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

March 04, 2015

Comments

Next we will be told by the Naturalist - in a sort of indirect manner - that evolutionary biology is rational, intentional, and sighted, and *not* irrational, without intent, and blind. Else, without such hedging, without such semantic dancing, the laptop brings just too much trouble to the Naturalist, for he has already made his commitment that said product of the irrationally conditioned, the laptop, is designed.


Anytime you want to debate at rationalskepticism scbrownlhrm.

Still wont answer my substantive points will you.

Tell me how you know the laptop is designed.

Then tell me why that same methodology applies to biological organisms to assume they are designed.

This is a difficult problem - which is why Demski tried with the Design Inference and his filter.

But you seem to think you have it nailed, so away you go.

The point is that until you can do this, all you have is an assertion that biological organisms were designed - and to do that it's YOU that misapply logic

This is what this boils down to:

"I had the opportunity to once ask Dembski, who was surrounded by admirers after a Tulane sponsored ID/evolution debate, that should his famous flagellum example or any other “evidence” he believes supports ID (biological, cosmological) be refuted to his satisfaction would he ever concede he was wrong, no design necessary. I was expecting a wiggly answer. What I got was an unapologetic “No”. This minutes after and not ten feet from where he had spent an hour and a half claiming his hypothesis was purely scientific and not religious. "

From here

Whatever happens, you are going to cling to design. Because you think there is a designer. If you start from the premise that there is a designer you are going to want to find design.

This is irrational thinking. You arent thinking critically.

This link tutorial gets to the heart of the matter about CSI:

"CSI is an essential concept to Intelligent Design Creationists. IDC proponents claim that CSI is a unique indicator of the involvement of intelligent agency. MathGrrl tried her best in that thread to get a rigorous mathematical definition of the concept and some example calculations. My hope at the time was that I would get sufficient details to be able to calculate it and show that genetic algorithms and other evolutionary simulations could easily generate CSI.

It was not to be. That thread was the first that demonstrated how even IDC proponents couldn't agree on a definition and how no one, including Dembski, had ever actually calculated CSI for a real world biological system. Naturally, that didn't stop those same proponents from continuing to repeat their claims."

So that branch is well and truly broken

Mr. Reed,

We're not arguing right/wrong on your naturalistic criteria for figuring out design on your terms. We're merely quantifying that your definition is that design just is that which is produced by the irrationally conditioned.

That isn't Theism’s criteria.

It's Naturalism's.

We're merely establishing the rules of interpretation by which the Naturalist insists we all play by.


Now that we have your admission to such as design's said milieu we can theoretically proceed.

scbrownlhrm you've lost me.

What are "Theisms's Criteria" then? Define them.

And as for this bit "your definition is that design just is that which is produced by the irrationally conditioned" - I havent created this definition so please dont attribute it to me. You are trying to infer something from my earlier comments. Im not sure what that is tho.

If you are inferring that "humans can design things" then I would agree.

Ive also laid out why you claiming that biological organisms are designed then falls very short

Yes, that is correct. The irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls reacts to cascades of stimuli and yields cascades if this X and cascades of that Y and so on.

Such X's and such Y's are in summation "designed".

That's not Theism's criteria.

It's Naturalism's.

We're merely establishing the rules of interpretation here.

Nothing more.

Hhmmm..... typo... if should be of:

The irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls reacts (blindly) to cascades of stimuli and yields cascades of this X and cascades of that Y - and so on. Such X's and such Y's are in summation "designed".


Again, we're not labeling any criteria as right/wrong. Rather, we're merely establishing the rules of interpretation by which we are to detect design - per the Naturalist's insistence.

"The irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls reacts (blindly) to cascades of stimuli and yields cascades of this X and cascades of that Y - and so on. Such X's and such Y's are in summation "designed""

Im sorry, what has this got to do with anything?

Justify why this is relevant.

Such is merely agreeing with your defined milieu of design's fingerprints. Laptops and other such X's and Y's.

Or are you now changing your laptop landing zone?

"Such is merely agreeing with your defined milieu of design's fingerprints"

Look scbrownlhrm, I am struggling here. You dont write in plain English. It's far too oby=tuse and flowery and it doesnt aid communication. The use of the word milieu is odd here - people have milieu (their social circle or setting) - 'design's fingerprints' therefore dont fit easily in a bracket of things that have a milieu

That's what I mean by your language being obtuse - its IMPOSSIBLE to work out what you are really getting at.

So what on earth are you on about?

And what is a laptop landing zone?

Laptops are designed ok? Im not sure about Stonehenge that was mentioned earlier by Brad. But you know what, we could go and examine it. We could go to Salisbury Plain and have a look - and maybe if we were skilled we could find tool marks - which we could compare to other structures of similar age. We could *gasp* find some evidence.

But to leap from 'laptops are designed' to say "Humans look designed, therefore they were designed" is wrong. It doesnt follow. Biological organisms are qualitatively different.

STUMP UP SOME EVIDENCE and stop waffling.

We're just trying to clarify the Naturalist's definition of design's fingerprints. So we can detect design on the Naturalist's terms. Not the Theist's terms mind you. We're merely establishing the rules of interpretation. Of detection. Now, the irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls reacts (blindly) to cascades of stimuli and yields cascades of this X and cascades of that Y and such in summation in this laptop and that house - and so on - is the product/yield that the Naturalist calls design.

We're not disagreeing/agreeing with such terms. We're merely establishing the Naturalist's rules of design detection.

Perhaps some Naturalists want to appeal to magic and assert that the bundle of sodium channels inside our skulls were built by eons of the rational rather than by eons of the irrational - and so - perhaps - the laptops and other products of the irrationally conditioned are detectable by some other spooky or magical set of fingerprints. But he just keeps pointing to the irrationally conditioned.....so ...based on that incessant pointing... well... it seems unlikely that his rules of design detection are anything other than that milieu.

Why can you not write in plain English?

Mr. Reed seems unable to define the means and ends of design on the Naturalist's own terms. But it's simple. There's only one naturalistic system in play - from A to Z - on his terms. Clearly the laptop is the yield of those blind, reflexive, cascading summations amid the irrationally conditioned psychic phosphorescence inside our skulls.

Well that is fine.

We're not disagreeing.

We're merely establishing the Naturalist's own rules of detection.

Not the Theist's mind you.

But the Naturalist's.


"We're just trying to clarify the Naturalist's definition of design's fingerprints"

No you arent - you are just repeating the same random waffle over and over again

"We're not disagreeing/agreeing with such terms. We're merely establishing the Naturalist's rules of design detection."

Again, WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THIS? We dont. This is just pure obfuscation on your part. Do we need to argue about whether laptops are designed? Do we?

How do you know laptops are designed? Because you believe in God?!

Mr. Reed,

What produced the laptop?

A human. Or a machine built/designed by a human.

And?

"How do you know laptops are designed..?"

I didn't claim they were.

You did based on your naturalistic criteria for design.

If laptops fail to qualify for "designed" .... well then we can adjust your definitions and criteria.


The irrationally conditioned designed said laptop.

No?

Seriously, are we we not sure if laptops are deisgned?

And what are 'naturalistic criteria for design'? Youve made that up.

We can both recognise that laptops are designed (I hope)

You then, for some reason, extend that and say biological organisms were designed.

The whole point of this is to try to discern why you think that leap is justified. Because actually you've fallen off the logic cliff.

When did I claim life is designed?

We're merely establishing the Naturalist's own terms of design detection.

Not the Theist's mind you.

But the Naturalist's.

The irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls cascading to summation amid psychic phosphorescence designs laptops.

No?


Why a description of the brain necessary to this conversation? Seriously, the nature of thought and neurology/neurophysiology - which you mischaracterise as "bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls...blah blah blah" and isnt an accurate description - is NOT RELEVANT.

If you think it IS relevant, then please justify why it is

Apologies - I thought you were of the opinion that God created/designed all life on earth. Is that not what you think?

This is looking more and more and more like an exercise in argument from incredulity from scbrownlhrm

Oh?

The brain that designs wasn't built by eons of irrational conditioning?

Whence then design?

On your terms mind you.

Not the Theist's.

We can't move on to the Theist approaching you with his case for design until we know *your* criteria.

What do you mean by irrational conditioning?

scbrownlhrm, Id really like to discuss this but you arent being clear in defining what you see as the intellectual challenge.

You keep wanting to pull this back to brains/thoughts and I dont see why that is relevant and you havent explained why it is. SO until you do, Im not interested.

Why would your criteria for identifying design in for example a laptop - as a theist - be any different from mine as a non-theist???

You are suggesting there IS a difference and I dont think there is one - why do theists look at laptops differently to non theists????

Well of course the laptop is designed though, oddly, you seem to think the designer has nothing to do with that. It just "is", on blind axiom - on mere appearances - and nothing more. Void of criteria. Void of a designer.


Well, it seems that such is the case given your surprise that the designer of the laptop should even be mentioned. Hmm. Odd. Perhaps you think designed things just "pop into existence" sort of "all of a sudden" out of what is "no rational source"? But then, given your confusion about evolutionary biology and its eons of cascades of irrational conditioning, that tone of surprise by you is not, well, surprising.


Okay then - we have no need for a designer for the laptop – or anything at all - designed things just come out of nowhere – by magic or something - as we just look at all the products of an irrationally conditioned system (evolutionary biology) and foist - on blind axiom - that the psychic phosphorescence of "that sort of system" just is "design". That is fine - as already noted. It's not being called right/wrong. We're merely trying to characterize *your* method of detection. You seem to have no need of a designer for said laptop - or for anything. That is fine too. Again, we're not calling that right/wrong. We're merely trying to characterize *your* method of detection. You seem to have hedged on whether or not evolutionary biology is irrationally conditioned? Of course it is okay should you want to assert such a startling claim that such eons were of a rational cascade.


Again, we're not labeling here - nothing is right/wrong. We're just trying to characterize *your* method of detection. From what we can tell, so far, no designer is needed, and then, eons of irrational conditioning (well you seem unsure about the irrational nature of said cascades) bubbles up into psychic phosphorescence inside our skulls, or anywhere else for that matter, and then, the net-yield of that chain, that rope, is something which the Naturalists labels "design".


So, those lines seem to be how Naturalists detect design. Of course the Theist has a different sort of chain – but he cannot make his case until he knows the Naturalist’s method of design detection.

?????

"Well, it seems that such is the case given your surprise that the designer of the laptop should even be mentioned. Hmm. Odd."

I havent said this.

"Perhaps you think designed things just "pop into existence" sort of "all of a sudden" out of what is "no rational source"?"
? When have I said this. Humans design and create things constantly. Those processes are well understood.

"But then, given your confusion about evolutionary biology and its eons of cascades of irrational conditioning, that tone of surprise by you is not, well, surprising."

I have a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University. Out of the 2 of us, who is confused about biology? lol

"You seem to have no need of a designer for said laptop - or for anything."

Seriously, do you read anything I write? What on EARTH?? I have never said this.

The rest of your post is the usual incoherent nonsense.

Its your claims that are being examined here and all you are trying to do is shift everything back onto me. Its classic creationsist gish gallop.

*My* method of detection has stuff all to do with this. We will have a common method of being able to tell that common objects are man made or not (and thus designed) based on experience gathered and learning from others- then there will be edge cases where it's more tricky and we need to investigate harder.

But bilogical organisms? People that claim they are designed need to stump up evidence to support that assertion.

Materialism/naturalism has nothing to do with it - sorry. You have had plenty of opportunities to state why that needs consideration and you havent made a cogent argument - youve just waffled

Pure obfuscation.

"Of course the Theist has a different sort of chain – but he cannot make his case until he knows the Naturalist’s method of design detection."

And this is blantantly rubbish. Why does your case revolve around mine?

Besides, what design detection are you talking about?

If I got 3 common household objects on a table - a laptop, a metal spoon and a picture frame - would we be discussing whether they would be designed or not? Yes or no?

So designed products come from designers? Laptops from brains?

Is that right?

I agree BTW.

But you seem eager to have your product sort of magically separated from your source - hanging in mid air. Brain / Laptop void of each other.


Which is it?

Humans design laptops. You cant siphon off the brain as being some separate part of the human.

Hands will be important - eyes, ears, etc etc etc.

So why are you so wrapped around the axels by brains?

HUMANS design laptops.

I suspect this is an attempt to start waffling on about the nature of thought and consciousness. Unnecessary uinless you define why it is necessary.

My guess is that you think there is some magic element to thought.

Not at all. Just wanted to be sure about your stance on the designer given this or that laptop. So the irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes inside our skulls reacts to stimuli and yields laptops. That is at least now consistent with your naturalistic paradigm.

For a moment there you had asked what the heck brains had to do with laptops.

You had me worried.

You also asked what the heck "irrationally conditioned" means in reference to biological organisms.

Well - *that* really has me worried.

So now it seems that the laptop's designer *is* part of your criteria (Man) as designed things don't just pop onto existence out of nowhere or by magic, and, then, eons of irrational conditioning (well you *still* seem unsure about the irrational nature of said cascades) bubbles up into psychic phosphorescence inside our skulls, or anywhere else for that matter, and then, the net-yield of that chain, that rope, is something which the Naturalists labels "design".

So should we find that chain - that frame - well then we find the designed. The chain being, of course, necessary given that we agree that designed things don't pop into existence by magic.


Your confusion about the irrational conditioning of biology over eons of blind reflexology is still worrisome.

Very worrisome.

"That is at least now consistent with your naturalistic paradigm"

What naturalistic paradigm?

You are answering a different question

You are trying to rationlise why humans are able to design things.

Do you not understand that we do NOT have to solve that problem first?

Thats where this is falling down.

SO are biological organisms designed or not?

"Your confusion about the irrational conditioning of biology over eons of blind reflexology is still worrisome"

Me - Cambridge Degree. And I have no idea, despite an extensive education, what you are referring to here. But I predict you wont explain it. Bonkers.

You seem to be moving back to your prior stance of “What the heck do brains have to do with laptops?”


Well, if designed things – per your criteria of interpretation – are allowed to just pop into existence without a designer well that is fine. We can add that to your list of criteria. That may come in helpful for finding design in all sorts of funny places. But since any sort of ridged chain from designer to designed offends your paradigm, so be it.


Consider it added to our list of rules.


I know you want to have your cake and eat it, but, well, everybody knows that reality doesn’t work along that line. If you want to claim the ends of rationality via the means of irrationality, that is fine. We can add that to the list of rules too. But which side of that rule will we add – pro or con? We’ll need either your outright affirmation or outright denial thereof to answer that question.


Again, there’s no labels of right/wrong. Merely an attempt to define the rules.


As for evolution, if you mean to argue that something other than, oh, say, sightless, goal-less, pitiless, indifferent cascades (such as, oh, say, rational sight) shapes biological structures, well that is fine. We can add that to your list of criteria too.


Consider it added to our list of rules.

BTW,

We don't have to solve "how" to establish the above rules. Blind and goalless grants neuronal reflex grants psychic phosphorescence grants laptops. Or not. You fail to see that we don't need to know "how". That's where this is falling down.

Hi John Reed, I went to the Mathgrrl link, read as much as I thought to get an idea of the post then went to the linked UD post.

Of course both of those posts are going to be tedious to go through and I intend to...more so the UD post.

I, like most wont be able to argue from the OP by Mathgrrl at the UD site, but there are 435 comments and this should be enlightening enough on this particular subject to see what the main contention is. I remember seeing this post when it came up but didn't follow it along but since this seems to be the first thing you've actually cited, is this an answer to my much earlier offer that you cite a champion and we can see and inspect? If he is your man and you think this will sufficiently ruin ID, we can try it out...that post is 4 years old...is it still holding up?

Another question, asked in the same tone as "Rexsalad" [from the Coyne post]asked Dembski re: the flagellum...if it comes to be that Mathgrrl's challenge is overturned, and either his scientific assumptions are wrong or his stated definitions are shown to be unacceptable such that the math doesn't do the work it intended, will you then conceed that ID has to be recognized as legit scientific inquiry?


Moving on...

"Whatever happens, you are going to cling to design. Because you think there is a designer. If you start from the premise that there is a designer you are going to want to find design."

italics mine

Ummm, this is kind of the formula for abductive reasoning, that with which evolutionary theory is supposedly proven producing mountains of evidence. If only there were not impossible obstacles right out of the starting gate for justifying the claims made. The 6s method once again being applied.

Well, I'm off to go get stared on a 435 comment blog post.

btw, I'm going to have to learn that hyperlink to the specific portion of a web page trick...been meaning to.

Hi Brad

"you cite a champion and we can see and inspect?"

I dont have champions. This is called a reference.

"Another question, asked in the same tone as "Rexsalad" [from the Coyne post]asked Dembski re: the flagellum...if it comes to be that Mathgrrl's challenge is overturned, and either his scientific assumptions are wrong or his stated definitions are shown to be unacceptable such that the math doesn't do the work it intended, will you then conceed that ID has to be recognized as legit scientific inquiry?"

I'd ABSOLUTELY welcome this. It would be a brilliant thing. Imagine being able to have a solid basis for being able to positively identify design in biological organisms. Fabulous.

"this is kind of the formula for abductive reasoning, that with which evolutionary theory is supposedly proven producing mountains of evidence."

First the language is slack here - theories arent proven - they are supported by evidence. And unfortunately for you, evolution is the most heavily supported theory in science, pulling in from multiple disciplines. Anyway - I dont take your point? The paradigm IS NOT - "evolution is correct, lets find evidence for it" - that is simply slanderous to the scientific community. Sorry.

Becasue scbrownlhrm wont enagge in a structured dialogue and seems to wilfully misconstrue most posts I think this has run its course.

The whole point was to investigate the claim that biological organisms were/are designed, starting with a way of identifying design. This is based on the obvious point that to say:

1. Human create things
2. Humans therefore have a concept of design "to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose"
3. Humans looks at the natural world and see the appearence of design
4. Humans infer there is a designer

Is puerile and irrational. It contains the step "it looks designed, therefore it was designed" and it applies a rationale that refuses to recognize the qualitative difference between human created things and biological organisms.

Without a better way of identifying design, creationists/IDers/evolution deniers should not claim that bio orgs are designed. Not that they care.

Thats waht this was about; but scbrown, in a very tedious fashion, seems to want to take this in a different direction without any justification or rationale.

A different direction?

Like the Naturalist's definition of design?

Well okay then, he has none.

But how then to converse about design?

One wonders why the Naturalist is so timid on his model's features?

The Naturalist presents no justified model of his paradigm of design.

Rather, he simply hides behind equivocations and asks the Theist for far more.


Typical.

John,

At last I understand where you are coming from:

"And unfortunately for you, evolution is the most heavily supported theory in science, pulling in from multiple disciplines"

Oh, John. Sorry, but that just isn't true.

The question is, why do you have such a strong need to defend the theory of evolution? Why such a strong attachment to a scientific theory? They come and they go. The nature of science well done is a very light hold on theories and paradigms.

Goat Head 5

GH5

"Oh, John. Sorry, but that just isn't true."

Errrrm, yes it is.

I have no need to defend it. In fact, I want to tear it down. Because that's how science advances, as you suggest.

"The Naturalist presents no justified model of his paradigm of design."

lol I dont have one because Im not the one claiming biological organisms are designed. Are we still at this point? Too funny.

Mr. Reed,

Your entire paradigm of design - every step of the way - there at the end of Man has been merely a string of hedging and equivocations.

So far, that is.

I don't blame you for your reluctance to address your own paradigm of design.


Better to simply equivocate and offer far, far less than what you ask others to give to you.


It's *typical* of skeptics to employ such methodology.

"I don't blame you for your reluctance to address your own paradigm of design"

Explain why I need one.

One more time - I'm not the one claiming design here. Capisce?

Mr. Reed,

While you and others discuss ID, I am addressing the *paradigms* - plural - of design *period*.

Raw appearances - and Psychology - are peculiar milieus there at the ends of God and Man.

Again - definitions and rules. No one need expect any ontological real estate to be simply given away for less than full asking price.


As noted, your performance when confronted with such has been typical of the skeptic's chain of hedges and equivocations.

scbrownlhrm

Great so you cant justify why I need a 'paradigm for design'.

And you cover up your failure in your usual flowery language including the continued misapplication of the word 'milieu'.

You can demand stuff all you like but "I want" doesnt get unless you justify why its relevant.

Listen Buster - design as it applies to manufactured artefacts IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. For an object on unknown provenance, we look for the marks that men have left (in a nutshell). Where we can ascertain that Man has been involved, we known there has been a designer and therefore design.

You cant pull that trick in reverse with biological organisms. Capisce?

Whale omelette esque

Mr. Reed,

You make truth claims on a paradigm in which the thing you call Man does an act which you call Design.

Full stop.

Hi John, the abductive reasoning that supports the evidence you claim to be so strong is no different from that of your description of ID...why is it the default position to use the 6s method on ID and not on TOE?

[I got side tracked on reading some other exchanges by Mathgrrl at UD and only got up to 35 on the cited one] I have to say that these type of blogs are excellent places for lurkers to read and observe things from obviously trained professionals, and watch them reason things through.

"Again - definitions and rules. No one need expect any ontological real estate to be simply given away for less than full asking price."

Exactly, scbrownlhrm. This is not a debate on science and it's methods per se, but on its sloppy handling of claims...ignoring guardrails that promote precision in methods.

GH5,

You cannot appeal to the presence and absence of evidence here. The evidence-free presuppositionalism by which the philosophical naturalist foists a-biogenesis unmasks the sloppy lack of precision you are facing. It's unanswerable.

"You make truth claims on a paradigm in which the thing you call Man does an act which you call Design."

What truth claims. More hilarity from sclbrownhrm.

"the abductive reasoning that supports the evidence you claim to be so strong is no different from that of your description of ID"

Unpicking this bag load of nonsense is an essay in itself. There is a mass of evidence for evolution and precisely zero for ID/creationism

"This is not a debate on science and it's methods per se, but on its sloppy handling of claims"

*Yawn* oh yes its a global conspiracy to promote evolution. Seriously? This is simply ridiculous. And then you have the cheek to refer me to the design inference. Joker.

"The evidence-free presuppositionalism by which the philosophical naturalist foists a-biogenesis"

Woeful misunderstanding of the current state of scientific thought about abiogenesis (which isnt the topic - its different to evolution, anotyher bit you missed when you werent paying attention in school) plus an obtuse reference to philsophical naturlism which scbrownlhrm loves to harp back to.

Guys, sceince/evolution does not require one to hold scientism, materialism or naturalism as correct. I know you dont understand philosophy because I read your posts, but whoever force fed you that idea is WRONG and if I had space I could demonstrate why.

Anyway, really bored of the continued creationsit canards here and particularly scbrown's ever gushing pipe of tripe.

The comments to this entry are closed.