« Links Mentioned on the 3/03/15 Show | Main | You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science »

March 04, 2015

Comments

Evidence of design? Shifting the bar of reason and evidence never got more distorted.

There are three alternate forms of logic:

Deductive logic - can be described as reasoning where the premises necessitate the conclusion. Deduction= knowledge. This can only really be done in Philosophy.

Inductive logic - inferring the likely conclusion from the premises. Induction= knowledge. This done by Science.

Abductive reason - finding what you think is the best explanation. Abduction = a nice idea.

Evolutionary biology, paleantology, etc all rely on explaining present features with past events. They seek to find the best explanation. This is abductive reason.

Science (ie, biology, chemistry) involves observing patters in data which explain currently observable events in real time, that can be repeated (according to the power test) to confer probability (soundness) of conclusion. Science does induction.

The difference between scientfic biology and evolutionary biology is the difference between induction and abduction.

Because we are having an abductive argument, beating your fist on the table and crying for evidence will not serve anyone. Abductive arguments share common evidence with conflicting explanations.

°patterns in data

This °is done by science.

This is a comment in a blog you know.

So the work is done but won't fit?

I think DNA, genomic information, irreducible complexity, cellular funvtions are all better explained by design than random chance. Remember mutations (random copying mistakes) act independently of natural selection.

In fact, genetic entropy demonstrated in real time (inductively), reveals a strong evidentual contradiction to evolution of microbes to man.

better explained by design than random chance
As if there were no other choice. Evolution is not the same thing as 'random chance'.

Andy,

I know you want to relegate evolutionary biology to the lowest possible tier in your taxonomy - 'abductive'.

But what justifies your doing this?

What justifies your taxonomy, even?

RonH,

Since you are the one fighting WL's claim of improbable then you must think the eye - and a universe fine tuned for life - as such - are "probabilistically on naturalism's side", as it were.

That's fine.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm just making sure we are all clear on positions.

Because - on observational evidence - I of course disagree.

Just that we are forthright on that particular point. I've never known you to hedge. Which is one of the reasons you're on my radar as worth reading. That you challenged a statement of the improbable therefore leads me to conclude that you disagree.

RonH,
Its not my taxonomy. It was developed by greater minds, and is a well established taxonomy.

See for example here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

Enjoy the read!

RonH,
Abduction is a valid logical process as long as we don't say we "know" something, rather we have an explanation. And we think its the best. Nevertheless, one cannot know through abduction.

Evolutionary biology, paleantology, etc are abductive unlike all other scientific disciplines, because they explain present features through postulating past events. These postulated past events are abductions.

So that's my point.

Science itself is inductive

"Since you are the one fighting WL's claim of improbable"

I don't think Andy is trying to fight on my behalf.

Like me, he finds implausible the idea that the eye developed by chance (or [by chance plus] external environmental changes not specifically orchestrated to get an eye to develop). Because of this, he's arguing, quite independently, that it is implausible to him for a reason. A reason, by the way, that I'm not sure I agree with (I'm not sure that the inductive/abductive distinction is as clearcut as he presents it). But he's doing a good job arguing nonetheless.

scbrownlhrm

"If probability is going to be an arguing point about an eye... well then.. we need a universe with life first."

1. Wisdom Lover brought probability up
2. The above argument could apply to ANYTHING and actually is not necessary

In response to your other piece, Susan Mazur got everything about the Altenburg conference wrong. If you want to be educated on this go to talkrational and ask about it.

Now the interesting bit - you claim that living things are designed. That implies you can detect design - how do you do so in relation to living things?

Same question at "andy" also.

Andy

"I think DNA, genomic information, irreducible complexity, cellular funvtions are all better explained by design than random chance."

Thats nice. How do you know DNA was designed?

There are few lines of reason by which to argue.

First, that of probability. All the chances, etc.

Second, that of kinds of reasoning. Are we reasoning inductively, etc.

Third, that of logic. By that I mean not probability but possibility as the former often has elements not within our immediate access, while Possible Worlds is more immediately constrained by logic.

Probabilistic lines for big bang cosmology to give us the universe we have are in Theism's corner. By far. In fact, this is so much the case that it is Atheists themselves who argue against fine-tuning even though they need that tuned melody to get off the ground.

But that is not "necessarily fatal" to non-Theism. Because "Yeah but it's still possible" is still an open door of escape for them. I suggest the non-theist just drop the probability line and cling to possibility. Why? Because Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + Eye just is not friendly to the non-theist in the arena of probability. (All of this says nothing about the *impossible* metaphysical problem of causation's regress for materialism.)

The same for induction. Andy's line is not fatal necessarily because the Theist too presents some cases "from the retrospect to the present" - Such as in Theism being the best explanation for the probability issue. Of course, a temporal universe and the problem of causation *do* enter into the inductive realm in theism's corner as all of these are immediately accessible to us. That said, the Theist does use the retrospective abductive reasoning at times. But where Andy's case does become a real problem for the non-theist is in the arena of reasoning itself - full stop as the naturalist's bundle of irrationally conditioned reflexes in our skulls begins to - on necessity - merge reasoning with illusion.

As for possible worlds, logic here is not fatal for any side. A naturalistic world such as ours is "possible" - even if very, very improbable. We say "possible" here but we must point out that on the metaphysics of causation we find that materialism is hopeless - as in impossible - and that is an evidence-based observation, Hawking's imaginary sphere being the stuff of abstraction. But, leaving that out for now, it is still the case that here too we come upon a problem for the non-theist: that of Logic. Why? Because, simply, logic itself is - at bottom - the sort of illusion which we call a useful fiction - else God.


Finally, let us add two more lines of reasoning, or arguing:


First:


Of late, non-theists are adding more layers to the neo-Darwinain paradigm, on the grounds that that paradigm is - by itself - underpowered to do the *work* needed of it - to build the life we see today. That is why references to ["a gene mutating and that gene then getting selected"] (the neo-Darwinian mechanism) won't do in these sorts of threads. Sure, it's "possible", but the evidence that such a mechanism "by itself" can account for the life we find today - including those with eyes - is rapidly falling out of favor among non-theist. We find here the speculative models of multi-cell aggregates in cell-cell cooperation coming into the picture, though of course such being more distant from actual observation than that of, say, antibiotic resistance. Such speculative models must happen with every layer of tissue - such as the eye - on the problem of the necessity of multi-potent stem cells at every layer available on the ground floor. All of that is another topic, but causation's metaphysical regress - from the get-go of Hawking's imaginary sphere to the end of this present moment we are viewing with our eye - begins to weigh upon the purely naturalistic.


Second:


As for evidence of the abstraction we call design - well the Theist claims that this galaxy here, and that galaxy there, and this nebula here, and that nebula over there, and man's psychology, are all ascribed what form and essence they have by God's psychology. Man now begins to end all of his appeals of abstraction in his own psychology as he reasons both for and against the abstraction we call design. That is a problem for the non-theist. A fatal problem. The non-theist is forced to use his own thin slice of design ends as the limit of what all ontological design ends must converge at. The ontological reach of the Atheist's bundle of irrationally conditioned reflexes inside our skulls is fatally vacuous of all hope should it claim to ascribe the express terms and conditions of the ontological end that is the abstraction called design. Not Science, but Scientism here begins to irreparably damage the materialist.

Scbrownlhrm,

Yes it becomes a problem for the atheists that. I suppose I also didnt make my conclusion clear either. My point to what I said regarding abduction is that under no case can the Evolutionary biologists claim the credibility of science because they lack the basic features of science such as inductive reasoning, falsifiability and observation.

Thus, they cannot say "this is science vs faith" because it isn't. It's "explanation vs explanation".

This means when they cry "show me evidence" they're asking for more than they give.

So instead of an answer, I get the scbrownlhrm waffle.

Your "fatal problem" is nothing of the sort. Only YOU think it's a problem. Your amateur metaphysical ramblings dont present any thing useful or coherent.

As to what YOU mean when YOU say living things are designed, I get this non response:

"evidence of the abstraction we call design - well the Theist claims that this galaxy here, and that galaxy there, and this nebula here, and that nebula over there, and man's psychology, are all ascribed what form and essence they have by God's psychology. Man now begins to end all of his appeals of abstraction in his own psychology as he reasons both for and against the abstraction we call design"

1. You dont have any direct experience of "God's psychology" - how can you? This isnt an universal benchmark that's agreed upon.
2. YOU are the one arguing for design. YOU. What I think is irrelevant. YOU need to state how you can positively detect design.

@Andy - faith has zero explanatory power. As to this "when they cry "show me evidence" they're asking for more than they give" - my irony meter just broke

""I think DNA, genomic information, irreducible complexity, cellular funvtions are all better explained by design than random chance."

Thats nice. How do you know DNA was designed?"

See this is my problem: bait and switch. The argument is abductive in nature (ie, explaining current artifacts with historic unobserved events). Thus, I did not claim that I "know" DNA is designed, since knowledge doesn't come through abduction.

But you ask me how I know?! I only said that DNA was better "explained" by design, than chance. I mean its an amazing sophisticated code that carries genomic information. When did you ever hear of a code arising without an author?

scbrownlhrmmakesnosense,

You're becoming incredibly personally involved in what should be a nice - or at least polite - discussion. The name "scbrownlhrmmakesnosense" itself makes this clear.

I have been enjoying arguing this case, and I hope we're all the better for it.

WL,

My point was not to argue for you per se. But only to make it clear that there are those who take it that "Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + Eye" is rather improbable, and, then, there are those that take such to be rather probable.

That forthrightness in itself is an important point for each side to take ownership of.

That someone "takes issue with" an assertion of improbable seems to imply that that person holds the opposite view. That may not be the case, but, the simple clarification of which position is held by whom on that particular point is (was) the goal.

I suspect this will be in ITALICS - and perhaps the moderator or another can help us with that......

scbrownlhrmmakesnosense,

I wish you the best, but, obviously, the belittlement of another human being there in your title is enough reason to dis-engage. I'm not sure how you find the employment of that sort of ridicule to be helpful here, but as I find such to be of little help moving forward, I'll just wish you the best and will, of course, continue to read your comments. They ask good questions, but, unfortunately, there is no real room for dialogue given your decision to use my name in ridicule.

- ITALICS - perhaps the moderator can help undo these last few comment's italics?

Andy,

I've not heard of abductive reasoning, but your link was very helpful. Forever the novice, I always enjoy such new insights into our own mind and reasoning. So thank you. There are hard limits to Science and at that border is where the error of Scientism begins to emerge. I find your insights on reasoning helpful on that front though I am sure they will also prove to be helpful on others too.

Andy,

Its not my taxonomy.
Oh yes it is.

It's yours in that you treat the 'ductives as if they were exhaustive and mutually exclusive classes of reasoning or arguing.

The article you linked to treat does not treat the 'ductives as either exhaustive or as mutually exclusive.

Anyway: If the evolution of the eye is the subject, then why not discuss that rather than the taxonomy of reasoning?

I will answer my own question: I have no reason not to discuss the evolution of the eye.

RonH,

What is your proposed mechanism to explain the Big Bang, narrow constants permitting life, a-biogenesis, multi-tissue organisms, multi-potency, and the eye there in that multi-potency?

I see some nice ideas but nothing that amounts to compelling. Far from it. But then I don't share your presuppositions. Of course, reasoning and logic and presuppositions have nothing to do with evolution per your response to Andy. Naturally I don't share that presupposed "disconnect".

RonH,

We should add "From the ground up" at the end of that first paragraph.

scbrownlhrm

Im not belittling you, Im saying your comments make no sense.

@andy You are inventing a bait and switch, and the accusation is frankly ridiculous. However, lets go with it. When you say feature 'x' is better explained by design, why do you think so.

Frankly I think you are being mealy mouthed - when you say 'DNA is better explained by design' you are saying 'DNA is designed' so you are simply wriggling

scbmakesnosense....

I read your comment.

I'll continue to do so.

Andy,

I'm of the opinion that scbmakesnosense deserves to be read - but not engaged - given his approach to dialogue. Just a thought.... just my opinion.

"scbrownlhrmmakesnosense," I'm in agreement with Andy and scbrownlhrm. Use your usual name if you want to remain here. That goes from now on in future posts, as well.

Amy,

I asked Andy

Anyway: If the evolution of the eye is the subject, then why not discuss that rather than the taxonomy of reasoning?
And later it might occur to ask you a similar question. Why do you ask about the language some science writer uses...
And yet, looking at things such as the eye, this science writer can’t help but use the word.

.. Why use this kind of language?

...instead of discussing the evolution of the eye or, perhaps, the evolutions of the eyes.

Because the ultimate point of this post is that design is evident. The language reflects that.

I will be careful not to refer to the sunrise or sunset around you.

It's possible the science writer was speaking metaphorically.

Ever do that?

If I hear you say 'let me pick your brain' I will not claim you've exposed your materialist beliefs.

I will let it pass.

I don't want you to think you have to watch every word (not in this way, at least).

If I do mention it, I'll ask you about it.

Maybe you answer: You know, I guess I AM a materialist!

Otherwise, I will not argue with what offer as explanation.

If I can't ask you about it, I will not assume your way of speaking indicates you actually believe the opposite of what you claim.

This is an application of the principle of charity.

You can also consider it avoidance of an informal fallacy I hereby dub 'argument from unconfirmed Freudian slip'.


"Because the ultimate point of this post is that design is evident. The language reflects that"

The appearance of design is evident. And being fooled by thinking appearance of design = design is the real point.

Because if you want to assert that a biological thing is designed, you cant just fall back to "its designed because it looks designed" And unfortunately for creationists, here and elsewhere, that's the only reasoning that's ever provided when you unpack the arguments.

RonH,

In an odd way your use of evolutions - pleural - about eyes brings in Andy's point. Many systems for many kinds of eyes is not a mechanism. It is an observation. One that is quite in line with both non-theistic and theistic explanations. Merely observing the present state of affairs and assigning it congruence to one's model is not helpful on your end for all the same reasons it is not helpful on the theist's end.

Well, it "becomes" helpful as we accumulate "other" layers of explanation and plausibility. From the big-bang to the about-ness of abstraction there in all that is mind, logic, reasoning, and so on, Theism has many, many layers which are seamless, void of blind axiom, as it were. The Naturalist not so much.

Again, that is not helpful on the eye per se - but that cuts both ways. It has to cut both ways - otherwise this is just word games.

As it turns out, one can just GRANT full blown Big-Bang to About-ness to the Naturalist and it won't do him any good at all - again - as it turns out. But more on that later as duty calls. And - of course - no one is granting anything. Such ontological real estate has to be earned. From the ground up. Observing the current state of affairs on one, lone slice of reality and then slapping one's explanation onto it and saying, "See, the shoe fits" just is not going to get us there.


I see that scbrownlhrmmakesnosense likes to go after low hanging fruit...baiting for an argument he thinkgs is a slam dunk. It reminds me of Lucy holding the football egging Charlie Brown to give it a good kick and that this time "I will leave it teed up for you".

Now another comes alongside mr. anonomous , namely John Reed challenging in the common obscurantist fashion with the question "how can you tell if it is designed?"

Agent causation makes much more logical sense than does random mutation over time and is about as self evident to other "agents" as anything else that can be known. scbrownlhrm has every right to require foundation before he goes on to every rabbit trail theory provided by the undisciplined participants in a combox.

Both attempts to bait the conversation away from foundational, grounded propositions that are necessary to give traction for a theory to show it can do any work at all [instead of spinning theoretical wheels over air...or is most often the case spinning the wheels over someone elses bought and paid for roadway] Any theory proposed resting on unsubstantiated assumptions can seem rational/reasonable...it is proper and right to look behind and underneath. If the theory cant carry it's own weight, what good is it?

I have a question for the hyper skeptical among us as to whether design can be detected or not...does this mean anything at all?

It's very doubtful that those who put it out there are quite the obscurantists about detecting design as the modern anti-IDist's today...of course self willed abstruseness to save ones religious convictions is not at all rare.

I like how Plantiga gives insight of how poorly some arguments supporting pet theories are put out there...even though he mentions the eye here, he's making a point about argumentation.

Huh?...what the...I didn't put any bolding tags into my post.

BradB

So you are saying that you know things are designed because they look designed. I get it.

BradB

Just watched the Plantiga video. Most amusing. Of course the form of that argument that Plantiga doesnt like is the form of EVERY scientific argument!

Of course Plantiga moulds it to his own ends and that predictable and up to him - the title of the video is "Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True" is NOT what any scientist would say. "Evolution Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its the Best Model We have" would be accurate.

Science creates models waiting to be refuted. The overwhelming evidence is that evolution happened and when we find evidence that refutes that idea, another theory will be adopted. This means that science doesnt deal in truth - only in so far that truth = concordance with what is observed.

Thus science makes no ontological commitments, which you and schlbrown are going to find it difficult to accept, but science has to be that way. Just look at Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity for an example as to why.

Is, say, the Eye blindly evolved in the Philosophical Naturalist’s sense?

Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists concede the appearance of goal-directedness, but such is at bottom just an appearance as mechanistically such is not the case.

Others Naturalists appeal to appearances too, but from the other direction, as in this or that appearing to be un-designed, of this or that appearing to be random.

Evolutionary biology is true because it is possible and because no one has shown that it is impossible. The link which Brad B provided there discusses Dawkins’ book, “The Blind Watchmaker” and extricates quotes of Dawkins and his 1) Premise followed by 2) the conclusion.

"Well, it's the only game in town - cause - see - philosophical naturalism - so - you see until its shown to be impossible, then it is the best option we have."

The argument avoids probability all together (for obvious reasons) and provides the premise of “it is not impossible” with “no one has shown that it is impossible” which are then used to justify the conclusion, “it is therefore true”.

Presupposition there takes the lead to bypass the anemia.

There are those who take it that [ "Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + That last Step happing again for every new tissue/layer + Multi-Potent Cell Line + That last Step of Multi-potent stem cell happening again for every new layer + Eye" ] is rather improbable, and, then, there are those that take such to be rather probable. Dawkins wisely avoids appealing to probability, and remains in the safety of possibility.

The Naturalist’s appeal to "Well its the only option we have - cause presuppositions...." and to "Well sometimes it has the appearance of being un-designed..." and to “Well it’s possible, therefore it’s true” also carries us to the probabilistic lines for big bang cosmology to give us the universe we have being in Theism's corner. By far. In fact, this is so much the case that it is Atheists themselves who argue against fine-tuning even though they need that tuned melody to get off the ground. But we find that such is not "necessarily fatal" to non-Theism because as Dawkins notes, "Yeah but it's still possible". We suggest the non-theist just drop the probability line and cling to possibility, as Dawkins does in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. Why? Because the singularity that is [ "Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + That last Step happing again for every new tissue/layer + Multi-Potent Cell Line + That last Step of Multi-potent stem cell happening again for every new layer + Eye" ] just is not friendly to the non-theist in the arena of probability.

The Eye’s mechanistic explanation:

Per an earlier quote, Naturalist and evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (and many other prominent non-theistic evolutionary biologists) says that as far as “survival of the fittest” goes, it’s a “capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin” and that even banks and sports teams have to cooperate to compete. She sees natural selection as “neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process” and has pronounced neo-Darwinism “dead,” since there’s no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species. “Neo-Darwinism” here is defined as “a gene mutates, that gene gets selected”.

Non-theists are adding more layers to “that”, to the neo-Darwinain paradigm, on the grounds that that paradigm is – by itself – underpowered to do the *work* needed of it – to build the life we see today. That is why references to ["a gene mutating and that gene then getting selected"] (the neo-Darwinian mechanism) just won't do in these sorts of threads.

Sure, it's "possible", but the evidence that such a mechanism "by itself" can account for the life we find today - including those with eyes – is rapidly falling out of favor among non-theist. “By itself” that just will not be satisfactory.

So then what about the Eye?

Well we find here now the speculative models of multi-cell aggregates in cell-cell cooperation coming into the picture. Of course such are by their nature more distant from actual observation than that of, say, antibiotic resistance. Such speculative models must, unfortunately, happen with every new layer of tissue – over and over and over again – from the ground up – such as the eye – on the problem of the necessity of multi-potent stem cells at every layer available on the ground floor.

The question for Naturalism is what then is the proposed mechanism to explain the Big Bang, and then the very narrow range of physical constants permitting life, and then a-biogenesis, and then multi-tissue organisms, and then that new tissue chance/accident happening over and over and over again for each new tissue, and then multi-potency, and then that multi-potent cell line happening by chance/accident happening over and over and over again for each new tissue all the way down to the genomic ground-floor, and, then, say, the Eye there in that multi-potency, and all these mechanistically from the ground up ?

Well?

Mechanism, anyone?

Five options come to the forefront thus far:

1) The neo-Darwinian mechanism of [Gene mutation + gene selection] ?
2) The sad analogy of the sort of logic which says, “Well some things appear un-designed”?
3) It’s all rather probable overall?
4) It’s possible?
5) It’s not been shown to be impossible?


None of those “get us there”, as it were. But that is all we’ve been given thus far. On the first option, well everybody now concedes that the neo-Darwinian paradigm is – alone – underpowered. On the second option we find that appearances – alone – can be underpowered. On the third option we find that probability is rightly abandoned by Dawkins and others (in biology) and others on cosmology as they fuss at the fine-tuned universe issue (Etc.) for good reason. On the fourth option we find “Well yeah but it’s still possible…” – so that plus presupposition seems to be the best option for the Naturalist. On the fifth option, "Show us that it is not possible", well, again, that plus presupposition seems to be a safe place for the Naturalist.

Lastly, yet more which we will need on mechanism:

Granting the Naturalist his genomic regress leaves him empty handed. There are several reasons for this – one being that the Naturalist cannot reach the ends which he must in order to take ownership of the ontological real estate that is his claim to the “ontic-ends” of Design / Un-Designed itself, that is his claim to Being itself – that is his claim to Person itself – that is his claim to Aboutness itself.

The oversimplified appeals in this thread by the Naturalists thus far reveal a glaring misunderstanding of what is metaphysically necessary to reach such ends, to make such claims. The very claim of “Un-Designed” requires either a purely appearance-based regress (how silly and how easily matched by the theist in the appeal to one's psychology), or, such a bold claim requires a reach to an End that is far, far beyond any ontological reach the Naturalist has thus far demonstrated should he wish to justify his bold move of ascribing the express terms and conditions of the Ontological End that is Designed / Un-Designed. That is unfortunate enough, but even worse is that he seems entirely unaware of the problem.

His anemic, “Well sometimes it looks as if its un-designed, and, well, sometimes it has the appearance of something random, and, well yeah, sure, it’s all very improbable but no one has shown it to be impossible, and, it's the only game in town so far - cause presupposition...” just fails to do the *work* of getting, say, his mechanistic toe into the pool.

His landscape of temporal-becoming leaves him there in that simplistic, crude, one-dimensional sort of argument.

Per the link in this comment, “Furthermore, what “allows us to speak the language of causes and effects” has nothing essentially to do with tracing series of events backwards in time. Here again [the Naturalist] is just begging the question. On the Aristotelian-Scholastic analysis, questions about causation are raised wherever we have potentialities that need actualization, or a thing’s being metaphysically composite and thus in need of a principle that accounts for the composition of its parts, or there being a distinction in a thing between its essence or nature on the one and its existence on the other, or a thing’s being contingent. The universe, however physics and scientific cosmology end up describing it — even if it turned out to be a universe without a temporal beginning, even if it is a four-dimensional block universe, even if Hawking’s closed universe model turned out to be correct, even if we should really think in terms of a multiverse rather than a single universe — will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.). And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it. And only that which is pure actuality devoid of potentiality, only what is utterly simple or non-composite, only something whose essence or nature just is existence itself, only what is therefore in no way contingent but utterly necessary — only that, the classical theist maintains, could in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be.”

Brad B,

Suppose The Blind Watchmaker puts for a terrible argument (as Plantiga claims).

So what?

You are an the same boat with Amy and Andy.

Amy claims some science writer believes in ID because of the language he uses.

Andy changes the topic to the classifcation of modes of reasoning.

You and Plantiga argue that a bad argument for evolution is an argument against it.

Why are y'all reduced to these methods?

Why don't any of you address what is typically claimed about the evolution of the eye?

RonH

RonH, Brad B,


If I may: Because there is no good reason to believe the mechanisms given to us thus far. Such belief is utterly dependent on presupposition.

""Well, it's the only game in town - cause - see - philosophical naturalism - so - you see until its shown to be impossible, then it is the best option we have.""

No, science has at its root methodological naturalism, NOT philosophical naturalism. They are different.

"There are those who take it that [ "Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + That last Step happing again for every new tissue/layer + Multi-Potent Cell Line + That last Step of Multi-potent stem cell happening again for every new layer + Eye" ] is rather improbable"

This is basically an argument from incredulity smothered in strangeness.

"The Naturalist’s appeal to "Well its the only option we have - cause presuppositions....""

Who says this?

"also carries us to the probabilistic lines for big bang cosmology to give us the universe we have being in Theism's corner."

This makes no sense and doesnt follow.

"In fact, this is so much the case that it is Atheists themselves who argue against fine-tuning even though they need that tuned melody to get off the ground."

Strawman - people (not just atheists) argue against "Finetuning, therefore god" because that argum,ent dopesnt maker any sense. I have no idea what you mean by 'melody'

"But we find that such is not "necessarily fatal" to non-Theism because as Dawkins notes, "Yeah but it's still possible"."

Strawman. What all scientists recognise is the overwhelming eviodence for evolution and that, as a result, its the best model we have to explain biodiversity on this planet. Sorry that observed reality doesnt genuflect to your notions of a deity and your brand of mythology.

"Why? Because the singularity that is [ "Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + That last Step happing again for every new tissue/layer + Multi-Potent Cell Line + That last Step of Multi-potent stem cell happening again for every new layer + Eye" ] just is not friendly to the non-theist in the arena of probability."

If you want to bring probability into this, do as RonH says and show your working. Otherwise its just a bald assertion. And its all smothered in waffle - Argument from Incredulity.

Then you go off into a bunch of paprgraphs which can be summed up as "Evolution cant explain the 3rd toe of the lesser crowned monkey, therefore evolution is disproven" which is utterly nonsensical.

"The question for Naturalism is what then is the proposed mechanism to explain the Big Bang, and then the very narrow range of physical constants permitting life, and then a-biogenesis" - Have you actually ever read any science? Clearly not.

"2) The sad analogy of the sort of logic which says, “Well some things appear un-designed”?"

lol. This isnt the sad logic. The sad logic is 'It looks designed therefore it was designed.

Here is the point; artefacts arising from known manufacturing processes are qualitatively different from the rest of the world, and said artefacts are not self-replicating entities. That aside, the entire "design" argument fails for one very important reason. Propagandists for mythology have never presented a proper, rigorous means of testing for "design", and for that matter, don't even understand what is needed in order to provide genuine evidence for "design".


So "it looks designed therefore it was designed" doesnt mean you get to claim design. It doesnt work that way. Sorry.

"On the first option, well everybody now concedes that the neo-Darwinian paradigm is – alone – underpowered."

Oh my. You are woefully underinformed. No doubt you think evolution is 'a theory in crisis' or that we should 'teach the controversy'. Noone in the scietific communiyt thinks this, and this isnt because of some sort of conspiracy. If you bothered to get a science degree and do the experiments (and I have) you'll find it all makes sense, across multiple strands of science. You comments are WRONG.

"Granting the Naturalist his genomic regress leaves him empty handed."

??????? errrr wut?

"The oversimplified appeals in this thread by the Naturalists thus far reveal a glaring misunderstanding of what is metaphysically necessary to reach such ends, to make such claims."

You need to explain this. What is "metaphysically necessary"?

"The very claim of “Un-Designed”"

NO. NO. NO. This is the wrong way around. YOU are cliaming things are designed. Stop foisting off the burden of proof. "It looks designed, therefore it was designed" is all you have offered thus far. This sentence reveals your mindset - you are going to dodge at every opportunity and smother it all in waffle and long words because you think it makes you sound clever.

"On the Aristotelian-Scholastic analysis, questions about causation are raised wherever we have potentialities that need actualization, or a thing’s being metaphysically composite and thus in need of a principle that accounts for the composition of its parts, or there being a distinction in a thing between its essence or nature on the one and its existence on the other, or a thing’s being contingent."

The analysis of causation has moved on since Aristotle and if you are stuck on that paradigm then there is little hope for you. I dont know what 'metaphysically composite' means. The rest of that sentence looks like a boring rehash or realism - which is not an interesting philsophical issue.

"will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.)"

Why should I care what Aristotlians argue? lol

"And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it."

Bald assertion. You have no way of verifying this. I can argue exactly the opposite and there is NO WAY of deciding which is actually the case. Give it up - you only argue that way so you can then say "therefore God".

If you want to post more I'll continue to provide counter argument. By the very nature that I can do so, means that your version is not True.

"RonH, Brad B,


If I may: Because there is no good reason to believe the mechanisms given to us thus far. Such belief is utterly dependent on presupposition."

There is a mountain, I mean a MOUNTAIN, of evidence that supports evolution. Even if you can provide the EXACT path by which an eye, or a liver, or a brain, or a leaf evolved from antecedents all the way back to LUCA, it doesnt make the theory wrong! You have an ideological agenda for not accepting the evidence (mountains of).

What "presupposition" are you talking about? If you go on about

"Big Bang + Fine Tuning + A-Biogenesis + Multi-Tissue Organism + That last Step happing again for every new tissue/layer + Multi-Potent Cell Line + That last Step of Multi-potent stem cell happening again for every new layer + Eye"

I think I will scream. That simply isnt the case as I have already explained to you. So what presuppostions?

"There is a mountain, I mean a MOUNTAIN, of evidence that supports evolution. Even if you can't provide the EXACT path by which an eye, or a liver, or a brain, or a leaf evolved from antecedents all the way back to LUCA, it doesnt make the theory wrong!"

't added to make this make sense sorry.

As noted already, mechanistically we have perfectly rational and coherent reasons for being intellectually dissatisfied with the non-Theist’s mechanisms given to us thus far.


The Skeptic’s hope here is perplexing.

They appeal to simple majority as the proof of lack of incoherence all the while never showing coherence from the ground up. Atheists and Theists all now know that neo-Darwinism (ND) (a gene mutated / a gene got selected) is, alone, inept of explanatory power in accounting for our genome and/or for the vast array of all the life on planet Earth no matter how much time we give it.


The fact just is emerging that the state of affairs just is, say, “ND + B + C + D + N to the power of X”.

And yet the Christian is perfectly willing to just grant, to just pretend, for the sake of the Skeptic, that, say, Dirt-To-Brain is there in the fossils, or in the microscope (Man = About-ness = Being = out of PN’s reach).

And still the skeptic is unhappy. But why?

We pretend and make believe that he has got his ND + Presupposition all observed, that he has got his Dirt to Brain in a fossil somewhere (pretend…), that he can show us the whole show. And we just settle there and leave it a moot point with our Christianity well intact happy to drop it and yet he keeps coming back, wanting to harp on that one, rote, point about Man and genome that gains him no ontic-real-estate at all.


It’s perplexing as either way, here, leaves the evolutionist without arriving at Man nor with any paradigmatically coherent claim on reality in his hands. This seems lost on the Skeptic. And besides, on that bit about our pretending for his sake, well, overall, A-T Metaphysics trumps I.D. theory anyway. Of course, that bold statement still ends up being of no comfort to the Skeptic as the Naturalist never can leverage the end point which just is the Un-Designed wad of irrationally conditioned reflexes inside our skulls which the Philosophical Naturalist calls “mind” upon what just must be the readability of Designed ontological ends vis-à-vis God, as touched on earlier.

The skeptic’s frustration pushing him to come back to this irrelevant point of genome over and over is, perhaps, understandable given that his Scientism fails to get us to M-A-N. Which of course is the reason that, here, on this topic, “either way”, the Christian remains intellectually sound from the ground up even as Naturalism remains formally and finally intellectually vacuous. Oddly, particle, the last desperate hope of the Skeptic, also leaves us scratching our heads as M-A-N is never achieved – full stop.. Hence the failure to reveal such in either fossil or microscope.

Let’s thrown in, also, the stuff of mathematical models just to round out a little more completeness. Math? Huh? The entire mathematical arena is, in philosophical naturalism’s mist of evaporative equivocations in eliminative materialism (EM), useful fictions, and that terminology ends up the case for unsavory reasons, unlike Theism’s regress of the same which leaves both Platonism and EM behind in their incoherence.

And yet the Skeptic keeps harping on genome.

Huh?

He keeps harping…. one…. boring…. rote….. point ….. which gains him no ontological real estate whatsoever regardless of outcome, and which fails to gain him the prize of paradigmatic logical lucidity which he so desperately lacks, and which leaves all of the Christian’s metaphysical truth claims on Man, on Logic, on Reality, on Ought, on Mathematics, on Causality, and so on, casually and seamlessly intact there in actuality’s Infinite Wellspring of Being – there in God

We'd like to see observational reality – rather than presupposition – show us the muscle, the mechanistic explanations on the emergence of, first, causality, then, existence, then, why his universe - this particular life-permitting universe, then, a-biogenesis, then, the multi-tissue organisms, then such morphing to fully house multi-potency - on the bench top, then, the rest of the show up to, say, brain, then, Mind, then, About-ness, then, Being, then, something other than eliminative materialism forcing us to dismantle everything we just got done building, then, after being forced there to dismantle it all and stuff it into a box labeled useful fiction vs. illusion, we’d like to see the muscle, the reason behind the Naturalist's harping on that…. .one… .boring… rote…. .point… of genome which gains him no ontological real estate whatsoever regardless of outcome, and which fails to gain him the prize of paradigmatic logical lucidity which he so desperately lacks, and which leaves all of the Christian’s metaphysical truth claims on Man, on Logic, on Reality, on Ought, on Mathematics, on Causality, and so on, casually and seamlessly intact there in actuality’s Infinite Wellspring of Being – there in God.

scbrownhlm

"As noted already, mechanistically we have perfectly rational and coherent reasons for being intellectually dissatisfied with the non-Theist’s mechanisms given to us thus far."

Rubbish. All you've done is spouted a bunch of waffle in some peculiar dialect of English.

I guess you arent going to engage in a discussion because all you are capable of is a stream of blurb.

And you still assert that "living things look designed therefore they were designed" and think that is a reasonable argument.

So once more, the design argument fails because propagandists for mythology (i.e. godists) have never presented a proper, rigorous means of testing for "design", and for that matter, don't even understand what is needed in order to provide genuine evidence for "design".

So you fail at the first hurdle.

We just grant, for the sake of granting, the Naturalist his whole [ND + B + C + D + N to the power of X], which we've not been shown. The ND (neo-Darwinian) stuff of a gene mutates, a gene gets selected, is all we've been shown on the bench top. Presupposition shows us the rest. But we just grant B and C and D and N to the power of X. Out of kindness. And yet the Naturalist keeps harping on genome - that one, lone, boring, rote point which fails to get him where he needs to be. It is unfortunate that we have to grant such a wide bench top with such a wide array of *actual* observations, and, that such a grant fails - upon arrival - to sufficiently fund his account is also unfortunate.


The Naturalist's perpetual dissatisfaction with such a grant seems, therefore, understandable.

The comments to this entry are closed.