September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

Not being a Catholic, I must ask if the Pope is a Materialist? If the Pope supposes that Mind is Matter? If the Pope states that God did not make the world, did not make Man? The Non-Theist keeps putting words in peoples mouths, keeps waffling on what the word evolution means. Hedging. It seems that by conflating there, and by equivocating there, the Non-Theist can somehow make all of that work. Just like in both the Antenna example and Information/Genome examples wherein all is simply defined away to meaninglessness.

Mike, you mention the ability to detect design.

More specifically, we're looking for the ability to distinguish design from evolution.

"I must ask if the Pope is a Materialist?"

Please explain why this is relevant?
What the Pope understands - which you dont seem to - is that science and religion are compatible when the 2 systems stick to their own majesteria. But keep doing the philosophy and when you find anything interesting from gazing at your navel, be sure to let me know.

@Ron "More specifically, we're looking for the ability to distinguish design from evolution"

Hmmmm not necessarily. For ID to have any hope, it needs to be able to justify claims of design and provide a filter for designed v non-designed artefacts.

IDers like Behe and Luskin know and accept this but have failed to provide a workable methodology.

If you cant detect design then how can one say something is intelligently designed?! Basic. The whole show simply dissolves on that basis alone - ID shouldnt be talked about alongside evolution.

"The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Mike, you said

@Ron "More specifically, we're looking for the ability to distinguish design from evolution" Hmmmm not necessarily. For ID to have any hope, it needs to be able to justify claims of design and provide a filter for designed v non-designed artefacts.

Yes necessarily.

Among the non-designed things are evolved things and evolved things have at least one feature in common with designed things: function.

So a 'filter for designed vs. non-designed' things has to put evolved things in the non-designed category. That is, it has to distinguish design from evolution.

By the way, I don't think artifact is the word you're looking for. Note the spelling too.

So God didn't create Man? Nor the world (Etc.) according to "Catholicism"?

RonH,

"Among the non-designed things are evolved things and evolved things have at least one feature in common with designed things: function."

Function?

This is really getting tedious.

All this defining away to meaninglessness. All this conflation. All this equivocation. Perhaps you really do believe that "mailbox" means the same thing as "rubber tire".

There is no such thing as "function" in your paradigm. Unless you mean function without purpose.

Which is nonsense.

Or gibberish.

Think about that.

Admit it.

scbrownlhrm,

'Function, 'purpose', or 'role'.

It doesn't matter.

The word refers to the same aspect of a thing regardless of whether that thing was designed or evolved.

The only difference is that the evolved thing has no designer.


RonH,

And it has no purpose - and thus no fucntion, no role.

Care to conflate and equivocate again?

Care to tell us what Non-Purpose, Non-Role "looks like"?

How one "detects" it?


Over at Tom Gilson's blog ( thinkingchristian.net/blog ) the topic is circular thinking. Since it is painfuly obvious that such is of import in this thread, here's a bit from the other thread in my reply on avoiding circularity:

It seems that in avoiding the problem of circularity, one must be prepared to allow reason to do her full and proper work, to the bitter ends of one's ultimate explanatory terminus.

The particular T.O.E. which “…brings into harmony the greatest number of ascertained facts and disposes of the greatest number of difficulties with the least amount of strain….” is the T.O.E. which carries the highest degree of plausibility.

Should such include Scripture, or some other X, then Scripture, or said X, or whatever, is therein a part of the far wider canopy that is the singular whole of said T.O.E., itself subsuming all vectors. The ultimate explanatory terminus of all truth claims is something which every T.O.E. carries and only by beginning there and ending there does one truly avoid circularity.

While the Non-Theist must cut off all presuppositions short of his own Ultimate Explanatory Terminus and therein force all of his metaphysical claims to suffer the pains of circularity (or else he must suffer the pains of incoherence and unintelligibility), the Christian need never pull up short, need never cut off his presuppositions prior to, or "distal to" (whatever that means) one's own ultimate explanatory terminus. For the Christian paradigm such obtains in and by the many and varied contours of the Divine Mind.

Seamlessness, and therefore plausibility, allows the Christian to employ Scripture and a wide array of X’s as elementary truth-finder referents within the intellectual luxury of paradigmatic stopping points expressly constituted of the immutable love of the Triune God.

scbrownlhrm,

You ask me how to distinguish an evolved thing from a designed thing.

One way is to look at its history. Maybe ancestry is a better word.

Given ID, the fossil record could be as it is. Or, it could be quite different.

But if evolution is true, then the fossil record must be something like it is.

So, by Bayes, the fossil record weighs in favor of life evolved rather than designed.

It might not seem to weigh that heavily in favor of evolution.

But consider how many ways the fossil record could betray.


Precambrian rabbit anyone?

RonH,


I don't care about our shared presupposition of Dirt-To-Man.

First:

Is all that emoting a retraction of this:

"Among the non-designed things are evolved things and evolved things have at least one feature in common with designed things: function."

Second:

If it is not a retraction:

Please explain given that you (incoherently) equate A with B.

Third:

If it is a retraction:

Care to tell us what Non-Purpose, Non-Role "looks like"?

How one "detects" it?

Ron

It's IDers that need to distinguish between designed things and non designed things or they don't have a workable hypothesis.
IDers don't believe that things evolved. So designed v evolved ain't an issue. Does that make sense?

Good shout re artefacts. That's me typing too quickly.

scbrownlhrm I have no clue what any of your posts mean. Can you try and explain the point you are trying to make please?

scbrownlhrm,

When referring to a designed thing, 'purpose', 'function', 'role' point at what the designer meant the thing to do.

When referring to an evolved thing, these same words refer to whatever aspect of the evolved thing the words would refer to were the evolved thing designed. This is the aspect of the thing that gives it fitness value.

When I say 'the purpose/role/function of the eye', I mean that aspect of the eye that you believe it was designed for.

OK?

Mike,

It's 'Darwinists' that need to distinguish between designed things and non designed things or they don't have a workable hypothesis. 'Darwinists' don't believe that things were designed. So designed v evolved ain't an issue. Does that make sense?

Mike,

I'm not sure it's just a typo we're talking about.

What do you mean, in this context, by 'non-designed artifact'?

If an artifact is dug up from the ground, then it's a man-made thing. Like a clay pot. A fossil is not an artifact.

Another meaning. There are instrumental 'artifacts' like lens flare and tape hiss (Does anyone uses analog audio tape anymore?). But that is a different context.

RonH

Is that okay? Of course not. Why would it be? You seem to be unaware that you have no criteria at all by which you can ever claim that anything is designed. Given that you yourself, that Man, is undesigned, the Christian enjoys observing God’s designs in and on and of Man all while enjoying watching the Non-Theist make the mistake of using Non-Design as his meter (metre) bar in Paris. The gibberish which that move by the Non-Theist unpacks to is just bizarre.

You're the one claiming function in and of your paradigm. Please point to some slice of your singular and seamless continuum of particle (or “whatever") in motion and point to "function".

After all, *IF* you are going to assign yes/no on "function" in and of "material" things and therein AFFIRM/DENY the Christian’s claims there, then surely you MUST be able to give us an example of YES and of NO as such relates to function in material things.

And please – don’t waste our time pointing to MAN’S products as examples of design as the intellectual absurdity of claiming that un-designed things make designed things isn’t worth our time. Man’s psychology cannot align itself with Design, and, if it ever can (Theism) then given that Man is not the measure of all things one cannot presume to assert Man’s Psychology in one’s claims about God’s Psychology.

Also – don’t waste our time claiming that the whole show is (then) un-designed, Man and ALL, because THEN you have no criteria by which to assert YES/NO on ANY such contours given that you yourself – being un-designed – will have then defined all your truth claims into the oblivion of meaninglessness. The UN-Designed claiming to be able to recognize the DE-Signed is worse than incoherent, it’s unintelligible. Just as the claim that Un-Deigned Man makes Designed Things is, also, unintelligible.

Unfortunately for you, there MUST be Design outside of [Un-Designed-Man] SOMEWHERE by which and against which the Un-Designed-Man can measure, detect, describe, and thus claim “design”, of course that is assuming his Mind has the Function to look outside himself and we all know that on your terms the Mind can have no such function – ever.

This is why this bizarre claim of yours that WE SHARE ONE THING IN COMMON – THAT OF FUNCTION is so fascinating. You only have [Un-Desiged-Man] to be, well, you know – like the meter (metre) bar in Paris. The Christian does not claim that Man is the meter bar in Paris – rather – God’s Psychology is that bar . And you, being [Un-Designed –Man] certainly have no, none capacity or criteria by which to turn Man into said bar in Paris. Because claiming that Un-Designed-Things make Designed things is nonsense.

Also, the Christian does not look at God’s Psychology and Man’s Psychology and attempt to equate them. One of the Non-Theist’s mistakes is making the (wrong) assumption that such is what the Christian is asserting in his claims of design. It isn't. An X may be designed vis-a-vis Man's Psychology. But, we all know that MAN'S PSYCHOLOGY has no coherent way to claim design / undesign BUT FOR THE FACT of being designed. But the, Man's Mind being designed, well then what? Well then Man can say this or that MAY be designed via the criteria of MAN's design preferences. But what that does NOT grant is that Man's design preferences IS the Meter Bar by which to make ALL such claims.

So we have this:

1) But for Man being designed, Man cannot claim YES/NO on ANY X being designed or not, and all your claims fade into the nonsense of claiming that Un-Designed-Things make Designed Things.

2) Man being designed (Christian paradigm) still leaves you necessarly mute, for such does not make Man's ideas about things the Meter Bar in Paris and that is necessarily the case given that Man did not design HIMSELF.


You haven’t justified your ability, as the Un-Designed, to assert that both of our paradigms SHARE something here.

Ron

'Darwinists' don't claim biological organisms were designed. So no, what you said doesn't make sense.

Artefacts (English spelling) are indeed man made. It wasn't a typo it was me being slack.

Scbrownlhrm

Do you never get worried that no one else thinks what you are saying is an actual problem or challenge?

Your post is simply one massive dose of personal incredulity; "I can't understand how biological organisms could be this way without God, therefore God"

And you do know that s metre isn't defined by a bar in Paris?

Mike,

English spelling. Aha.

I tried to reverse what you said to make a point.

I think I succeeded and the point stands.

scbrownlhrm,

I think maybe you misunderstood me.

I was not making a case for my view when I said

When I say 'the purpose/role/function of the eye', I mean that aspect of the eye that you believe it was designed for.

I was just giving, for the sake of clarity alone, a reliable way to understand my use of purpose/role/function applied to an evolved thing.

It's not just my use - it's the standard use as far as I can tell.

It's not ok?

RonH,

If you mean to assert that Un-Designed things (Man) make Designed things, and then, atop that foundation, appeal to Man's (undesigned) psychology in order to "see" design and thereby "argue ya/na" on some particular X being designed or not, then your statement certainly is *not* okay.

So again, you say we SHARE something here, but you haven't shown that we do nor have you shown how your appeal to standard use solves the problem of the unintelligible means in your appeal to undesigned psychology as the meter bar for all things designed.

Mike,

Undesigned things being used as the metric for design, as the "perceiver" of design, is unintelligible.

Perhaps you'd care to justify your belief in that?

Or is Man designed?

On Non-Theism, it (necessarily) cannot be the case that Man's productions are designed.

Think about that and the direct analog to the OP.

Then think of how fatal that is to the Non-Theist should he use Man, or Man's productions, as his Metric anywhere in this arena.

Can Evolution build Designers?

If No: The Non-Theists lose their only metric for design and the Theist finds no one who can rationally contradict his claims of design.

If Yes: The Non-Theist finds his paradigm exploded and the Theist finds no one who can rationally contradict his claims of design.

BTW: "Design" is not, in fact it *necessarily* is not, a synonym for Man's design tendencies. Using our patterns of design is fine and yet it is unavoidable that using our pattern tendencies in our own designs as a truth-finding referent to spy design will, if the Christian has got this right, BOTH overlap and converge with said referent AND diverge and transcend said referent, and it is *necessarily* the case that Man and Worlds cashes out that way.


Given that Man designs, and given that Evolution of the Non-Theist's flavor cannot build Designers, and given that claims of I.D. actually *do* cash out both in overlap and in transcendence, there is no rational reason to affirm Non-Theism, however, there is a plethora of reasons to affirm the Christian's metaphysical paradigm.

If you mean to assert that Un-Designed things (Man) make Designed things, and then, atop that foundation, appeal to Man's (undesigned) psychology in order to "see" design and thereby "argue ya/na" on some particular X being designed or not, then your statement certainly is *not* okay.

Sounds like you're asserting a Law of Conservation of Un-Design:

Un-designed things may neither design nor identify design.

Is that what you mean?

Can Evolution build Designers?

Can Evolution build Designers?

Evidently.

And the designed can build the undesigned as well, as far as I know.

You don't have, between designed and undesigned, the sort of fixed relation you have between greater and lesser.

(There's no need for capitals here, scbrownlhrm.)

Is that a yes? Evolutionary means build design? And also designers? Or is it undesigned designers?

Or what?

Yeah. Call it a yes whatever the question means to you.

The reason for seeking specificity is the question of compatibility. It's not obvious that the Non-Theistic canopy can both deny design and also claim to design designers. The very attempt is irrational when unpacked. The problems there for identifying design become immediately pressing.

However, we know that Man designs. Peculiar affairs from laptops and cell walls to RNA strands and space travel to libraries and still more libraries.

To deny that Man in fact designs is an option, but that move leaves the Non-Theist with no rational means to identify design for one simply cannot identity what does not exist. Not rationally.


Go, go,,go!

E. Feser comments on core flaws inherent to I.D. Theory. That is *not* to take any of the non-circular, rational, and metaphysically coherent Start/Stop points which I.D. enjoys away from I.D. Not at all. Rather, that is to force the Christian to avoid the error of zeroing in on an entirely Man-Centric referent as his truth-finder in spying design within the created order. "Design" is not and in fact it *necessarily* is not a synonym for Man's design tendencies. Using our patterns of design is fine and yet it is unavoidable that using our pattern tendencies in our own designs as a truth-finding referent to spy design will BOTH overlap and converge with said referent AND diverge and transcend said referent, and it is *necessarily* the case that Man and Worlds cashes out that way.


The Christian does not, ought not, needs to avoid, and so on, this: The claim that our own design tendencies are analogous to the famous meter bar in Paris by which and against which all design-referents are measured. Rather, God’s Psychology is that bar. Employing Man’s “designed psychology” rather than God’s Psychology as the truth-metric on design is to make the fatal error of defining reality and terms from contingency upward rather than from The Necessary downward. The “why” there has to do with avoiding the same self-negating error of circular logic (and other vectors of unintelligibility) which the Non-Theist suffers from in this arena, as alluded to in the comment here time-stamped “Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 08, 2015 at 07:18 AM


The Christian does not look at God’s Psychology and Man’s Psychology and then attempt to equate them and call “that overlap” the Start/Stop referent for I.D. but too often that is the impression left. One of the Non-Theist’s mistakes is making the (wrong) assumption that such is what the Christian is asserting in his claims of design. It isn't. An X may be designed vis-à-vis the patterns which obtain in Man's Psychology. But, we all know that [that referent] has no coherent way to claim design / un-design but for the fact of being designed itself.


But them, that troublesome business of being designed “itself” then forces the Christian’s hand, and in fact it forces everybody’s hand, to the inescapable reality that there must be design outside of and external to both the Non-Theist’s [Un-Designed-Man] and the Christian’s [Designed Man] by which and against which we measure, detect, describe, and thus claim “design”. That is of course assuming design exists, which the Non-Theist cannot (rationally) do, and which the Christian can (rationally) do. But this limits the Christian just as it limits the Non-Theist in that our own design tendencies and preferences necessarily – at some ontological seam somewhere – give-way to that which must travel outside of, distal to, said tendencies. In fact, we find that to even know what design is or can be we (Man) necessarily must possess the (designed) function to look outside of himself for his ultimate explanatory terminus (a term I’ve plagiarized from Brad B. and others).


So the Feser link is intended to balance the I.D. posture, to force it to accommodate the “Part” which it is often missing in what seems like from afar (we know it isn’t) the move to make our own design patterns the end-all and be-all of I.D. claims. That is to say, the Feser link is to acknowledge that using our (Man’s) patterns of design as a truth-finder referent to spy design is rational and proper, and yet, vis-à-vis Feser, and Being Itself, and so on, it is unavoidable that using our pattern tendencies in our own designs as a truth-finding referent to spy design will BOTH overlap and converge with said referent AND diverge and transcend said referent, and it is *necessarily* the case that the peculiar affair of “Man and Worlds” cashes out that way. In short, I.D. needs to be more “complete” and “stop stopping too soon”. It is “both/and” and metaphysically speaking that is unavoidable both for the Non-Theist (hence his unintelligibility) and for the Christian (hence the seamlessness of his T.O.E.’s reach).


Man's Mind being designed, and, that Man in fact designs, and, that design exists period, finds the Transcendent necessary pressing in upon all such ontological landscapes, and, well…… well then what? Well then Man *can* (rationally) say that this X or that X may in fact be designed via the criteria of his own design preferences because those preferences themselves are rationally amalgamated with the proper and necessary means for such ends. But what that does NOT grant is that Man's design preferences and tendencies “ARE” the Meter Bar by which to make ALL such claims. And in fact that is just the way the world happens to present itself to us. Man being designed (Christian paradigm) does, also, leave the Non-Theist necessarily mute, for, the Christian paradigm does not, in fact cannot, rationally assign Man's design patterns and tendencies the role of the famous meter bar in Paris by which and against which all claims of design either live or die. The Christian need never pull up short, need never cut off his presuppositions prior to, or "distal to" (whatever that means) one's own ultimate explanatory terminus. For the Christian paradigm such obtains in and by the many and varied contours of the Divine Mind, the many and varied contours of Pure Actuality.

More!

What do you mean that you 'know how it will turn out'?

In other words, how do you know how it will turn out.

What kind of super-genius do you have?

Black magic.

That is, who cares?

Does it change the nature of the algorithm?

BTW, Bayes theorem favors Evo over ID given the fossil record only if the prior probability of both are about the same.

I think the prior probability of ID is much higher than Evo.

Now what?

BTW, Bayes theorem favors Evo over ID given the fossil record only if the prior probability of both are about the same.

No.

The fossil record is evidence for evolution regardless of your priors.

Posterior probability of evolution =
Prior probability of evolution * OddsRatio

Odds ratio = (probability of the fossil record given evolution) / (probability of the fossil record given design)

Since the OddsRatio > 1 (see previous post), then

Posterior probability of evolution > Prior probability of evolution

And that's what 'evidence' means.

WL,

I asked what kind of super genius you are and you said

... who cares?

Are you a super genius at antenna theory?

Can you run the program in your head?

If you are one of these you will be planning, whereas the other guy will not.

"Odds ratio = (probability of the fossil record given evolution) / (probability of the fossil record given design)"


Define design. Rationally.


The probability of design seems to equal, by all accountants seated at the table, 100%

"Define design. Rationally."

Thats what ive been getting someone who supports id to do all thread. Good to see you backing me up :)

"The probability of design seems to equal, by all accountants seated at the table, 100%"

Not sure this is correct - can you showing your working?

Mike,

Define design.

Give us an example.

Mike,

Also, earlier I asked you to justify your (irrational) beliefs that un-designed things are designed and that un-designed things pump out designed things.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe in that, and, also, give us an example of design.

There is no state of affairs, none at all, which the Non-Theist will not happily and speedily annihilate should God be found casually and seamlessly awaiting reason in said state of affairs.

"I asked you to justify your (irrational) beliefs that un-designed things are designed and that un-designed things pump out designed things"

This is getting to be comedy.

Where did I claim undesigned things are designed?!

The evidence points to our understanding that biological organisms evolved rather than being designed by some unseen/un-named (pfffft) Intelligent Designer.

"also, give us an example of design" Again, comedy - Im not claiming biological organisms were designed!!!!

"There is no state of affairs, none at all, which the Non-Theist will not happily and speedily annihilate should God be found casually and seamlessly awaiting reason in said state of affairs" Wibble.

"Mike,

Define design.

Give us an example."

I dont need to - Im not claiming biological organisms are designed.

Why ON EARTH do you think this is my responsibility?

Mike,

Is there anything at all on planet Earth that is designed? Trees? Rocks? Man? Insects? Latops? Cars? Water?


[The answer on Non-Theism is obvious. Only, the reason for seeking clarification is the Non-Theist's tendency to hedge and equivocate.]

The comments to this entry are closed.