Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

How is ID anything but creative storytelling?

You’ll never know, if you don’t read Denton’s book.

@T_aquaticus

Show us the step by step process by which the human eye emerged.

Totally unnecessary for ID theory. I don’t need to know how the Great Pyramid was built to be 100% sure it was designed.

@T_aquaticus

Darwin pointed out that there were eyes with fewer parts, and they worked. Not only that, but the gradation of eyes followed a tree like pattern in the case of crustaceans, just as we would expect from evolution.

But none of that amounts to a demonstration. It’s simply a set of suggestions. As an argument, it’s weak. At best it’s an outline for a research program. You seemed to be presenting it as some kind of great argument. That’s what I was resisting. As speculation, as a sketchy hypothesis, it’s fine. But Denton’s reasoning in his book is much tighter, and based on much more empirical knowledge of detail than Darwin could possibly have had. You still would discount it all though, so strong is your anti-teleological orthodoxy. You will always read any and all evidence through your non-teleological filters, and therefore it will never count as evidence. You’ll just toss out your cliche of “personal incredulity” and declare yourself the victor.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

Wrong.

No, I’m right. I characterized the biologists’ reaction to ID exactly. Regardless of the strength or weakness of any particular ID argument, atheist biologists must deny the possibility of design inferences (or their atheist world view is at risk), and TEs (almost all of them) say that design inferences are possible in philosophy and theology but not in science. So they still want ID excluded from biology. There might be a few rare instances of exceptions among the TEs, but I know of not a single one currently teaching in any biology department.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Regardless of the strength or weakness of any particular ID argument, atheist biologists must deny the possibility of design inferences (or their atheist world view is at risk), and TEs (almost all of them) say that design inferences are possible in philosophy and theology but not in science.

Wrong. Quit whining.

It’s about evidence. It’s about advancing hypotheses that make clear, empirical predictions. You have neither, just endless handwaving.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

But Denton’s reasoning in his book is much tighter, and based on much more empirical knowledge of detail than Darwin could possibly have had.

So present the evidence without the handwaving.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

You’ll never know, if you don’t read Denton’s book.

You read it, and you still can’t say how ID is not storytelling.

@Eddie

Totally unnecessary for ID theory.

Lol. Another irony meter explodes.

@Eddie

But none of that amounts to a demonstration. It’s simply a set of suggestions.

A set of examples is all that is needed to counter the argument that all of the pieces of the human eye have to be in place in order to have a functioning eye.

@Eddie

But Denton’s reasoning in his book is much tighter, and based on much more empirical knowledge of detail than Darwin could possibly have had. You still would discount it all though, so strong is your anti-teleological orthodoxy. You will always read any and all evidence through your non-teleological filters, and therefore it will never count as evidence. You’ll just toss out your cliche of “personal incredulity” and declare yourself the victor.

If Denton’s reasoning isn’t even worth your time to explain it, then it must not be that great.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

A set of examples is all that is needed to counter the argument that all of the pieces of the human eye have to be in place in order to have a functioning eye.

But that is not what I claimed, or what Denton claims. Of course there can be eyes without all the pieces of a human eye. Snail eyes, bird eyes, etc. And there can be less efficient eyes that still help somewhat. None of those considerations in themselves invalidate all design arguments regarding the eye. But you refuse to read the detailed arguments about the eye, which I don’t have time to reproduce, so the only conclusion I can come to is that you fear that some design arguments might be valid, and therefore want to avoid confronting them. You must not have the confidence in Darwin’s answer that you boast of having.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

None of those considerations in themselves invalidate all design arguments regarding the eye.

What would?

@Eddie

But you refuse to read the detailed arguments about the eye, which I don’t have time to reproduce, so the only conclusion I can come to is that you fear that some design arguments might be valid, and therefore want to avoid confronting them.

The only fear I see is on your side. You are afraid that Denton’s arguments will be torn apart once they are presented.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

You are afraid that Denton’s arguments will be torn apart once they are presented.

Not at all. I know you are not capable of tearing them apart, except on the grounds of entirely unreasonable methodological restrictions which I reject.

@T_aquaticus

What would?

That’s your intellectual problem, not mine. You are the person determined to destroy design inferences forever. So go ahead and do it, if you can.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

Not at all. I know you are not capable of tearing them apart, except on the grounds of entirely unreasonable methodological restrictions which I reject.

Then present the arguments.

@Eddie

That’s your intellectual problem, not mine. You are the person determined to destroy design inferences forever. So go ahead and do it, if you can.

I can’t read your mind. What evidence would YOU need to see in order to conclude that ID has been falsified?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Then present the arguments.

They only work as a cumulative argument. I explained that, but you seem hard of hearing. So what you are asking me to do is retype a 400-page book in my own words, at my own cost, while you pay nothing for my labor. I will refrain from uttering the two-word phrase that people usually utter when such a selfish and impertinent demand is made on them by someone who is basically too lazy to do research work for himself.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

So what you are asking me to do is retype a 400-page book in my own words, at my own cost, while you pay nothing for my labor.

Isn’t that what you are asking me to do?

[Timothy_Horton]

@IDC excuse maker

They only work as a cumulative argument.

Must be a pretty poor argument if it can’t even be summarize it in a short paragraph or two. Some IDCers are just too lazy to do any work to support their outrageous claims.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

They only work as a cumulative argument.

So it’s just a lot of handwaving that would only impress someone with a contempt for evidence.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Isn’t that what you are asking me to do?

No, first of all because it would take you only 1/5th or even 1/10th of the time to read the book that it would take me to summarize it in writing, and second because I couldn’t care less whether or not you read Denton’s book. If you don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Don’t put yourself to the time and effort. I won’t complain. But you asked me why I found design arguments persuasive. I cited his book as an example of a line of argument I find persuasive. I did not undertake to demonstrate to you that Denton was correct. I thought that if you wanted to find out whether I was right to be persuaded, you would read the book yourself, or at least part of it. I am sure your salary is much higher than mine (that is as close to a rational certainty as any purely factual claim can be), and if I can afford Denton’s book, then so can you. Or you could borrow it from a public library, if you don’t want to spend the money.

I picked that book rather than certain other ID books because it completely accepts macroevolution from molecules to man, and because it affirms no supernatural causes between the Big Bang and man. I thought you would be more likely to be open to a book like that, which shared some of your non-negotiable premises, than you would to some other books that argue for design which did not accept those premises. I thus did everything I could to offer you a reading which would meet you halfway, or more than halfway, which differed from your own account of origins very little except for its argument for design.

But you showed no interest in reading such a book. You asked me to take isolated snippets out of it, and present them to you. I told you that the argument of the book was cumulative and that I did not want to spoil Denton’s intentions by “quarrying” bits and pieces out of it for your analysis. I told you that in order to properly represent his argument without distortion, I would have to reproduce huge chunks of the book, or the whole thing, and I did not have time to do that. You will not trust my intellectual judgment on this, and you will not accept my decision. You keep pressing me to reverse it. That is the situation.

Now, will you perform a respectful dialogical action, and say, “I will not press you any longer to summarize the book or reproduce its arguments. Nor will I keep making digging comments about why you don’t do so. I will simply accede to your wishes and drop the subject of the reading of Denton’s book”? Are you capable of this? And if not, shouldn’t you be, on a site called PEACEFUL science? It certainly is not conducive to PEACE between us for you to keep asking me to do something that I’ve told you I don’t want to do, and keep heaping blame on me for not wanting to do it.

I ask you this because I believe that you, unlike certain scientists and fake scientists here, are capable of mature adult action. I have high regard for you in many respects. Can you please do me this courtesy?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mercer

So it’s just a lot of handwaving that would only impress someone with a contempt for evidence.

Pretty much. Denton’s Nature’s Destiny came out in 1998, over twenty years ago. The whole book is basically Denton’s version of the long discredited anthropomorphic principle, that the universe and all its physical laws and parameters were specifically intelligently designed to produce we “special” humans.

Here’s a good review of the book and its flaws.

Book Review: Michael J. Denton. 1998. Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.

The book created not even a ripple in scientific circles and is rarely mentioned anymore except by fanatical IDC fanboys with a religious axe to grind. Funny that such conclusive evidence for ID has been virtually ignored by the entire scientific community.

[Timothy_Horton]

I think from now on when we get arrogant yet clueless ID-Creationists trying to argue their case by merely going “READ THIS BOOK!!” ad nauseum we respond to them in kind with this

Evolution 4th Edition by Douglas J. Futuyma

OK all you ID-Creationists just READ THIS BOOK and Evolutionary Theory is conclusively verified.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

No, first of all because it would take you only 1/5th or even 1/10th of the time to read the book that it would take me to summarize it in writing, and second because I couldn’t care less whether or not you read Denton’s book. If you don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Don’t put yourself to the time and effort. I won’t complain. But you asked me why I found design arguments persuasive. I cited his book as an example of a line of argument I find persuasive.

In response, I asked you what the argument was and why you found it persuasive, and that seems to be where the discussion got hung up.

@Eddie

I picked that book rather than certain other ID books because it completely accepts macroevolution from molecules to man, and because it affirms no supernatural causes between the Big Bang and man. I thought you would be more likely to be open to a book like that, which shared some of your non-negotiable premises, than you would to some other books that argue for design which did not accept those premises. I thus did everything I could to offer you a reading which would meet you halfway, or more than halfway, which differed from your own account of origins very little except for its argument for design.

If you have evidence for supernatural events I am completely open to it.

@Eddie

But you showed no interest in reading such a book. You asked me to take isolated snippets out of it, and present them to you. I told you that the argument of the book was cumulative and that I did not want to spoil Denton’s intentions by “quarrying” bits and pieces out of it for your analysis. I told you that in order to properly represent his argument without distortion, I would have to reproduce huge chunks of the book, or the whole thing, and I did not have time to do that. You will not trust my intellectual judgment on this, and you will not accept my decision. You keep pressing me to reverse it. That is the situation.

You also stated that I am “afraid of the truth”, and other such nonsense. Respect goes both ways.

I don’t expect you to faithfully expound on the details of Denton’s book. All I was asking for is a discussion of the main points. I also wouldn’t expect you to read a 400 page book in order to illustrate one of the points I am trying to make. If this is just a reading recommendation, then great. However, I hope you understand why people can be skeptical if someone requires the reading of a 400 page book in order to make a point.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

You also stated that I am “afraid of the truth”, and other such nonsense. Respect goes both ways.

I made that inference as a sort of tit-for-tat, since you appeared to have made similar unflattering inference about my motivation. We both should be rise above this sort of thing.

@T_aquaticus

If this is just a reading recommendation, then great.

It’s a reading recommendation for those whose burning question is: “What books have helped to persuade Eddie of the validity of design arguments?”

I don’t expect anyone here to accept that the arguments of the book are valid based on my say-so. I would hope they would read the book and make up their own minds, as I did.

I am persuaded, not by every single sub-argument in the book, but by the overall drift of the book.

Again, the book argues for a form of front-loaded design, design which runs through the universe at all levels (physical, chemical, geological, biological, anthropological). It sees the evolutionary unfolding of the universe as every bit as designed as the output of an automated factory. There is design but no intervention. If people are interested in origins questions, they will naturally want to compare such a view with materialist views (no design, no intervention) and “tinkering” theistic views (design plus intervention). Even if one ends up disagreeing with it, I can’t think of a better book-length statement of a “front-loaded” position. There be better ones, but I don’t know of them. Hence I always recommend it for that reason. And also because it does not rely at any point on arguments from the Bible or revelation, which shows that design arguments are separable from creationist religious commitments. And that’s not merely strategic, because Denton is not himself a Christian.

I honestly think you would like it much better than any book by any other DI Fellow. I expect you would still disagree with it, but you might like it just enough to grant that maybe 5% of his argument for design is moderately persuasive. But I can’t predict which 5% that will be, and I don’t have time to float trial balloons to try to narrow it down. If you ever get around to reading all or part of it, let me know what you think. No hurry.

Now I hope we can let this rest.

[Patrick]

Biological Science is neutral on the existence/non-existence of God. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. Science is done by scientists who adhere to MN to do their research as such biologists are just biologists and are not divided into theistic biologists and atheistic biologists.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I entirely argree @Patrick.