Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski

On Apr 3, 5:48 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 3, 4:25 pm, JohnStockwell<john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





No, that's just a smoke screen. No one claims that naturalism can't
detect the input of an intelligent being. What I and everyone else
is pointing out is that ascribing "intelligence" to some supernatural
being doesn't make it any more scientific. Intelligence itself is
useless without some kind of mechanism acting through some kind of
natural means.

False. SETI scientists don't actually have to have direct knowledge
about how their proposed designer produce the radio signal in
question. All they have to show is how it could have been designed by
at least a human level intelligence while being well beyond the realm
of any known non-deliberate force of nature. You see, if the
intelligent agent was in fact "supernatural" (whatever that means),
such an agent could mimic the methodologies of a "natural" human-level
intelligence so as to be detected or detectable by humans.

The SETI guys use human manufactured signals as a model
for ET signals, because we are the only example of intelligence
that they have.

That's what I'm doing as well. We humans can manufacture biological
sequences - functional ones. We do so all the time - and at very high
levels of functional complexity that go far beyond anything known to
be produced by mindless nature - even given trillions of years of time
given a bit of a look into the statistics of the problem.

Bald assertion unsupported by scientific evidence.





They are not engaging in the same sort of argument
from ignorance that is the ID methodology.

The arguments for the detection of ID are the same for SETI scientists
as I'm using to support my position. There is no fundamental
difference. The argument can be universally applied to all physical
materials.

Nope. In the ID world, everything that isn't understood is a "signal".



In short, it really doesn't matter who or what the intelligent agent
is. The fact that certain types of phenomena clearly require the
input of higher level intelligence of some kind is all that is at
issue here. The actual nature of the intelligence is simply not
relevant to my basic ID theory.

Actually, noting is relevant to your ID "theory" because it is a
high-tech argument from ignorance. So, when are you going
to try to publish that? I would be interested in seeing what the
reviewers say.

Have you read the first few posts of this thread?

Then you have tried to publish your material? It would be interesting
if you put scanned copies of the reviewer comments up on
the web to read.




SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


-John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ...   ... at least a human level intelligence while being well beyond the realm ... of any known non-deliberate force of nature. ... The arguments for the detection of ID are the same for SETI scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Humans and Nature (part 1)
    ... Nature Civilization vs. ... Humans and Nature ... intellectuals or super humans inside this nature system. ... because humans are one of the least constituents ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Humans and Nature (part 1)
    ... Nature Civilization vs. ... Humans and Nature ... intellectuals or super humans inside this nature system. ... because humans are one of the least constituents ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Humans and Nature (part 1)
    ... Nature Civilization vs. ... Humans and Nature ... intellectuals or super humans inside this nature system. ... because humans are one of the least constituents ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Chez Wat: "If DNA is created, so is life"
    ... find me the test tube in nature that does what you say humans are ... you seem to be saying that, since humans can make lightening in the ... No. Non-deliberate nature can produce certain types of DNA and ... intelligent design - that's how. ...
    (talk.origins)