I think he may be talking about Behe’s ‘method’ of baldly asserting that some systems involve a "purposeful arrangement of parts’, so the system must have been designed.
Intelligent Design and common descent are not alternatives.
Ann Gauger - Intelligent Design and Common Descent
I first need to make clear that living things can be the product both of intelligent design and of common descent. If the designer chose to guide the process of gradual change from species to species, that would be both common descent and intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design theory does not require that common descent is false.
It is not a blind assertion. By definition, telekinesis is mental manipulation of objects without physical means. Human minds are not a credible mechanism for production of artifacts.
That is a gibberish category error. From axe head to space shuttle, without exception hands and tools are the mechanism of manufacture. Usually, we can tell exactly how it was manufactured.
It is coherent in a theistic worldview to advance that the mechanism is miracles. Really, given that Intelligent Design rests on the premise that natural causes are inadequate to explain complexity, that leaves only the supernatural anyways. But the ability to perform miracles is not an attribute of mind and is certainly not a test of human minds; rather it is an attribute of a [omnipotent by scholastic arguments] God. As that association violates the prime directive of Intelligent Design, that the identity of the designer is not essential to the “hypothesis”, we are left with this ridiculous pretend.
That “method” isn’t an alternative to common descent. It’s not even a method of determining that there is any alternative to common descent. Bill, as usual, is unable to produce a coherent claim.
Expanding on my earlier comment on @colewd’s demand for “a clear objective definition of the words science and pseudoscience” versus believing ‘definition-by-example’ acceptable for Complexity …
What is and isn’t Science or Pseudoscience would clearly come under the heading of Philosophy of Science, and thus Philosophy for generally. Philosophy is not exactly known for providing rigorous and “clear objective definition[s]” for the subjects it discusses – I’ve yet to see it proffer a clear objective definition of “mind”, “consciousness”, “religion”, or a host of other concepts it regularly deals with.
Definition-by-example is a far lower standard. Such a standard does not allow even ordinal comparisons (‘X is less complex than Y’), let alone cardinal comparisons (‘X has half the complexity of Y’). This may be sufficient if you are discussing Complexity in the context of Philosophy, but is clearly inadequate for the rigors of Science. With such a vague definition of Complexity, you simply cannot objectively ascertain if a given mutation to a given system will increase or decrease information in that system, and so the definition is grossly inadequate for any attempt to dispute that evolution can increase complexity, that purports to be in any way scientific.
This presents more evidence that ID’s arguments are not scientific, and that by purporting to be scientific, they are rendered pseudoscientific.
Belated thanks for that info. I wish more thread starters would use that option.
1 Like
Yep. “Unknown” is a perfectly valid category. That’s why ‘currently unexplained’ <> ‘design’.
As noted many times, IDers need to develop positive models of design. Walter ReMine noted this as did Paul Nelson and Mike Gene, in their days Anti-evolutionary arguments do not make a ‘Design Theory’. At least young earth proposals can make positive hypotheses distinct and independent of current old earth science. They fail because the data doesn’t support most of these hypotheses but at least they had ideas on the table for evaluation. Meanwhile IDers have adopt three separate and very different versions of a thing called ‘Irreducible Complexity’ conflating all, just to save the name.
Similarly, Lee Spetner used multiple, often incompatible definitions of ‘information’ so that he could assert that ‘information’ was always lost over time with natural mechanisms. And when confronted with counter examples of information increases for each of his definitions, Spetner argued that those examples weren’t sufficient at demonstrating the amount of information increase required for the large scale changes proposed for evolution. So ultimately, he fell back on pseudo-scientific assertions rather than addressing the fact that all his definitions didn’t pan out as he initially claimed. This demonstrated that his ‘Spetnerian metrics’ were ultimately specious and irrelevant to his ultimate conclusions.
2 Likes
That wasn’t the point. The point is that, like Michael Behe for example, it’s possible to have both intelligent design and universal common descent at once. It’s separate creation and common descent that are alternatives. Now, most IDers are creationists too, but it’s important to realize that ID and creation are separable ideas. And evidence for the first (if there were any) would not be evidence for the second.
To see a fine example of this incomprehension, look no further than Bill Cole.
1 Like
Without intelligent design common descent is the only alternative. This is a serious problem for science especially if a single starting point is not reality.
Human minds can generate functional arrangements. This is exactly what we are observing in biology. Minds can solve chicken and egg problems that we encounter with biological origins.
We are trying to identify a mechanism powerful enough to explain the observation. Minds, gravity and electro magnetism exist in nature and all can be proposed mechanisms to explain an observation.
Your objection is arbitrary. It is like saying you cannot use gravity to explain objects falling to earth because it explains the orbiting of planets.
Not without a physical mechanism.
Human minds have generated split proteins that are exquisitely sensitive binary ON switches. They use their hands, computers, mobio kits, etc. to make them, not just their minds.
Why do no such split proteins exist in nature?
1 Like
Human minds can think of arrangements. To do the actual arranging, hands and tools are required. This is simple, not some deep or penetrating insight. Human minds are not mechanisms for executing design. Mind is not a mechanism of ID, and if ID has an actual proposal for a mechanism other than miracle, I have yet to see it.
Exactly why human minds do not qualify as a test - the ability of manipulate objects is not a demonstrated attribute. You want powerful enough? Have the Discovery Institute announce that the mechanism of design is divine miracle by will of God. Until then there is no ID mechanism.
1 Like
The key is explaining the arrangement and a mind is the primary source of that arrangement. To demonstrate electromagnetism you need a electrical conductor, a potential difference in charge and a human to set up the experiment . To demonstrate gravity you need an object with mass and a human to set up the experiment. To demonstrate a mind making arrangements you need a human and can use a computer with a key board or voice recognition capability.
The ability to arrange objects is not an attribute of human minds, as is plain in your own example above. Here, you need a computer as a tool, whatever the input. Rubbing sticks to make fire, chipping at flint to make an edge, programming a computer to control a chemical plant (which I’ve done), hands and tools ever required.
All this twisting in the wind just to avoid divine miracle as a mechanism. And the weird thing is, this is what those ID proponents for whom nature is not sufficient, in general terms believe. It was miracles. Why is that so hard to say?
2 Likes
What you are not latching onto is why science needs an alternative theory to test against. What we are observing is more then just a miracle. What are observing a functional arrangement that we can attribute to a mind.
Without ID science is stuck trying to force fit common ancestry of vertebrates despite the evidence. Without ID science is stuck assuming all proteins evolved. Without ID biology is stuck assuming that the eukaryotic cell is the product of a random set of changes.
The issue is not theological. It is that biological science needs a more rigorous theory to test against. The issue is that starting science from the theory of intelligent creation is a more realistic starting point and will lead to more productive scientific inquiry.
Is that agreement that ID requires miracles as a mechanism?
I would not say “despite” the evidence, but otherwise I generally concur. Science does indeed take on the burden of proposing mechanisms for the unfolding of life. There is no evasion here. There is now a vast and increasing body of research progressively revealing the development of much of the tree of life.
Still unable to see the difference between ID and separate creation of species, I see. Name one piece of evidence against common ancestry of vertebrates. Name one piece of evidence against the evolution of proteins. Finally, name one person who claims that the eukaryotic cell is the product of a random set of changes.
We are close here.
It is not ID that needs miracles as ID is simply a method of detecting a source of the miracles which is design or the work of a mind. The gene patterns in the Howe show evidence of design given Behe’s method.
We need miracles to explain the origin of most the content in the Universe we are observing including ourselves.
The specific mechanisms for the unfolding of life may be beyond science. If this is not considered, science can go down many dead end roads and waste lots of resources, ID is about getting back to the approach of scientists like James Clerk Maxwell and Isaac Newton. Start from the hypothesis that you are trying to explain the workings of a designed entity.
Paging Sidney Harris. Mr. Harris, your cartoon is needed.
So when people were wondering how the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, was the answer “A mind”?
(No, it wasn’t).
It is useful for those who might think a productive discussion with Bill is possible to have these periodic reminders of why it is not possible.
2 Likes
I would note that this, 8-month old, thread is on the topic of:
What is pseudoscience and why is Intelligent Design considered pseudoscience?
It is not on the topic of “common design models” more generally, let alone on the topic of ‘Meerkat_SK5’s incoherent Universal Common Design Theory-And-Model™’, let alone their ludicrous claims of HGT-as-design.
These topics have had numerous interminable threads of their own, and are currently constipating The Argument Clinic thread. I would, as this thread’s originator, suggest that they have no place whatsoever here.
2 Likes
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic