Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller

On Jun 30, 7:24 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:50 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 30, 12:56 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

As you know full well, many known murders never get solved regarding
who, why, or sometimes even how - even though their deliberate nature
is obvious. Again, such knowledge simply isn't needed in order to
adequately propose and detect deliberate artifact.

yes, it is. we cannot say with any confidence that a bullet wound is
the result of intelligence unless we know that intelligent agents
shoot guns.

If non-intelligent processes also shot guns or produced similar holes
in people, on occasion, you wouldn't be able to detect deliberate
artifact in such a situation. Therefore, the real limiting factor in
determining deliberate artifact is not the range of what intelligent
agents can do (that range is just about infinite), but is based on
what non-intelligent processes cannot do - to a reasonable degree of
certainty.

For example, say I found a body that had a very sharp smooth highly
symmetrical T-shaped cut in his chest and the heart cut sharply into
four equal pieces. The artifactual nature of this scene would be
quite obvious even before the actual identity of the murder, motive,
or method were determined. How so? Because humans are capable of such
a feat? Nope. Humans are capable of just about anything. What is
really important to know here is that no known non-deliberate process
comes remotely close to being able to produce such a pattern of
injury. That's the main reason why artifact would be so obvious in
this hypothetical situation.

nonsense. your scenario rests on the assumption that we know the
limits of non-deliberate processes. if we took your word for it, we
would have to believe in el chupacabra as well.

it also still falls into the pit of being based on things we know
humans can do. contrary to your assertion, humans are NOT capable of
"just about anything."

Deliberate design is indeed theorectically capable of just about
anything - especially when it comes to alien intelligence and
technology which might reasonably surpass our own by a good bit - if
intelligent aliens actually exist that is . . .

I'm actually surprised to hear you make this argument in any case.
Especially since it is so commonly used in this forum by those in the
evolutionist camp - "Design explains everything . . . and therefore
nothing". Ever hear that one before? It's actually true.


Richard Lewontin:

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is
hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down
in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by
practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first
rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least
possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the
theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal
logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations,
irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are
going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might
as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not
exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of
evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited
characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space
and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of
offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be
falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created
the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is
existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental
factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can
one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove
natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The
theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather
than scientific. ***Natural selection explains nothing because it
explains everything.***" "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection"
Nature March 24, 1972 p.181

Ray








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... that nature is purposeless, and that if you think that there is purpose ... There is Francis Galton and his religion of natural selection. ... Whosoever thinks that it just can't be that the majority of scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ...   ... deliberate force of nature", such assumption is false. ... I have the very same "theory" as SETI scientists, anthropologists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Removing Lewontins Fallacy From Hamiltons Rule
    ... >>> required to break Hamilton's fitness tautology. ... verified or refuted within nature. ... gene centric argument that "genes use organisms to replicate genes" which is ... >> Also, natural selection does not care about causation, only ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Common evolutionist myths
    ... now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. ... no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve ... Everything in nature is the result of fixed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
    ... >>quite deliberate. ... differential reproductive success" you gloss over a tremendous history. ... a result of "natural" natural selection, in anything near the time the ... this species is now threatened due to the introduction of a fungus, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading