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

"Was your house foozled? Yes or no?"

You are utterly snookered.

Im not claiming anything was "intelligently 'designed'/'foozled'" or anything else

ID is.

Your go.

Still wondering what you mean by "design".

You are the one who's claiming that primates do it all the time.

"'m not interested in intelligent anything.

I want to know what you mean when you say primates design things.

Do you know?"

What do IDers say when they say that primates design things? Or dont you know?

One assumes they know because they extend that primate activity away from artefacts to the rest of the world.

Correct me if Im worng - feel free.

Is it that you don't know?

Or is it that you are afraid to answer?

"One assumes they know because they extend that primate activity away from artefacts to the rest of the world."

What primate activity is that?

"Still wondering what you mean by "design".

You are the one who's claiming that primates do it all the time."

So do IDers

What do they mean by design?

"What primate activity is that?"

Design - the same design ID recognises and says goddun on biological organisms

But not snowflakes. lol

I'm not talking to an IDer, and I don't care how they define the term...let's pretend that they don't know.

You've made a claim. It includes the term "design".

What does it mean?

Do.you.know?

"I'm not talking to an IDer, and I don't care how they define the term...let's pretend that they don't know"

No, its entirely relevant how an IDer claims design because they are the ones taking that and applying it away from artefacts to the rest of the world.

Stop trying to push the burden of evidence onto me.

The device you are using to post these messages - was that designed? Yes or no will do?

If you wont answer that, how can IDers claim that biological organisms were designed?

WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT IT?

"let's pretend that they don't know"

This is a comical claim - they have to be able to say what design is or they couldnt claim tom recognise it elsewhere.

Utter tripe.

Mike,

If you were talking to an archeologist, and they mentioned a designed artifact, what would you think they were talking about?

Would they be as lost as you? Earlier you were bolstering their knowledge and credentials. You told us we need to go talk to them. Surely they wouldn't be as lost as you - so what would they say?

Would they turnaround and ask you to define it first? If so, that seems pretty stupid. You know, not being able to define key words in your trade and all.

If you don't know, perhaps you need to talk to them too.

(HINT: No ID as part of the conversation here)

Mike simply either does not know what design is or does not want to say what design is.

I think that is now well established.

He also hasn't noticed that by his own rules, the burden is on him in our conversation. He's the one making the claim that primates design things, but he won't say what he means.

"WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT IT?"

I WANT IT THE WAY WHERE YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY PRIMATES DESIGN THINGS?

Are we done shouting?

Did you want to answer?

"Stop trying to push the burden of evidence onto me."

I don't need to push it on you. You're the one claiming that primates design things.

But we're talking right now about neither burden of proof, nor burden of evidence.

I'm not asking you to prove that primates design things.

I'm not asking you to overcome evidence that suggests that they didn't.

I'm simply asking you what on God's good earth you even mean?

"The device you are using to post these messages - was that designed? Yes or no will do?"

The device you are using to post these messages - was that foozled? Yes or no will do?

Ex(Px & Qx)????

A simple yes or no will do.


scbrownlhrm,

comments#/4/page/comments/true-be-both-evolution-and-design-intelligent-can/11/2015/weblog/com.typepad.str//:http :at more See - .is terminus explanatory ultimate your whatever or ,motion in particle of continuum seamless and singular your in purpose us Show .Rationaly .designers undesigned of composed universe a in belief your Justify

mrof-tnemmoc#d079b722d980bb102e96ab2d15438d00a6=dic?/4/egap/stnemmoc/eurt-eb-htob-noitulove-dna-ngised-tnegilletni-nac/11/5102/golbew/moc.dapepyt.rts//:ptth :ta erom eeS - .flesruoy gnissarrabme er'uoY .esoprup rof seitreporp lacisyhp gnitalfnoc diova esaelP

I think WisdomLover made the point back on the first page that Mike was sawing off the branch he sits on and yet since he is shy of navel gazing, he doesn't get the point...of course he doesn't get scbrownlhrm making efforts to have him reason his own worldview through to shine light into the space where foundations should be...not willing to go there though.

Mike here is the latest in a long line of priests of the religious cult Scientism. The seminary training indoctrinates them to believe that they are subservient to none in the university and that philosophical constraints shouldn't stop the production of professors wrangling for financial support.

One would think that knowing how to make a rational case for the production of a scientific endeavor would be deemed not only helpful but necessary. Not so for the modern scientist or their poor students. Gaining headlines is the goal...it's like having free advertising to sell what ever they are selling.

Mike, being the true believer doesn't care for philosophy and it shows when he cannot even recognize that the theory he claims has tonnes of evidence for uses the same form as ID.

He goes further though by equating what is known about evolution to be on the same footing as what is known about gravity. The effects of gravity can be observed, tested, falsified etc...by induction. Evolution has not been observed, tested, nor falsified...it is a theory carried along by the imaginations of the faithful via abduction.

ID also uses the "inference to the best explanation" aka abduction, but ID has much more explanatory power in the realm of biological inquiry. RM+NS is not capable of explaining how complex organism came to be when they are shown to be more complex than anything produced by mankind. One human brain does more computational work than all of the computers ever built combined. Intelligent beings have no problem recognizing intelligence...that is until like Mike, the 6s* method is usually employed against examples of ID and anything else that challenges materialism.

*6s method...scientism’s self serving selective super skepticism.

KWM

"Would they be as lost as you?"

Imj not lost - why do you think I am?

Is that the thing here - just claim people have got things waaaaay wrong and dont say why?

"Mike simply either does not know what design is or does not want to say what design is.

I think that is now well established."

Think about why you are claiming this.

Now let me fix this for you:

"Intelligent Design simply either does not know what design is or does not want to say what design is.

I think that is now well established."

Because this stuff cuts both ways.

""The device you are using to post these messages - was that designed? Yes or no will do?"

The device you are using to post these messages - was that foozled? Yes or no will do?""

This is hilarious! Talk about sawing off the branch you are say on. You are doing a wonderful job of showing why ID is incorrect.

Bceuase if you cant say whether your device was designed because thats a tricky concept, then how can ID claim that biological organisms were designed?

Wonderful

"Mike here is the latest in a long line of priests of the religious cult Scientism."

Nope.

More unsupported accusations.

"Mike, being the true believer doesn't care for philosophy" No-one has shown why its relevant - I definitely dont care for schlborown philosophistrybabble

"he cannot even recognize that the theory he claims has tonnes of evidence for uses the same form as ID" - feel free to show working and justify this statement. Thanks

"He goes further though by equating what is known about evolution to be on the same footing as what is known about gravity"

Well they are both theories. Actually we know more about evolution than we do gravity.

"Evolution has not been observed, tested, nor falsified" That evolution hasnt been falsified is precisely why its so successful and useful - its a really good description of what we observe.

And actually it has been observed and tested so that claim is a load of old rubbish. I can link you to numerous scientifc papers that you wont read if you are too lazy to actually go and look the evidence up for yourself.

"ID has much more explanatory power in the realm of biological inquiry"

Justify that statement. "Goddunit" is not a useful explanation at all and as I showed earlier, the failure of ID is laid bare in the wedge document.

"RM+NS is not capable of explaining how complex organism came to be when they are shown to be more complex than anything produced by mankind"

Strawman - this just exposes how weak your knowledge of evolution is and the basic issue here - this is just one large exercise in trying to satisfy personal incredulity.

Read this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
You might learn something.

I know you wont - you know all the answers already.

KWM, Brad B, WisdomLover,


Again -- sorry for my part in the prior clutter. I was mistakenly hopeful.


A few points of interest:


If you research "emergentism" it is inescapable and is forced upon all of us, both Non-Theist and Theist / Christian. The only question at hand is whether or not it can survive. It’s the Non-Theist’s only mechanism to bring his two disparate boxes (evolution / design) into one coherent T.O.E. without annihilating all intelligibility in his (actual) claims.


It’s funny how Design is now the Golden Prize which the Non-Theist is (irrationally) scrambling to obtain and yet he makes the attempt by committing all the fallacious moves which he wrongly accuses the Christian of making – the stuff of “well it looks like the sun moves around us so it must be true”. The Christian, of course, has done the tedious sand difficult work of digging past – in fact way, way past – “appearances” in his (actual) truth predicates where design and metaphysical accounting are concerned. Our Non-Theist friends here – not so much.


The Christian doesn't need “emergentism” at any level and, as it turns out, the Christian, driven by the incontrovertible weight of evidence within the physical sciences combined with the force of reason and logic, simply rejects it.


However, you'll find in the Non-Theist camp two, and only two, responses. Those who, on blind faith, cling to emergentism in their attempt to attain design, and, those who allow science and reason to do their proper work and hence reject emergentism and thereby forfeit design of any intelligible form. The first sort: The kind we see in this thread – who don't ask questions and just blindly believe that it "just must be" because of "appearances", such that, say, the sun truly does revolve around the Earth – because appearances. It’s not worth hoping against hope that this sort will do the difficult and tedious work of digging past appearances, as the Christian has painstakingly done for centuries. This thread is a good demonstration of such. The second sort: These are the more heady types of both Old and New-Atheists who, of late, see where the road of emergentism ends once forced to answer to the physical sciences and to reason, and, thusly forced, they (like the Christian) simply reject emergentism vis-à-vis various forms and flavors and gradations of eliminative metaphysics as both science and reason force their hand. Indeed, “……when physics disposed of purposes it did so for biology as well……


Some Non-Theists, and this is very odd, seeing the light of science and reason, and presupposing that it just can’t be Christianity, move over into a very amorphous mix of pseudo-pantheism disjointedly immersed in a vague and non-descript pseudo-pan-psychism and somehow try to make that “work”.


So we have, it seems, [1] Blind and irrational faith in emergentism and [2] The rejection of emergentism (Christians and the growing ocean of both Old and New Atheists) and [3] Odd pseudo-pseudo mixes clinging to just everything under the sun – else delusion or else god or else God or else, well, or else who-knows-what.


That second type of both Old and New Atheists is growing in numbers which is a breath of fresh intellectual air in these dissections as they too, like the Christian, embrace one’s paradigmatic means and ends with the necessary level of poised honesty one must have in truth-finding. Ultimately speaking, it does not appear, on Non-Theism, that anything ever is actually designed in any intelligible sense that any of us would ever recognize in any possible world simply because nothing can be designed. Literally. When physics disposes of purposes, and thus of design in any intelligible form, and it does thusly dispose, it does so for biology as well. Those pesky "ultimate explanatory termini" (which our Non-Theist friends here tirelessly evade) carry us into the physical sciences and into reason and into logic – and thereby force everybody’s hand.

Mike,
On a purely naturalistic worldview, I can see why the evolutionary paradigm would be the reigning explanation on the origin of life.
You provided one possible explanation for the absence of the many transitional forms we'd expect to see. Another explanation could simply be that they don't exist, because whales, coyotes, goats, flowers, Streptococci, and humans don't share a common ancestor.
Can a case be made for evolution? Sure! But I think that it's also valid to conclude from what we know that it's reasonable to reject that paradigm.
Among the reasons I don't see the evolutionary model as consistent with my worldview is that God created humans in His image as distinct from animals, plants, and microbes, which has huge implications for our lives.

Daniel,

God didn't create "Man" out of dirt. He created a body out of dirt. If you miss that then you suffer all of the Non-Theist's unintelligible pains of irrationally *equating* Person / Mind / the Self / Volition / Design / Designers / Etc. to *Material*. Man is more than his Mind, just as Mind is more than Matetial.

You don't loose the Imago Dei in or by any topic, any at all, the Non-Theist can raise.

Be careful on your terms, starting points, and end points.

Dirt-To-Man can be in nano-seconds or in trillions of years. "Rate" is simply irrelevant.

In short, the Christian is content wherever the physical facts happen to land.

I agree with the weaknesses you point out in claims, but you're mistaken to think that it can ever touch the Imago Dei.

Daniel,

To clarify:

On the Imago Dei:

Neither [1] Turning the dial labeled "rate" to *any* slice of time nor [2] corporeal (bodily) ancestry, have any impact on that which is the Imago Dei simply because said image/form (literally) cannot be equated to, found in, constituted of, material.

Looks like Mike got into the liquor cabinet last night.

Again, Mike:

What would an archaeologist say design is?

Do you know?

Design?

What-da?

……when physics disposed of purposes it did so for biology as well……

Emergentism: A fairytale no longer in vogue. Its origins are unclear, but it was once told to children in times of duress in order to calm their nerves.


Hi Mike, I've been to that Berkeley site...probably your recommendation then too...thing is, that you dont know of any ID proponents that are not Christian is testimony that you are not familiar with ID. Spend a little time at Uncommon Descent and you'll see Christian and non-Christian ID proponents.

"Actually we know more about evolution than we do gravity."

Ha! That made me laugh. True believer indeed. If we got into what is meant by evolution by you,[and that would be a rabbit trail] then we will really see some philowibble-wobble and the dispensing of rules of inference building elaborate structures...on nothing at all...no solid foundational reasoning to constrain the imagianation. Just so stories...apparently good enough to fool a pope, and maybe an archbishop or two also.

"The sword cuts both ways"

And right now, Mike, it's cutting you to shreds.

I do not need to throw in with the ID argument and right now, I'm not.

But if you want to make claims like this:

  1. Primates design things
  2. ID appropriates the concept of design as it applies to a primate activity and applies it to other things in the world.
You should be able to explain what you mean. Do you think it is up to Michael Behe to tell me what you mean when you say these things?

[1] There are un-designed things in motion

[2] Watch the motions of un-designed things

[3] Count those motions as design


That is what our Non-Theists friends have offered in their unpacking of what *they* mean by "design".

What is controversial about the claim "primates design things"?

What is up for 'debate' is whether biological organisms were/are designed.

Therefore its up to ID to say what design is in tghat context. That's what cutting you to shreds.
Because - one more time - if detecting design is tricky, period, then ID is not even out of the blocks.

Classic creationist burden of evidence shift. Its your job, not mine. So why dont you do it?

KWM

"Again, Mike:

What would a proponent of Intelligent Design say design is?

Do you know?"

FIFY

Zero

This is what proponents of Intelligent Design have offered in their unpacking of what *they* mean by "design"

Right back at you scbrownlhrm.

It's an unavoidable conclusion:


While I.D. and Christian metaphysical claims mean something categorically different than the following, the following is the only data which the Non-Theist has employed in this thread to define what *they* mean by design:


[1] There are un-designed things in motion
[2] Watch the motions of un-designed things
[3] Count those motions as design


There's just been nothing more substantive than that offered up so far by our Non-Theist friends.


Here's hoping.

What would a proponent of Intelligent Design say design is?

He would say it's always the result of planning.

Like the NASA folks planned.

Pretty cool.

That sort of planning-of-evolution may or not be what happened but it shows that design and material stuff satisfy Dirt-To-Man cohesively in such a format.

Whereas, un-designed motions can never, at all, ever, "plan".

The Non-Theist's inability to define Man or The Adamic by something other than material, and, his inability to commit to actual, ontic-evil in the suffering of tooth and claw typically get him all confused at this juncture.

If Evil, then God.

If God, then Eden.

If Eden, then Possible Worlds.

If Possible Worlds, then Man as only the Christian paradigm seamlessly finds him.

Well...

That is to say that where Plantinga ushers in the EAAN, others usher in the EAAE, Evil's Argument Against Evolution.

(Real evil, not the fictitious eliminative delusions of the Non-Theist's paradigm.)

KWM, Brad B., WisdomLover,


The following 5 Step Process is how our Non-Theist friends define design:


The Non-Theist fails to see his disparate boxes, evolution and design, sitting there, necessarily isolated from one another.

He mistakes our interests and goals. We're satisfied that the Non-Theist cannot make any rational claim to design, anywhere, ever.

We're not here to defend design. We know it exists. "Actually". And we know we have the categorical means to transpose such into time and physicality. We're not here to cash that out.

Rather, our interest in this thread (which the Non-Theist misses entirely) is to educate him on his irrational thinking as he attempts to (irrationally) claim design.

Let’s unpack this a bit further:

Step 1: We have what is actually in motion in the universe, the substrate at hand, and that is (according to Non-Theists) this: “un-designed things in motion” to get this grand show going.

Full stop.

Now, that takes us to the next “step”, which is this:

Step 2:

While I.D. and Christian metaphysical claims mean something categorically different than the following, the following is the only data which the Non-Theist has employed in this thread to define what *they* mean by design to get us past, beyond, step #1:

[1] There are un-designed things in motion

[2] Watch the motions of un-designed things

[3] Count those motions as design

Okay. So far, combining step 1 and step 2, we have what our Non-Theists friends have offered in their unpacking of what *they* mean by "design". Fortunately, there is more that the Non-Theist offers us:

Step 3:

Non-Theists also claims the following, adding it to the first two steps:

Scientism needs more than an explanation of this or that particular adaptation -- white fur in polar bears or the fact that bottom-dwelling fish have both eyes on the side of their bodies facing away from the bottom. We need an explanation of how, starting from zero adaptations, any adaptation at all ever comes about. The explanation we need can’t start with even a tiny amount of adaptation already present. Furthermore, the explanation can’t help itself to anything but physics. We can’t even leave room for “stupid design,” let alone “intelligent design,” to creep in. If scientism needs a first slight adaptation, it surrenders to design. It gives up the claim that the physical facts (none of which is an adaptation) fix all the other facts. (Rosenberg)

If one is not careful, one misses the nuance. The reason that Rosenberg and Non-Theists in general make this move in step #3 is because of the constraints forced upon them in step #2. Nothing is designed. That is to say, there is no purpose, there is no function, there is no goal, there is no teleology, there are no final causes. Indeed: “When physics disposed of purpose (and physics annihilates purpose) it did so for biology as well.”

Step 4:

We take the first three steps, add them up, and we get this: [#1 + #2 + #3] = Man

Then we go to the next step.

Step 5:

We take the un-designed motions inside the un-designed skulls of the un-designed product of step #4 and we also take the un-designed motions of the un-designed product from step #4 and we pile all of those un-designed motions into a box, and we affix a label onto that box which is full of un-designed motions and we write on that label so that it reads thusly: “[ D-E-S-I-G-N ]


scbrownlhrm,

Like the NASA folks planned.

They planned/designed a computer program to simulate evolution.

They didn't design the antennas that evolved when they ran the program.

Nor did they design the robots that evolved when they ran another version of the same program.

I made this point earlier.

Did you miss it?

Yes, and now, if we want an antenna to bubble up in the pond, we know we can make it happen. We have the technology now. Just take the program and the substrates and get-er-done. You know, click the replay button in the real world. We *did* get our antenna you know. Heck, if this is too hard for you then we can settle for reverse engineering, sort of. We can even set it up so that should someone else jump into that pond, against our advice, well they'll get to that end too, so to speak.

Think about that.

Admit it.

We *did* get our antenna. The program *did* calculate using *actual* real world variables that are *actually* reproducible and *did* find the "path" from A over to B such that we *can* say that given the necessary and sufficient variables of [....], "this" becomes "that".

Or is it all unaware of the variables? Is it trying to start from gibberish, from u47jvdy7 rather than from "ionic bond X", so to speak?

It's a rhetorical question.

We know the answer.


"What is controversial about the claim "primates design things"?"

What does this question even mean?

Mike-

The charitable reading of your words is that you really don't have any idea what design is. When you say "primates design things" you actually don't know what you are talking about.

The uncharitable reading is that you have a theory about what design is. But you are afraid to bring it forward for one of two reasons:

  1. You fear that ID will straightforwardly show that natural entities, e.g. the inside of a cell, are designed.
  2. You are fully aware that your definition is defective, excluding as designed things that manifestly are designed...e.g. cave paintings.
I'm not sure which of those three possibilities is your story, but you've given zero reason to think its not one of them.

RonH,

The primary issue in the NASA analog is in the capacity to comment on design as a reality *period*. The move to eliminate design carries through. To the whole show.

But design exists. As Rosenberg comments, any design, any adaptation, from stupid to intelligent, ruins his paradigm.

Debating on "Is it here or is it there" and on "Is it the way I would do it or some other way" and on degrees and so on all end up as second tier concerns.

If design is anywhere, to any degree at all, we run up against something that cannot carry us to any end that is less than the whole show and which must in fact be more than the particular show in question.

NASA and evolutionary simulator data cannot salvage the Non-Theist's capacity to speak on design as the referent of nondesign ultimately disolves all such attempts.

But the NASA format *does* inform us on the need to careful about appearances. It proves that designers can engineer given a known set of variables. Given X upstream, Y arrives on scene downstream.

[1] The fact that X is not directly touched simply fails to reach a threshold which permits one to comment on design, and the reason is that, as always, there is no referent.

[2] The data permits us to, eventually, engineer and reverse engineer using known variable sets. In the NASA items the variables are plugged in. The program is told what they are. Then, given X upstream, Y arrives downstream. Design and Evolution.

And, again, it's back to the fundamental problem about the universe: design exists. Like a laptop, say.

That simple fact reduces all debates about *location* and about *degree* to the category of second tier concerns.

Because it is either no design at all in a universe such as ours, or else the slightest degree in the smallest location fills the whole show with what it cannot contain.

¡Oפ 'Oפ 'Oפ ¡ǝɹoɯ

'ɯɹɥluʍoɹqɔs

(: ¡sǝʎǝ ʎɯ ƃuᴉʇɹnɥ ǝɹ,no⅄ ¡doʇS ¡ʎǝH

Ⓑⓤⓣ Ⓘ ⓕⓔⓔⓛ ⓑⓔⓣⓣⓔⓡ ⓝⓞⓦ :) . . M̴̧̛̩̟̼̳̯̳̦̃̐̈́̔̈̅͆͜͟u̵̢̡̢͓̭̜͎̳̰͂́͐̀͟͠ç̛̰̠̮̲͚̭͚̤̝̾̅̔̾̃͒̒͆h͎͕̞̫̽͛͋͗͋̚͜ b̢̨͍̱̰͖̰͗̌̄̆̉̆̂͢͝͞ḙ̸̛͓̩̦̬̐̔̋͐͝t̘̲̰͚͍̻̫̮̹̾̀͆͟͡͞t̷̜̖͖̱͙̼̦̗̀͑͌̔̏̀̊͌͢͠ė͎̳̻̮̤̜͑̔̃̋̕͜͠͞r̵̻̪̬̪̞̥͓͖̈́̓̌̿͒̋͊̒͜͠ͅ,̷̧͓̝͔̦͂͗͋̈͘ ĩ̴̧̡͈̜̤̗̮̺͈̐̅͌͗̕n͓̜͍̲̣̩̅̅͒́̇̕̚ f̻̬͍̦̺͛͌͛̎̓͊̏͟ă̯̺̬̺̦͛͛͑̓̚͢c̸̘͓̹̜̐̋̾̏̌̎́͑͘ͅt͎̣̪̣̠̭̹́̈̆̐͞ͅ :̧̩̜͉̰͚͎̞̈͋͌͗̾̓̓̎̐ͅ)̴̦̥̯͖͍̩̞̮͎͒͆̌̈́̅̐̓̃͛ . .

The comments to this entry are closed.