Re: The Case for a Designer


"Nic" <harrisondalen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1174097428.133275.84590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 17 Mar, 01:19, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Nic" <harrisonda...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174014107.436112.233400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15 Mar, 22:33, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SNIP previous....
That is the sketch of the argument. The evidence is mostly common knowlege -
the real question is how the evidence should be interpreted. I will be happy
to furnish cites for details regarding the evidence upon request. But I suspect
that you (Rubystars) will not try to deny any of this evidence. Instead, you
will seek to apply a different interpretation. An interpretation which strikes
you as more in keeping with normal scientific practice. Therefore, I suspect
that much of our argument will deal with philosophy - with rules of interpretation
and how those rules are to be justified. But, of course, that is up to you.

Your move.

Extremely well written piece.

But this is a camel. What is a camel? A horse made by committee. We
have sourceless theistic evolution, weak IDism, and Darwinian
evolution all forged together. ID rejects TEism and TEism rejects ID.
TEism is Darwinian evolution except First Cause is solved. ID rejects
Darwinian evolution and Darwinian evolution rejects ID. You have no
source for this camel; therefore it does not exist.

That would seem to place this position in good company then! Regular
theistic evolution is very popular, but usually (I suspect) not due to
arguments from incredulity (or low probability of naturalistic
mechanisms) about the biology. I suspect TEers are more motivated by
considerations of cosmology.

Concerning the last paragraph:

"An interpretation which strikes you as more in keeping with normal
scientific practice" says the proxy argument is not scientific. No
IDist or Creationist would say this and sacrifice their position as
not scientifically supported.

I agree, but I think it's not so much a reluctance to give away
hostages to fortune as a genuine blindness to what is normal or
abnormal in scientific practice.

"How should the evidence be interpreted?" is the only issue.
Presuppositions answer the question. Since Darwinian evolution
presupposes that a Designer is not responsible for the production of
reality the interpretations are predetermined and quite predictable.
The foundational claim and assertion of ID says the appearance of
design corresponds to the work and intelligence of invisible Designer
and not to an antithesis (= anti-intelligence characteristics of blind
natural selection). Therefore, the ID
interpretation of said evidence (observation of nature) is logical and
the Darwinian interpretation is illogical and counter-intuitive.

I think Perplexed is being a bit more ambitious than the ID movement,
and trying to show that a purely naturalistic approach would indeed
stumble into a designer eventually if there is one there.

Well, in a sense. But only if the purely naturalistic approach remains
open to non-naturalistic explanations of suspicious 'coincidences'.

The situation is somewhat similar to the more theological question of
how to assess the evidenciary value of Bible prophesies as 'proof' of
supernatural sourcing of the Scriptures. You have to consider the
provenance of the prophesy - showing that the prophesy was indeed written
down before the event described. You have to assess the selection biases -
isn't it possible that only the successful prophesies got retained in
the canons? But even with this out of the way, the naturalist always
has the option of invoking chance as an explanation. The prophet just
made a lucky guess. And someone writing, for example, soon after the
fall of Nineveh to the Babylonians would not need a lot of luck to
prophesy correctly that the Babylonians would turn next against Jerusalem,
and be successful in their campaign.

Are you saying that so long as chance is available as the explanation
of last resort, science need never accept anything it doesn't like?
Scientists like to think they are the *only* people prepared to accept
things they don't like;)

I don't think that is what you are saying. I think you are saying
supernatural explanations should be allowed to enter the race, and
stand or fall on their own merits.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I don't object too much to treating
supernatural explanations as second-class citizens, in some sense, and
erecting various discriminations against them (literacy tests and poll
taxes?) but they have to be given a chance to make it to the table.
Otherwise, the scientific establishment is perceived as 'unfair'.

That won't make a lot of sense to
many people, but as you have been quite detailed in explaining what
you mean by supernatural, I don't object. I remarked elsewhere to the
effect that even a supernatural explanation must have an a priori
probability of being true, albeit one we can't estimate.

Certain fortuitous collisions of molecules required for an abiogenesis
event may be of eye-wateringly low probability. All I can say about
Designer intervention is that I don't know the probability. Of
course, as soon as you identify the Designer as someone known in
connection with certain ancient literature, then that probability
becomes eye-wateringly low too - I mean how many possible Bibles could
be written?

The analysis will have to be statistical, in some sense, but there is no
point going through the calculations if the naturalist will always answer
"It HAS to be coincidence. Any other explanation invokes the supernatural,
and as a scientist I refuse to consider that."




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Behe closes the lid on evolution.
    ... Science has discovered the natural explanations, ... not an explanation. ... There is no evidence that any of the history of life or of the ... Scientists tend to assume that every explanation is false and then test ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My (early) New Years Resolution within the T.O forum
    ... "better explanation?" ... Science doesn't attempt to identify "objective truth," whatever that is. ... such criteria as evidence. ... don't cede my judgement to scientists since there are too many ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SAT supports UD; but half of U.S. population is Creationist -
    ... Ray? ... Scientists use theories to help coordinate the interpretation of evidence, but theories can, and do change, if the evidence should indicate. ... In science, if you can show your interpretation explains the evidence better than any other idea, your name will be remember, and fame is your reward. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theory vs. Hypothesis
    ... scientific and layman's terms - an explanation for phenomonen, ... theory specific testable predictinos, or hypotheses...." ... Where a theory is a very well supported (by evidence and ... Some people seem to think that scientists start with an hypothesis (common ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Viewing Evolution In Context
    ... Evolution is the only possible explanation. ... That's the incredulity part. ... ID "scientists' are little better than 10th BC ... do you have some valid evidence? ...
    (talk.origins)