along with the ICR, you think the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve 'appears' designed, when you take everything into account, mustn't you also admit that it 'appears' inherited?

Thanks RonH, interesting points made.

TGS, the problems you are having with some of the comments from WL and KWM, is that you wont let your conclusions stop driving the discussion. It seems to me that you are swift to dismiss pesky details because there is an appearance of success in science-thus scientific endeavors dont need justification--if it seems to work according to appearances, then the appearances need not be questioned. The problem with this is that it is the same problem you are complaining about with ID...a point WL brought back on you early on. If you were more careful in your reasoning, you'd have no problem seeing it.

I want to try to finish making a point and respond to a particular response you recently made:

"So there is one brute fact - there are no brute facts? But that means there is one..... but there arent any.... see what I mean?"

I see what you mean, so I also see that you dont understand self justifying claims. If a fact is brute, it cannot be misunderstood, it need no interpretation...you say that there are not brute facts is a brute fact and because of the challege to its claim, you prove it to be so. Even the statement "there are no brute facts" is not a brute fact but it is undeniably self evidently true.

This, just to say that much of whay you want to call evidence doesn't pass the coherency test. I know you dont mind this, you've made it clear that end results are all that matter. But it does matter if you want to have a coherent worldveiw, one that sufficiently rules over interpretation of sense perceptions which allows one to have views that are authoritative...not because they want them to be, but because logically they cant be other. This provides compelling reason to gain acceptance for a view. You and your champions in the materialist world offer opinion as authoritative and this carries no weight past whatever persuasion you can muster, with apparently no concern if it is a legitimate and accurate accounting of what is by submiting to inspection by elemtary philosophical guidelines.

[I'll try to fill in some gaps later]

"TGS, the problems you are having with some of the comments from WL and KWM, is that you wont let your conclusions stop driving the discussion."

Seriously, give examples.

All I have asked, consistently, is for someone that claims design to tell me what it means!

What is wrong with that?

BTW, RonH does a nice job of nailing the problem - in claiming design, you are claiming a process. That's why pinkness isnt the same.

"just to say that much of whay you want to call evidence doesn't pass the coherency test"

If anyone had presnted any evidence that would be a fine thing. I've just pointed out that observing "biological organisms appear to be designed" shouldn't lead you directly to "so biological organisms were designed".

Suprendo, my man, you said:

"I've got plenty more evidence if you'd like it"


By all means, provide some.

Provide evidence showing that DNA can be synthesized through natural processes, and contain information coding for proteins, and that in those natural processes the DNA is transcribed and the proteins built, and that the whole thing self assembles into a living organism, and this organism reproduces itself.

After you provide this evidence, you will need to explain why the Nobel Prize has not been awarded for this ground breaking and revolutionary research.

If you cannot provide this evidence, all you have is "science of the gaps", and a strong faith position. Which is fine, but let's call it what it really is.

Goat Head 5

Suprendo,

I said design, not God.

The designer(s) could have been any number of intelligences, even your favorite, the super intelligent gravity pixies!

Goat Head 5

Ron-

I've been away from my computer for a bit. Thanks for this:

To conclude 'appears pink', I use one meaning of 'appear'.

To conclude 'appears murdered' I use another.

And for 'appears designed', yet another.

though in a comment to TGS, it helps to clarify the line you were, I think, taking with me.

I agree that the process by which a thing appears pink to me differs from the process by which a thing appears murdered to me.

"Appears pink" comes largely from the fact that I have a visual sensory faculty.

"Appears murdered" on the other hand means that that is the initial conclusion we draw from the evidence immediately presented to us. "Appear" is being used metaphorically in this second case. What's actually happening is that there is a whole bunch of evidence that you can see right away, e.g. a smoking gun, a gunshot wound on a dead cashier, an empty cash drawer, that points strongly to murder. It might not turn out that it is a murder, but it sure appears that way.

In the first case, it makes little sense to ask for evidence to prove that something appears pink. In the second case, you can name pieces of evidence, like the gun, the gunshot wound, the cash drawer, that lead to a quick initial conclusion.

And your suggestion is "appears designed" is more like "appears murdered" than it is like "appears pink". And if "appears designed" is like "appears murdered" then it should be possible to provide some evidence (like the gun, the gunshot would etc.) even for the claim that a thing appears designed

This is a fair criticism. Just to be clear, I think you are asking for evidence of premise #1 in my argument above. I claimed there that there are in nature multiple and varied instances of apparent design.*

Let me take your point a little further and argue why "appears designed" is more like "appears murdered" than "appears pink".

For starters, the way we express the attribute is as a form of a verb (unlike "pink").

And that points to the first, and more important, reason for your charge. "Designed" like "murdered" appears to be a complex attribute that a thing has because of the action of some agent upon it. As such there should (or at least might) be traces of that agent's activities that led to the application of the attribute. And if a thing appears designed, some of that evidence should be quickly seen and strongly indicate design.

A second, and less important, reason for your charge would be that we have eyeballs, optic nerves, vision centers in our brains and so on, that work with the visual faculty of our mind. But we don't have similar specialized bodily organs to work with a faculty for identifying design. So how could appearing designed be like appearing pink?

So, if I read you right, that's your criticism. And it is not a trivial one.

No time to answer the charge right now, Ron, but have I basically got it?

----------------------------------------------
* - Now I think I see where the "in nature" part of the question you initially asked me may have come from...you may have just been using the words from the first premise of my own argument. No effort to smuggle in "undesigned" may have been lurking in your question. Sorry if I read you wrong on that one.

I think what you've expanded on WL is what UD guys are attempting with FSCI/O. Functional, the organisms do something--ever their parts do something. Specified, the organisms seem uniquely built to do specific tasks. Complex, the organisms have multiple parts working in unity. I/O=information / organism with these characteristics. The attributes of function with specificity along with complexity are pieces of a scene to be evaluated.

WL,

Thanks for your effort to understand and my smuggling acquittal. :)

My concern doesn't have to do with vision vs. other (hm, ways of learning?) at all.

And I don't think I'm looking for evidence that "There are in nature multiple and varied instances of apparent design."

My concern is that in this discussion 'appearance' seems to have been about first appearance or maybe first impression.

Your example of the cashier is to my point - we might learn later that he committed suicide - or maybe even that the gunshot wound was only apparent : he died naturally.

Suppose we find the body of an old man in his bed. He's known to have a life threatening condition. There is no sign of foul play. Apparent natural death.

I don't think we usually even investigate such deaths.

But suppose for some reason we do in this case.

Suppose we find lots of poison in the body and lots of other evidence suggesting that his brother murdered him.

Shall we ignore all that and decide based upon our first impression alone?

I don't think so.

We should weigh all the evidence and weigh each piece of evidence independently of when we receive them.

Sure it was an 'apparent natural death', but that is no longer a good reason to think it was a natural death. The murder story explains all the the facts - not just those that explained apparent natural death story.

Still, there's nothing wrong with calling it an 'apparent natural death' - provided what is meant was how it looked at first or how it looked from a certain angle.

Thanks again,
Ron

TGS:

"Seriously, give examples"

It's not a problem, they are all over this discussion, I'll start with an early one. The first 9 responses of this post were enough for the pattern to begin. The 9th response below from WisdomLover's Jan 13 1:45 p.m. really highlights what begins a long process of q/a that doesn't seeem to drive home the point that you stacked a deck to play with that you wont use. The only conclusion you'll consider cant be subjected to scrutiny, so it doesn't concern you if logical imprecision is pointed out.

"To put it another way, you seem to think that it will be difficult to get past your item #1. Well, show that it's even possible to get past your item #1. If it isn't even possible, then the problem is that your item #1 is simply not a reasonable demand. That does not amount to a problem with the design argument per se."

This exposes a strategy that you continue to employ that shows time and again all the way through the thread that you wont inspect your own methodology if something is challenged. Evidence is only evidence if it fits your worldview, this is nothing new from materialists, but there is a lot more to life as experienced by mankind than purely materialistic data. If you were careful with philosophy, you'd know that--that you do not know it is not unusual in the modern scientific community that has thrown off restraint in their zeal to be academic top dogs. The result is evident as time after time "scientific conclusions" are recanted as the next discovery amends what we know.

Brad B

"This exposes a strategy that you continue to employ that shows time and again all the way through the thread that you wont inspect your own methodology if something is challenged"

this is a gross misrepresentation, bordering on the downright rude.

The only evasion that has gone on is this thread is from those that allege biological organisms were 'designed'.

Not ONE of you has offered ANYTHING to back up that assertion beyond - "it looks like they were" leading to a definite conclusion that you then pass off as fact. I have shown why that conclusion is naive. I also offered a rigorous path in my first post which was a SUGGESTION - if people wanted to discuss it and suggest alternates, fine.

Wisdom Lover didnt like that pathway because it doesnt suit his preformed conclusion. Just like the ID community, you all want to reason to a conclusion, rather than go where the evidence takes you. Wisdom Lover was just upset because the path I proposed - which is simply based on logic - doesnt fit his agenda. In fact the post that you cite above is a classic - despite having claimed biological organisms were designed, WL still wants ME to define design - hilarious!

The quote above offers evidence for this stance - the problem is with the methodology; I couldn't POSSIBLY be the case that biological organisms are designed!

The one thing that you don't want to consider is that you are WRONG and biolgical organisms weren't designed, but meanwhile you are quite happy to trot out hack philosophy and make wild speculation about what goes on in science. It's starting to sound like conspiracy theory stuff.

"Evidence is only evidence if it fits your worldview" - if you had any that would be a start.

"If you were careful with philosophy" dont offer advice when you have demonstrated next to no knowledge of philosophy, and even less about science.

What have you got that is of ANY substance when it comes to supporting the claim that 'biological organisms were designed'? Thats what we are suppose to be discussing.

TGS, I know a lot more about this topic than you might think. The reason I'm not interested in playing your evidence games is your worldview is incoherent and unless and until you are willing to realize that evidence is interpreted through prior commitments it is literally unfruitful. Prior commitments determine conclusions and thus, if prior commitments are unsubstantiated or even worse exposed as irrational/fallacious the conclusions are unreliable. No problem for you though, coherency is unnecessary-some respect for philosophy there.

"Wisdom Lover didnt like that pathway because it doesnt suit his preformed conclusion."

Which pathway, the one where you set an impossible to meet criteria? If it were reasonable, you should answer the challenge and show that it's possible. You now call it a suggested rigorous path, but all of your subsequent remarks dont reflect that. You still cry for evidence, any evidence and think we are the problem or ID is the problem when in fact you wont debate forthrightly. It might be helpful if when you ask us supernaturalists to play that you not insist we play exclusively by naturaslists rules, and if we dont, dont contirnue to cry foul. It might even be helpful if the materialist would admit the limitations of their method instead of making absolute claims, if anyone should be using the word "appears", it is the methodological naturalist.

And I don't think I'm looking for evidence that "There are in nature multiple and varied instances of apparent design."
Hmm...OK. But given what you were saying, I thought that was your best line of attack.

For what it's worth, what I was going to say about this is that there are cases between the primary use of "appears" involved with "appears pink", and and the analogical use of "appears" involved with "appears murdered".

What I have in mind is pattern recognition. This goes on all the time with us. "This appears to be a razor", "that appears to be bread box", "this appears to be a wrench" and so on. Things appear to us this way, not by checklist, but they do.

I was suggesting that we should consider the possibility that that's how the appearance of design works.

Moving on, this quote from your last post is illutrative.

Suppose we find the body of an old man in his bed. He's known to have a life threatening condition. There is no sign of foul play. Apparent natural death.

I don't think we usually even investigate such deaths.

So even here, with "appears non-murdered" we start with the assumption that appearance=reality.

But...

But suppose for some reason we do [investigate] in this case.

Suppose we find lots of poison in the body and lots of other evidence suggesting that his brother murdered him.

There are actually two sets of reasons for changing our initial assessment that are mentioned here here. The obvious one is the evidence of poison and all the other evidence against the brother.

The other is the caught in the phrase "for some reason we do in this case".

Something in this case led us to say "things might not be as they seem".

And what made us decide to dig deeper was not just some generic suspicion about "appearance=reality".

Now, what is the reason that should get us to think, in the case of design in nature, that maybe things aren't as they appear?

Now, moving along, you ask this:

Shall we ignore all that and decide based upon our first impression alone?

I don't think so.

I agree with you.

I also agree with you when it comes to design and not murder. In fact, my conclusions were as follows4. So, a good assumption is that for at least some of these instances of apparent design, appearance=reality.
5. So, a good assumption is that there are instances of design in nature.
6. So, a good assumption is that there is a designer.And it is premised on the idea that "no strong reasons have been presented in the case of apparent design not to assume appearance=reality."

Presumably, as soon as those strong reasons turn up, we might have to give up on the assumption that appearance=reality in this case.

It is a tricky thing to isolate complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] from the real world as it actually is observed in the real world, in Life, in Design (we may take our pick) into imaginary compartments, and that is because the world is real. We must remember, it is the naturalist, or at least TGS, who insists that this artificial separation inexplicably exists and thus it is upon him to provide us with evidence that such does exist. Thus far we simply have not been given any justified reason to think along those artificial slices of reality into imaginary compartments. The underlying reason the naturalist, or at least TGS, cannot come up with his own satisfactory criteria to meet is because the sort of criteria he wishes for necessitates the world and everything in it be inexplicably dissected into fake compartments. But the real world just isn’t going to cooperate with that sort of criteria, and thus, there can be no criteria, and, thus we find TGS unable to generate such criteria. It is unreasonable, and un-presentable, and thus ever unmet, because it hinges on a reality that just does not exist.

The blockquote at the end of my last post was not done properly.

Unfortunately, this made it hard to follow.

Here are the last few paragraphs again.

--------------------------------------------------

I also agree with you when it comes to design and not murder. In fact, my conclusions were as follows

4. So, a good assumption is that for at least some of these instances of apparent design, appearance=reality.
5. So, a good assumption is that there are instances of design in nature.
6. So, a good assumption is that there is a designer.
And it is premised on the idea that "no strong reasons have been presented in the case of apparent design not to assume appearance=reality."

Presumably, as soon as those strong reasons turn up, we might have to give up on the assumption that appearance=reality in this case.

It is a tricky thing trying to isolate the patterns, archetypes, and interrelationships that just are the complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] into imaginary, pretend compartments. It is a tricky thing trying to artificially isolate Mind’s fingerprints of patterns, archetypes, and interrelationships amid design from the real world as it actually is, for these are real patterns in the real world. It is the naturalist, or at least TGS, who insists that this artificial separation inexplicably exists and thus it is upon him, the naturalist, to provide us with evidence that such does exist. We have not been given such reasons, and, that such reasons cannot exist hinges on the simple fact that such reasons would need a world that just does not exist to exist in order for such a criteria to be thus generated. Dawkings is unequivocal semantically as he is bold enough to avoid the sematic dance some inevitably resort to, as Dawkings is unafraid to dialogue with the obvious in hand, eyes wide open. Such complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] are the only sorts of designs we find within these patterns, these archetypes, these interrelationships amid [Design], or, amid [Cell], we may take our pick, as each is expressly the other, as each is really, in the real world, actually, complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)]. That is the actual, real world, and in the real world there is only this singular comparator both in biology and in design and as such we have no comparators other than that which is this [Sum] which is greater than its Parts, this [Village] that is [That Laptop Factory], or, which is [This Cell], or, which is [That BMW], or, which is [You and I]. We may take our pick, for each is, in the world we actually observe, that singular entity that just is complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)].

This is reality as we observe it in Life, in Design, whichever. The complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] just is the only archetype everybody is talking about.

There is no such thing as stomachs running around reproducing, just as, there is no such thing as BMW assembly lines void of Circuitry churning out BMW’s, just as, there is no such thing as strands of DNA void of complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] running around reproducing, just as, there is no such thing as Toshiba Laptop Factories void of complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] faithfully reproducing laptops, just as, there is no such thing as bundles of transcriptase void of [said Village] running around reproducing [said Village].

None. Observed reality and all comparators and all background information, all of these, bring Dawkings to the only coherent assessment there can be: complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] has all the appearance of design, whether such is found in A, or, in Z, or, somewhere, anywhere, in between.

TGS’s frustration comes from his having placed the horse before the cart. He just assumes non-design despite appearances and then just assumes he does not have to justify that assertion with evidence weighty enough that it demands we call it all an illusion. Naturalistic presuppositions simply foist, without justification, at least without any presented here, that contingency is non-entity in the arena of complex information systems. But he has not given us any reason to belief this, for, in the real world as we actually find it, all such systems are contingent upon preexisting blueprints, that is to say, upon [Village], that is to say, upon complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)], and therein we find that such is that which we must [start with] and that which we must [end with], for, should we pull out the parts and lay them, one by one, atop our bench top, all flow of information ceases. The book ends. The story is over. If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real. And TGS cannot shown us such a path, either. Or at least he hasn’t. If it is all an illusion, the naturalist needs to put forth some fairly weighty evidence should he want us to consider that assertion justified. No such evidence is at hand.

Apologies: Cart before the horse, and all that.....

BradB

https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

I hope you find that interesting.

scbrownlhrm

"TGS’s frustration comes from his having placed the horse before the cart. He just assumes non-design despite appearances and then just assumes he does not have to justify that assertion with evidence weighty enough that it demands we call it all an illusion"

This is the worst case of projection ever. I havent assumed anything - Im merely suggesting that you need to do a little better than 'it looks that way' - HOW DARE I!!

Since the naturalist, or at least TGS, cannot show us such systems self-assembling in the real world, perhaps we can try the bench top? On the bench top we find [Amino acids + a highly complex set of Mentation-s via Mind’s Hand] = [a string of amino acids], or, someday, [life], and so on. Such bench top runs will always involve, well, Mind. And that is a problem should we wish to use such as evidence for non-design. In presupposed naturalism we will see bench top manipulations of amino acids (and so forth) with Mind & Citizens of that Village in an array of permutations presented as it is here by naturalists as what they want to foist as “evidence” for spontaneous assembly of said [Village]. That's okay. Such is evidence in favor of, not the presuppositions of naturalism, but, rather, those found housed in Genesis 1:1, for Mind’s invasive intrusions atop matter is unmistakable in said manipulations atop that bench top.

Science can make no claim here on ontology, and those of us doing the hard work of science can infer what the appearances of such data may imply. We have to account for the fact that naturalism considers the Mind’s work atop the bench top as evidence, somehow, for a kind of mindless assembly of not only complex software, but, also, the sort which builds a wide array of hardware, and, also, the entire Village necessary to provide the employees necessary to maintain both the Factory and the Village, the Whole-Show shutting down should any of the above fail to be present, fail to clock in for duty. Such unjustified opinion is, clearly, not authoritative, though naturalists seem to always be speaking as if it is.

TGS’s frustration comes from his having placed the cart before the horse. He just assumes non-design despite appearances and then just assumes he does not have to justify that assertion with evidence weighty enough that it demands we call it all an illusion.


Naturalistic presuppositions simply foist, without justification, at least without any presented here, that contingency is non-entity in the arena of complex information systems.


But TGS has not given us any reason to believe this, for, in the real world as we actually find it, all such systems are contingent upon preexisting blueprints, that is to say, upon [Village], that is to say, upon complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)], and therein we find that such is that which we must [start with] and that which we must [end with], for, should we pull out the parts and lay them, one by one, atop our bench top, all flow of information ceases. The book ends. The story is over. If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real.

scbrownlhrm

2 can play this game.

scbrownlhrm’s frustration comes from his having placed the cart before the horse. He just assumes design from appearances and then just assumes he does not have to justify that assertion with evidence weighty enough that it demands we call it all an illusion.

What dont you get about the asserter having to justify the assertion? You are claiming design - YOU back it up. It's very simple.

TGS seems unwilling to deal with pesky evidence.

His naturalistic presuppositions simply foist, without justification, at least without any presented here, that contingency is non-entity in the arena of complex information systems.


But TGS has not given us any reason to believe this, for, in the real world as we actually find it, all such systems are contingent upon preexisting blueprints, that is to say, upon [Village], that is to say, upon complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)], and therein we find that such is that which we must [start with] and that which we must [end with], for, should we pull out the parts and lay them, one by one, atop our bench top, all flow of information ceases. The book ends. The story is over. If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real.

scbrownlhrm is unwilling to deal with pesky evidence.

His supernaturalistic presuppositions simply foist, without justification, the naive conclusion God did it. If he actually presented any evidence to support his assertions that would be lovely, but he much prefers philosobabble and word salad posts

We need never say, or presuppose, that God did anything.

We merely need to describe the observed evidence.

Though, that such a presentation of pesky evidence brings the thought of God to another's mind does feel rewarding.

If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real.

Mind, of course, in the real world as we actually find it, has a wide array if measurable evidence in such assemblies.

It's simply observed evidence.....

Nothing more.

Let's try that typo again;

If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real.

Mind, of course, in the real world as we actually find it, has a wide array of measurable evidence in such assemblies.

It's simply observed evidence.....

Nothing more.

Suprendo,

I'm waiting anxiously for the evidence you purported to have lots of.

As I said earlier, "Provide evidence showing that DNA can be synthesized through natural processes, and contain information coding for proteins, and that in those natural processes the DNA is transcribed and the proteins built, and that the whole thing self assembles into a living organism, and this organism reproduces itself."

Did the pixies eat it?

goat Hear 5

Inside of another flavor of an un-evidenced and entirely speculative narrative we find naturalists trying to support unjustified beliefs by appealing to articles which point out “traces”, or, pistons, combustion engines, electrical wipers, and tires as proof that whole automobiles inexplicably build themselves. “Traces”, they call them. “Processes leave traces”.

This really does place the cart before the horse. We do not find any such traces in any observed factories replacing the factories. The thing we are dealing with here is not the tire, nor the transcriptase, nor the piston, nor the DNA, but the thing we are speaking of is the [Village]. In the real world as it actually exists we find that the complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] is all we have to measure, observe, perceive in this thing we are discussing, which we call life, or, design, whichever. We may take our pick. The trace does not join the party, ever, short of said [Village]. DNA strands don’t just go around in isolation happily reproducing. It takes that pesky [Village].

The comments to this entry are closed.