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

[Paul_Nelson1 (Paul Nelson)]

Dear Bill,

Yet more evidence that any time I spend at Peaceful Science would be time lost FOREVER.

I hope you are well and enjoying your August,

Yours as always,

Paul

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Seeing as we have yet to see any evidence, I think it’s a bit early to say that no imaginable amount of evidence could convince anyone. I’m readily convinceable.

Based on what you said in the rest of your post, I doubt it. We seem to disagree on the meaning of “evidence,” so this discussion will go nowhere. As normal human beings (including some of the most educated human beings who have ever lived, from Plato through Newton to the 19th and 20th century biologists who inspired Denton) have used the word “evidence”, Denton has provided plenty of evidence. And it’s evidence derived from decades of “empirical inquiry” by practitioners in all the physical and life sciences. But I don’t propose to wrangle over the meaning of “evidence” here. You can believe what you wish. I now exit this page, but will continue at the other two pages I started.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Eddie

We seem to disagree on the meaning of “evidence,” so this discussion will go nowhere.

That may be. But if the “evidence” of which you speak is actually “evidence” in the ordinary sense, then we should see further evidence developed and hypotheses tested thereon, and then the evidence should mount. My strong suspicion, based upon what I have seen, is that the ball will stay just where it is, and that that should be taken as a sign that these things, whether regarded as “evidence” or not, are not very useful in judging the matter.

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

In any case, it’s clear from responses here that no amount of evidence would ever sway anyone. One biologist here admitted that he thought it wouldn’t strengthen the argument for design one bit whether Denton came up with a hundred “anthropocentric coincidences”, or with ten billion of them, because any number of such coincidences, no matter how large, can either be explained away by an undesigned infinite multiverse, or negated by the consideration that since we don’t know how many logically possible universes there are, we can’t say how improbable it is that one universe would contain so many billion coincidences (i.e., we have no denominator to go with our numerator), and so the astounding fitness of the universe for human life proves nothing, and not only proves nothing but doesn’t even count for evidence for anything. So why bother presenting evidence?

I think you very much fail to understand the situation. Postulating an ad hoc designer with ad hoc capabilities and ad hoc motivations is not a good explanation for anything. The multiverse - while not a very satisfying explanation - is less ad hoc, at the very least. The problem is not that the “other side” cannot be convinced by evidence - the problem is that the other side has a less bad explanation for the evidence,

If you want solid evidence, looking at areas which are poorly understood is not a great idea in the first place. Simply finding anthropoid coincidences was never going to be a good argument in itself.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

I’m done replying on this page, but if @Faizal_Ali and others want to comment on the new “definitions” page – answering the question asked there rather than trying to change the topic – I will read what is posted.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Paul_King

If you want solid evidence, looking at areas which are poorly understood is not a great idea in the first place.

Which is not what Denton does. And now I exit.

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

Which is not what Denton does. And now I exit.

From your description it is exactly what Denton is doing, We do not understand how the universe formed or why it has the properties it has,

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

For my money, Nature’s Destiny and the multi-volume series on fine-tuning by Denton constitute, though not a “proof” of design, a very strong case for it, one that stands completely independent of any religious commitments or premises, and any reasonable person who did not have prior prejudice would admit that he has provided some evidence (not proof, just evidence) for design in nature.

Denton tells stories. In order for the coincidences he sees to amount to evidence, one needs to know that they are really coincidences fantastic enough to be singular and special. For example, the coincidental roles that such and such an element plays in life isn’t really a coincidence if life is abundant in the universe, if the chemical paths to life are many and varied, and if life itself far transcends “life as we know it”. There are so many unknowns in all of these matters that Denton cannot really say anything definitive or empirical about the coincidences he thinks he sees.

Denton tells stories. @Eddie, if you consider stories to be evidence, as you seem to be implying, I believe we have identified a key difference in approaches to understanding.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

Well put, @Art .

Our talent for speculative interpretation of things is an important part of inquiry into the way the world is, but it’s never the end of the matter. “Stories” are important because in fitting stories to what we know, we can help ourselves think of the questions we need to examine. But they are not the answers to those questions.

There are parts of Meyer’s The Return of the God Hypothesis which, though they are very poorly reasoned, I would have no real objection to if Meyer simply told the truth: that what he is doing is non-scientific speculation about unknown things, with no idea how to test whether his speculations are right. Nothing wrong with that; we all do it in some arena or other. But it is not the “hypothesis” his book promises, and it is not science.

[John_Harshman]

If you have any respect for Bill and his arguments, you correspondingly reduce my respect for you. Just saying.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

In any case, it’s clear from responses here that no amount of evidence would ever sway anyone.

I don’t see how that’s clear, since ID offers little evidence (or often faked evidence).

@Eddie

One biologist here admitted that he thought it wouldn’t strengthen the argument for design one bit whether Denton came up with…

@Eddie

…Denton has provided plenty of evidence. And it’s evidence derived from decades of “empirical inquiry” by practitioners in all the physical and life sciences.

I asked you to cite the specific evidence Denton allegedly provided that you found convincing. You couldn’t do it. That pretty much says it all.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Mercer

I asked you to cite the specific evidence Denton allegedly provided that you found convincing. You couldn’t do it. That pretty much says it all.

The lecture below will give you an idea of the sort of drivel that @Eddie thinks is an intellectual argument for “Design”. Much of it could have come from Ken Ham, if not Ray Comfort. It’s pretty close to “Consider the banana!” At one point he even apologizes for referring to a time scale of millions of years, saying he was just quoting something said by an “evolultionist” without endorsing the figure himself.

In case you were wondering why “Eddie” is so circumspect about describing any of Denton’s arguments in detail…

The Fitness of Nature for Mankind featuring Biologist Michael Denton

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

I’ll have to take back some earlier comments.

Denton really is a creationist.

[Tim]

@Paul_Nelson1

Yet more evidence that any time I spend at Peaceful Science would be time lost FOREVER.

You might find the time you spend here a bit more productive, if you used it to do anything beyond the occasional bit of gratuitous drive-by trolling. Just saying.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

Jumpin’ Flamin’ cowpies. That is barking mad. His essays have seemed quite insane to me, but they do not hold a candle to this.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Paul_Nelson1

Yet more evidence that any time I spend at Peaceful Science would be time lost FOREVER.

Don’t you think that a few days spent here might have prevented you from going ahead with your ontogenetic depth debacle?

Ontogenetic depth

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Art

Denton tells stories. @Eddie, if you consider stories to be evidence, as you seem to be implying, I believe we have identified a key difference in approaches to understanding.

When it comes to telling stories, Darwin and his follower evolutionists are quite good also.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I would never claim that the “designer,” whatever force or entity that might be, was beyond the scope of investigation – it is obvious that upon discovery of design, the identity and nature of its designer would be the first and most important of all tasks.

I agree that “upon discovery of design” the identity and nature of the designer would be a logical and vital follow-up question, but given that the opponents of ID don’t admit that there is any design, there is no point in going into that deeper (philosophical and theological as much as scientific) investigation.

So the IDers are avoiding investigating the designer because their opponents don’t agree that there is a designer. Even though there are about 100 fellows in the DI, not including all their fans and followers, they’re refusing to discuss the nature of the designer amongst themselves.

This is a completely unbelievable excuse. It would, however, make sense if they all think the “designer” is God so don’t need to identify him, and refuse to discuss him because it would blow their cover.

It would be akin to arguing about who the murderer of a dead man was, when everyone else in the room thinks there was no murderer because the man died of natural causes.

1. The DI is not one person.
2. In such a scenario the person who thinks it was a murder would still be gathering evidence and trying to identify the murderer.

This is a common trope in detective thrillers. Hot Fuzz is an excellent example.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Faizal_Ali

Again, I think you misunderstand. The reason the claims of the ID proponents are rejected is because those claims are so blatantly false that either abject dishonesty or rank incompetence are the only possible explanations.

Their manifest lack of even the slightest curiosity regarding the nature of the “designer” whose existence they claim to have demonstrated, OTOH, is simply evidence that the ID’ers are not merely incompetent scientists, but bald faced liars when they claim to be acting as scientists at all.

You said it better than I did.

A consequence though, is that some-one who never looks at the science would never know just how bad the IDers’ claims are, so might not draw the same conclusions.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Roy

This is a completely unbelievable excuse. It would, however, make sense if they all think the “designer” is God so don’t need to identify him, and refuse to discuss him because it would blow their cover.

The reason can be found by reading the Wedge Document. The DI’s end goal is not to have their ideas accepted and integrated into science. Rather, it is to overthrow the methodologically naturalistic paradigm that currently dominates our thinking. That is to say, to have our civilization run by a belief that true knowledge is not obtained solely by observing, thinking about, and experimenting on our world. True knowledge must be revealed to us by God, and can be obtained no other way.

So if the identity and nature of the “designer” could be determined thru science, this would undermine their core objective.

@Roy

This is a common trope in detective thrillers. Hot Fuzz is an excellent example.

ISWYDT