Re: My View of God

On Oct 19, 10:33 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

I think Behe is talking about laws that specifically cover non-
deliberate natural processes - but it really doesn't matter.

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.

Great . . .

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.

So, my position is indeed potentially scientific - except for the fact
that you think its already been falsified. You just think I'm hanging
onto a falsified theory despite the fact that the counter evidence
against my otherwise valid theory is overwhelming?

You do understand that this is a completely different argument? It is
much different to say that a theory has been falsified vs. saying that
it wasn't ever a valid theory to begin with - even "in principle".

So, lets move on from here. You essentially admit that my theory is
potentially valid, if only I could defend it and avoid falsification.
Ok, I've presented some observations that should be very easily
falsified if the ToL were in fact true. I've asked, for example, for
an observable instance of evolution in action producing a novel system
of function that requires at least 1000aa to work. I've asked why
there are no such examples of evolution in action beyond this level
while they are so numerous and common below this level. What is your
explanation for this simple question?

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.

The mainstream consensus has often been wrong and has overlooking key
problems in the mainstream understanding of a particular phenomenon.
Again, where has my actual hypothesis concerning the proposed
mechanism for the ToL (RM/NS) ever been falsified?

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.

It is also up to you to show that my claims are in fact false - claims
that are easily testable in a falsifiable manner.

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.

Not at all. The CD argument requires enough time for it to work. The
evidence for this goes well beyond the NHP itself.

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.

This is an argument from authority. Such arguments have no explanatory
power. It is basically that if you don't understand something that is
mainstream, the problem is most likely yours and you should take on
the mainstream interpretation even if you still don't understand it.
That's really not very helpful.

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.

That's not true. The common design hypothesis is used all the time in
human situations - like to accuse someone of cheating for example or
to hypothesize that a particular designer produced various
archeological features.

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.

My theory is falsifiable. All you have to do is show me a non-
deliberate mechanism producing novel functional systems beyond the
1000aa threshold level of complexity - or even explain, statisically,
how this could be done short of trillions of years of time.

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.

That's exactly what my theory is based on - a preponderance of the
evidence in relation to the proposed hypothesis. The preponderance of
the evidence shows an exponential decline in observable evolution as
the 1000aa threshold is approached. There simply is no counter
evidence to this very clear observation - an observation that is
overwhelmingly supported by the preponderance of the observed
evidence.

 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.

These are observed facts - not belief statements that are yet to be
fulfilled.

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

I've presented observed facts, not wishful thinking here. You've yet
to tender an explanation for these observations that actually makes
sense when it comes to proposing an adequate mechanism.

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,

Great . . .

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.

Science is very much capable of searching out and demonstrating the
need for very high levels of informational complexity and intelligent
activity that greatly surpass current human levels of information and
technology. I would think that quite "relevant" . . .

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

I've presented an observation of physical reality with a proposed
explanation that involves deliberate intelligent activity. If you say
that such a proposal is inherently non-scientific, you've just done
away with SETI, forensics, anthropology, and all other such "sciences"
in one fell swoop . . .

RLC (noctiluca)

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... ID used by SETI scientists, in particular, could also be applied to ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... Methodological naturalism is just a fancy way of saying that we humans ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Theory of Evolution _is_ falsifiable.
    ... The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), ... underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable. ... postulated to explain nature it is not subject to falsification. ... -did not discover quantum physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Steve Fuller: Science in Gods image
    ... The majority may disagree that natural science is a search for the whole ... truth about nature, but I follow the minority opinion. ... disagree that methodological naturalism has explaned anything. ... evidence to lead to that. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Here is why evolution-defending scientists BLOW SO HARD:
    ... falsification mechanism. ... Big Bang - The universe was created - not 'evolved' ... No, Collin, there is no evidence for it. ... Big Bang disproves evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is 100% falsified
    ... From the Creationist perspective evolution is not true, ... evidence based on a priori rejection of Creator or Creationism-ID. ... The "separate creation" explanation fails due to the evidence of homology, ... The falsification of the Special Creation Hypothesis. ...
    (talk.origins)