Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

This, from the guy who lectures me on my conversational manners.

I’ll admit to criticising some of your worst behaviour, but I don’t have to be perfect to do that.

@Eddie

There you go again – “than you wanted.” Mind-reading again. I have no wants on this subject. I don’t want the earth to be the only planet with intelligent life, and I don’t want there to be many planets with intelligent life.

Nevertheless you strongly argue that it must be very unlikely to find a planet suitable for the appearance of intelligent life - but without any real knowledge. The inference is really rather obvious and does not require any “mind reading”.

@Eddie

In any case, you’re looking down the wrong end of the pipe by trying to guess the deeper motives of a designer.

That’s missing the point again. The point is that to get a better argument you need to elevate the designer hypothesis to a point where it is not just ad hoc assumptions.

@Eddie

That’s not what design inferences are about, as ID folks have made clear.

I’ll agree that, ID is not about producing a theory to replace evolution. Because to do that they would have to base it on predicting what the designer would do, not looking at what is and assuming that the designer did it. Indeed a purely ad hoc designer is not even a good basis for design inferences.

@Eddie

I don’t have to know that the Pyramids were built as tombs for Pharaohs to know they are designed objects. If I know they are built as tombs, then I could predict that the number of Pyramids would not exceed the number of Pharaohs. But if I don’t know that, and therefore can’t predict the number of Pyramids there will be, that doesn’t make my design inference any less correct.

However we have candidate designers and we have a good deal of knowledge of their capabilities and the materials they used - and where they obtained them. The idea that the pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians is not purely ad hoc. Far from it. I don’t choose motives because they are essential knowledge I choose them because they are at least potentially accessible when we have no independent knowledge of a candidate designer and are usable to make predictions. So your objection is quite misplaced.

@Eddie

This isn’t about particular faults of Denton’s video in particular; it’s about a general rejection of arguments of the type Denton advances, which long predated Denton. Atheists and materialists all have the same general rejection.

And the reason for the rejection is the weakness of the argument. If anyone is at fault there it is those who support the “fine tuning” argument but refuse to do anything to strengthen it.

@Eddie

Then I can infer the motives of the atheists here from their fervent defenses. You can’t have it both ways – though doubtless, like Puck, you will try.

Even if the “fervent defences” exist only in your imagination?

@Eddie

There was nothing “nasty” in the words to which you are responding

I would say that an accusation of hypocrisy - even an implicit one - based on something that never occurred is nasty. Apparently you don’t agree. Though I seem to remember you objecting to a far milder statement on my part.