Re: My View of God

On Oct 19, 9:31 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 18, 12:46 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

Behe does not mean to use "nature" in opposition to "deliberate." He
clearly means nature as opposed to that which is non-testable,
non-natural.

I don't think so.  I think Behe uses the term "natural", as in non-
intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated
within nature.  

It wouldn't follow then that he would need to talk about "design-
beyond-laws." Intelligent activity is not beyond natural laws, non-
natural agency is.

And, even if you were right, it doesn't matter when it
comes to my point here - i.e., that the very same basis for detecting
ID used by SETI scientists, in particular, could also be applied to
detect ID in other materials besides radiosignals - to include
biosystems.

If I do not have to account for the inclusion of non-testable, non-
falsifiable, non-natural agency in the list of possible id (small i,
small d) candidates, then I don't suppose there is any reason that
such a thing shouldn't be possible.

You forget that you're supposed to be arguing against me here, not
someone else.

I'll admit that it is news to me that you are not presenting yourself
in defense of what we all have come to know as ID. I'll reconsider some
of my evaluations of your ideas in that light.

I would, however, like to make a few observations. First, don't you
think it would avoid confusion if from here on you did not use the
labels "ID" or "Intelligent design" when presenting your theories?
Perhaps, since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to
non-natural phenomena, you might henceforth refer to yourself as a
cryptozoologist. Admittedly this still leaves you occupying territory
of a fringe nature, but not nearly so kooky as ID.

A cryptozoologist or CZ is a form of ID - as is the search for ETI or
anthropology or forensics.  All of these searches are all essentially
based on the same basic idea or basis for the search.  But, if another
label will help you understand my position better, despite my
extensive descriptions of what I'm talking about, that's fine with
me.

A CZ is not necessarily (or ever?) looking for intelligence, they're
trying to find evidence to support a preconceived idea. The reasons
such a label better applies to what you're doing (and also why
anthropology or forensics do not) are,
a. - The phenomena of interest to CZs are not inaccessible to the
scientific method in principle (unlike ID), though they often may be
in practice (see b.)
b. - Though CZs may begin with a falsifiable hypothesis, in most cases
when their "evidence" is debunked or found to be lacking in quality or
quantity, they do not relinquish the hypothesis. In other words, it's
not that the hypothesis is untestable (as is the case with ID), they
are simply unwilling to meet appropriate testing standards.

As I see it, your position seems quite similar to that of a CZ. If you
are being up front about accepting scientific methodology (and the
resultant constraints on inference) then I can accept that your
hypothesis is testable. Unlike archeologists or forensic scientists,
however, your history suggests you are unwilling to accept what the
bulk of evidence, and professional consensus, suggest are obvious and
warranted conclusions.

This doesn't mean you are wrong, of course, just that if you are right
it is for non-scientific reasons. Some fringe dissenters have, in the
past, been redeemed by new discoveries, but that doesn't mean that
those who based their opinions on the available evidence (if
incomplete) should have borne any dialectical or evidential
obligations. If you're going to occupy the fringe, it's up to you to
support your claims.

Also, since you claim to recognize the priority of scientific
methodology for the investigation of nature, how do you reconcile this
with your continued dismissal of common descent - an observation
supported by reams of literature -  in favor of common design - a
non-falsifiable explanation?

The hypothesis isn't that common design could be the explanation, but
that common design is the only viable explanation.  This hypothesis is
falsifiable via a demonstration that common descent is actually viable
to explain not only the NHP of the Tree of Life, but the functional
differences of the Tree of Life in light of a recently-formed
catastrophic geologic and fossil record.

That's not falsifiability, that's just a convoluted argument from
incredulity grafted onto an argument from ignorance - "I propose (X)
is responsible, and my only evidence is that you haven't proved
otherwise to my satisfaction." It doesn't matter how much verbiage you
add as window dressing, it's still fallacious rhetoric.

Clearly, someone who claims to accept scientific methodology should
also recognize that the incredulity of a single individual (even
himself) means little compared to aggregate evaluation and wisdom.
Your profession of accord with science rings incredibly hollow when
any shred of objectivity is easily blown away by fealty to religious
absolutes (which is clearly what drives your common design notions).
The scientific evidence for descent is overwhelming, and obvious. On
this subject, your position is far too kooky to even deserve
comparison to cryptozoologists. This is why I am skeptical that my
original evaluation of your ideas as fundamentally non-scientific
requires revision.

Also, please try to be more straightforward with respect to the
differences between scientific and non-scientific "explanation." There
is simply no sense in which common design *explains* anything about
the natural world to any kind of scientific standard. As a religious
explanation it may be handy after a fashion, but there is no way to
demonstrate any methodologically tenable connection between natural
observations and unobserved, untested, undescribed designing agency.
For any rationally useful value of "explain," common design does not
suffice as an empirical explanation for anything at all.

Beyond this, the theory of common descent does not explain the
underlying mechanism responsible for the functional differences. In
other words, it does not, by itself, falsify my basic ID (or CZ as you
put it) theory.

It would if your theory was falsifiable. The fact that you can attach
unevidenced, unobserved agency to any phenomenon you desire doesn't
rescue your credibility here.

The only way to do this is to show that the functional
differences seen in the ToL can be explained by a non-deliberate
natural mechanism - like RM/NS.  Otherwise, the basic argument used by
SETI scientists would also be applicable to argue that certain types
of biosystems can only reasonably be explained by deliberate design.

SETI does not depend upon arguments from incredulity/ignorance, it
depends upon preponderance of evidence in relation to proposed
hypotheses.

 Even leaving aside the extreme imbalance
in empirical evidence, doesn't an inference to common design (of a kind
that might be responsible for the vast interrelated biological
complexity we see in nature) require an understanding well beyond
"basic natural laws and human-level creativity?"

I don't think so. Sure, some aspects of the ToL go well beyond current
technologies. However, there is a clear progression of human
knowledge, creative power, and technology that has already gone well
beyond anything that non-deliberate natural forces can achieve when it
comes to producing and manipulating novel biosystems.  And, we
continue to improve this creative ability of ours at a very dramatic
rate while the creative potential of non-deliberate nature remains
static as far as we can tell.

These are belief statements. They are assumed conclusions offered as
premises. Your only response when pressed on this continued assumption
of that which you hope to prove has been your familiar arguments from
incredulity/ignorance. That tactic does not support your beliefs such
that they may be used as foundational arguments.

Stop offering your wishful thinking as argumentation. I want to see
arguments that support your wishful thinking

And last, if you do indeed intent for your ideas to reflect scientific
methodology, how does whatever understanding you gain from these
methods cohere with your creationism? Surely you realize there is no
justification for *God did it* to be found in methodological naturalism?

Methodological naturalism is just a fancy way of saying that we humans
can't understand or do more than our natural abilities allow. In other
words, we are "natural" and limited by our limited nature in ability
and understanding. This doesn't mean that nothing exist beyond what we
can do or comprehend.  God is not ruled out by science.  It is just
that science, and therefore we humans, cannot fully comprehend the
concept of "God".  That is why science is limited in its potential to
discover new "truths" about the world or universe in which we find
ourselves.  God, if God does exist, must show himself to us in limited
ways that we can actually understand - if indeed that is what God
wants.  And, regardless of our understanding of "God", it will always
be finite and incomplete.

Well, it's hard for me to find fault with any of that, except that
it's mostly beside the point. It's a bit of convenient equivocation
("It's all about how we, with our limited minds, choose to interpret
the data") that appears to be an evasion of the question posed. I
submit that if you cannot address the mechanics of investigation of
cause and effect in the way the question solicits, all you are really
doing is acknowledging that such a coherence is not possible, and
science has no need for, or relevance to, God whatsoever.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just admit that your positions are not
scientific?

RLC (noctiluca)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... if only I could defend it and avoid falsification. ... justification for *God did it* to be found in methodological naturalism? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... That would go beyond the evidence. ... Just because the majority of scientists don't accept what a single ... NATURALISM, not the level of evidence available at the time. ... Have you heard of the God of the gaps fallacy? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... That would go beyond the evidence. ... Just because the majority of scientists don't accept what a single ... NATURALISM, not the level of evidence available at the time. ... Have you heard of the God of the gaps fallacy? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... stack up in such a way that GRADUALISTIC evolution would be supported. ... least amount of evidence. ... Even great scientists such ... NATURALISM, not the level of evidence available at the time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... God violates natural laws. ... So without any evidence whatsoever to support such an opinion, ... break down without a firm footing in methodological naturalism, ... So you would argue that the ability of millions of theistic scientists ...
    (talk.origins)