You say this, but then you also make statements indicating it’s clear you are interested in the ontological nature of the designer, and have even already made several assumptions about the ontological nature of the designer.
By “ontological nature of the designer”, I mean pertaining to the “true nature” of the designer, as opposed to methodological assumptions about the designer.
To reuse the example I referred to in the post you’re quoting, under the shell model of the atom, one can make detailed statements about the number of shells of a given atom, the number of electrons in each shell, and the energy required to bring an electron from one shell to another, without being comitted to the claim that atoms actually have shells (i.e. the ontological nature of the shell model of the atom).
Or, to use another example closer to home, one can explain the moves of chess computer Deep Blue in its 1997 match against Garry Kasparov with reference to concepts like “intentionality” and “strategy” without comitting oneself to the ontological claim that Deep Blue was aware that it was playing chess.
In saying that I’m not interested in the ontological nature of the designers, I’m not saying I can’t make certain methodological assumptions about them, merely that I’m not comitting myself to the claim that those methodological assumptions correspond to the ontological “true nature” of the designers.
I don’t see how that makes any difference. In the cases I quoted, you’re making clear ontological assumptions about the true nature of the designer.
How about you just put forward a scientific theory of ID creationism, explain how it can be validated or falsified, and demonstrate how it is validated through successful predictions and persistent resistance to falsification?
But start codons are not analogous.
Wouldn’t the use of analogous start codons make just as much sense? How do you explain their senseless (in the context of design) absence? The evidence and evolutionary theory do so.
They aren’t intended as ontological statements.
Consider the statement “Oxygen has six electrons in its outer shell”. Is it an ontological statement? Well, it might be, spoken by someone who really believes the atom is a nucleus surrounded by shells. Or it might be spoken by someone trying to pedagogically explain the atom, without bogging their listener down with details about energy levels and probability clouds.
In the same way, when I talk about the designers being of human-like intelligence, it’s really a short-hand way of saying “whatever process resulted in life on earth, it acted in such a way as to make its effects best explainable by assuming life on earth was designed by designers of human-like intelligence”.
How about I don’t?
I don’t claim my views are science.
I’m not a creationist.
And, most importantly:
- I’m not demanding that you share my views and therefore have no need to jump through whatever hoops you set up.
@Jonathan_Burke, please keep in mind our forum guidelines:
@Krauze has consistently said that they are agnostic and not a creationist.
When someone says they think “life on earth was designed by designers of human-like intelligence”, but denies that they are a creationist, then I’m going to say they’re playing with words. Sure they might not be a religious creationist, but they’re still asserting creationist origin to life on earth. I would need to see evidence that it’s not possible for agnostics to believe that life on earth was created by a non-human intelligence.
See, that’s not hard. Double points if you can turn it into a question that invites dialog rather than just issuing a terse dismissal.
I too am curious how @Krauze distinguishes between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Is it based on the presumption of a deity?
So now I’m allowed to call him a creationist? Could it be that what happened here is that you assumed I was saying he was denying he was a Christian?
I invited dialogue by asking him to present evidence for his claims. Ironically, I was met with terse dismissal (“How about I don’t?”). He doesn’t want dialogue.
I’m saying that @Krauze has consistently identified as “ID but not creationist”. It’s an unusual position but we need to give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s not to say you can’t ask for clarification or probe for consistency, but it should be for understanding and not dismissal.
You missed the subsequent 3 points of clarification that @Krauze made right after your selective quote:
That should give you plenty to discuss, @Krauze has a very unusual take on origins.
Krauze is welcome to claim that their view that life was created by a non-human intelligence doesn’t constitute creationism, but they need to understand not everyone is going to see it that way. I don’t see it that way, and I’m going to make that clear.
No I didn’t. They’re simply his justifications for rejecting dialogue. They are not comments saying “Let’s discuss these issues, I want to discuss this with you, let’s have a conversation, I want some dialogue on this”. Krauze flat out refused to discuss the issue at all.
Apparently not, because he’s refusing discussion. Just look at his response; do you see any discussion there? Any dialogue? No. A terse dismissal.
This is why I don’t see the Peaceful Science approach as very useful. It looks like this.
“Yeah some of us think evolution is a fact, but we acknowledge maybe it isn’t a fact, and if you don’t think it’s a fact that’s an entirely valid view of equal worth”
“Yeah some of us believe gay people should have the same civil rights as others, [although I haven’t seen any Peaceful Science representatives actually say this yet] but we also acknowledge that maybe they shouldn’t, and if you think they shouldn’t that’s an entirely valid view of equal worth”
“Yeah some of us believe AGW is a fact, [though I think I have seen only two Peaceful Science representatives actually say this] but we also acknowledge that maybe it isn’t a fact, and if you think it isn’t a fact that’s an entirely valid view of equal worth”
“Yeah some of us believe the earth is very old, but we also acknowledge that it might be very young, and if you think it’s very young that’s an entirely valid view of equal worth”
Biologos has its issues, but one thing they do better than Peaceful Science is take the science seriously. Peaceful Science is more about theology, putting the science aside and saying “You don’t have to accept the science if you don’t want to, so let’s look at how we can preserve your theology and prevent it being affected by the science”.
I realise it might not look like that to you, but that’s how it looks to me.
Hey… we aren’t going to add Gay Rights, Abortion and whatever else to the “Devil May Care” attitude around here, are we? I once saw a movie called “The Dogs of War!”… I thought it was going to be a Shakespearean re-make…
I suppose you could say it was … if you mean a remake of HAMLET!
It didn’t turn out so good for anyone around those war dogs… nor so good for the dogs themselves.
SO MUCH could be resolved with decorum and dignity if we just had a sound-proof discussion area:
As a reminder to those who worry about what I mean by a sound-proof discussion area:
It is not locked; anyone can enter the area.
It is sound-proof in the sense that the only way to know which threads are active is to enter that section (much like BioLogos had a Home School section that was not “audible” to the main forum, but anyone could visit the Home School section if they wanted.
There would be a much looser concept of moderation and guidelines for what was acceptable protocol in the sound-proof room.
4) As soon as a thread in the main area started to drift into:
A. Hey Atheist, prove evolution could do this without a god?
B. Hey I.D. proponent, how can science prove God?
…the thread could be moved to the sound-proof area without any molestation of the discussion.
Creationism is commonly defined as a rejection of evolution and as an adherence to a scriptual account of creation:
- the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
- (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
- the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
My position, in which I tentatively infer intelligent design at the origin of life, and in which I see all life on earth as having evolved from one or a few forms (the grand view of life, as expressed in the final paragraph of The Origin of Species) is explicitly pro-evolution, and I don’t see it as conforming to any scriptual view of life.
Of course, one can always construct one’s own definition of creationism, in which suggesting even the smallest whiff of design is enough to label one a creationist. Such a definition, however, doesn’t correspond to how most people would use the word, and seems destined to create more heat than light.
Let’s consider the context: You resurrect a long-abandoned thread about the standard genetic code and universal common ancestry and demand that I put forward my scientific theory of creationism. I don’t have a scientific theory of creationism. I don’t claim to have a scientific theory of creationism. So apart from correcting your misunderstandings, what dialogue is it you expect me to engage in?
Now, I’m perfectly willing to discuss my views and the reasons I hold them, and I have done so several times on here. But when someone barges in, attributes false beliefs to me, and produces a list of demands of what I should do, my desire to walk that extra mile takes a nose-dive.
Are you truly interested in engaging in a dialogue concerning my views? Then why don’t you start by asking me about my views, instead of assuming that you know what they are?
PS. I’m a “he”. No need for “they”.
(Note: @Jordan is quoting someone else, but my comment is about the relevance of that quote).
Are you suggesting that creationism should be considered nefarious?
No, not at all, creationism had nothing to do with it. My point of warning was because @Krauze specifically said he was not a creationist and @Jonathan_Burke replied with “Yeah right.”, and considering his history at PS, I wanted the conversation to avoid going down the road of “you’re just trying to hide that you are a creationist”, which would be attributing nefarious motives.
I think the problem was in the rather indirect way of attributing Intelligent Design. Most people who get kind of fancy and nuanced about intelligent design are usually trying to obscure a Creationist tendency.
I endorse 100% evolutionary processes, guided/ruled/decided by God.
For some creationists, it doesn’t even compute that God could intentionally use Evolutionary processes in order to create and shape life on Earth.
I don’t know about God, but it makes sense to me that designers would want to use evolutionary processes, for at least two reasons:
First, evolution makes your designs more robust (or rather antifragile, to borrow a page from philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book of the same name). Life is unpredictable, and your designs will be faced by all sorts of challenges. Instead of trying to anticipate each and every challenge and equipping your designs with the means to handle them all, by employing evolution you give your designs the ability to improvise and adapt to challenges as they arise.
Second, evolution may be required to bring about complex megastructure organisms like animals. Think about the most complex megastructures humans have designed: Cities, the internet, the economy, etc. None of them arose ready-made, like Athena from the head of Zeus. They all arose in a stepwise organic fashion, intelligently evolved if you will. As the Soviet Union learned when it tried to centrally plan the economy, some things may require a more evolutionary process.
Maybe do a bit more than a hasty Google, copying the first definition you find. The word is used in a far broader context than this. There’s this whole thing called evolutionary creationism, there’s ID creationism, and there are other models of creationism. There’s even “life on earth was created by extraterrestrial beings”, as in Raëlism and similar movements. It isn’t true that creationism necessarily requires rejection of evolution, or “adherence to a scriptural account of creation” (whatever that means).
You make a claim and I request evidence for it. You characterize my request as a “demand”, and refuse to present any evidence.
Do you have a scientific theory of your view of the origin of life on earth?
I haven’t seen you correct me yet. I made it clear what kind of dialogue I wanted you to engage in. You promptly refused.
Well I gave you an opportunity to do that, and you refused.
By “barges in” you mean “made a post in a thread”. It’s a discussion forum. Making posts in threads is what we do here. By “attributes false beliefs to me” you mean “described my beliefs accurately, but used a word I don’t like associated with them”. By “produces a list of demands of what I should do”, you mean “requested evidence for the view I was arguing for”.
Now I have asked you directly the questions I want to know about your views, specifically the evidence supporting them. If you’re not prepared to discuss your views further, and especially if you’re not prepared to provide any evidence for them, then yeah this won’t go any further I guess.
How would we falsify this hypothesis? It looks to me that design and natural evolution are indistinguishable from one another. Unless you can point to evidence that could only be due to design, then parsimony would favor natural evolution as the cause.
Technology didn’t evolve through the same mechanisms. Human designs tend to be top down while biological evolution is bottom up. We create designs that we like, and then figure out how to make them work. Evolution starts with what works.
There shouldn’t be much objection to saying God used evolution to create us all, especially when one isn’t attacking evolutionary science to make this point.