On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:07:15 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>The arguments are both quite convincing, only with the added
>>problem of requiring an intelligent design. Absent any evidence
>>one might wonder why one has to invoke such 'intelligent design'?
>
>SJ>See above. There is "evidence" of planning for the future. This is a
>*prediction* of Intelligent Design theory and a *problem to be explained
>away* by Darwinian theory.
PM>What evidence of 'planning for the future' do you have?
I gave one example of it to you already. Indeed it is still contained in the
heading of this thread: "RE: ...(was lungs)", namely the built-in redundancy
of the first fish, which had both gills and lungs (which made all future
development of land vertebrate animals like amphibians, reptiles, birds and
mammals possible), but you just deleted it. Here it is again:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:13:20 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
[...]
SJ>Stephen Jay Gould has a good article "Full of Hot Air," in "Eight Little
>Piggies," 1993, pp109-120. He shows that the most primitive fish have
>*both* lungs and gills and that most fishes lungs have become
>swimbladders....
[...]
SJ>Indeed, Gould points out that this transition from lungs to swimbladder
>(not the other way around) was made possible by a built-in capacity for
>future use, which he calls redundancy:
>
>"Neither situation is rare, and the two phenomena-one-for-two and two-
>for-one-are not really separate at all. Both are expressions of a deeper, and
>profoundly important, principle- redundancy as the ground of creativity in
>any form." (Gould S.J., 1993, p117)
>
>Here and elsewhere Gould extols the virtue of redundancy as a mark of
>"Creativity":
>
>"Creativity in this sense demands slop and redundancy-a little fat not for
>trimming but for conversion; a little overemployment so that one
>supernumerary on the featherbed can be recruited for an added role; the
>capacity to do several things imperfectly with each part." (Gould S.J.,
>1993, p98).
>
>But so blinded is Gould by his materialistic-naturalistic metaphysical
>assumptions that it escapes his notice that built-in capacity for the future is
>the mark of far-sighted *intelligent design* not a blind watchmaker.
>According to Darwin, the blind watchmaker would be "daily and hourly" at
>work eliminating everything that was not immediately useful:
[...]
SJ>But as Denton shows, redundancy is a major feature of both intelligent
>design and nature:
>
>"Another very intriguing aspect of development in higher organisms which
>has become increasingly apparent over the last ten years, and which is
>bound to impose additional constraints against any sort of bit-by-bit
>undirected change, is the use of partially or totally redundant components
>to buffer organisms against random mutational error and ensure reliability,
>particularly during development. As one authority points out: "The idea
>that redundancy may be quite common in cell and developmental biology
>has its origin in Spemann's (1938) idea of double assurance, a term taken
>from engineering." (L. Wolpert (1992). The strategy of using several
>different means to achieve a particular goal, where each of the individual
>means is sufficient by itself to achieve the goal, is used in all manner of
>situations to guarantee that the goal will always be achieved, even if one or
>more of the means fail. Missiles, for example, are often guided to their
>targets using a number of different automatic guidance systems, including
>ground- based radar, map matching, inertial guidance, following a graded
>signal (heat-seeking). Even if one fails, the missile will still home in
>unerringly on its target. Reliability of information storage on computer
>discs is increased by encoding the information in two or more different
>ways. The functional reliability of complex machines such as aircraft and
>particularly space vehicles invariably involves the use of redundant
>components. The space shuttle's on-board inertial guidance system, which
>it uses during boosting into orbit and during reentry, consists, according to
>the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, of "five
>redundant computers and three inertial measurement units. Dual star
>trackers are used for periodic realignment in space.... A radar backup
>system is provided for safety during launch and landing." Another instance
>where redundancy is exploited to increase reliability is in human and animal
>navigation, where most often a number of different and individually
>redundant clues are followed to minimize the risk of navigational error,
>which might accrue from following only one type or set of clues....It now
>appears that a considerable number of genes, perhaps even the majority in
>higher organisms, are completely or at least partially redundant." (Denton
>M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the
>Universe," The Free Press: New York NY, 1998, p337)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
PM>Or is it 'interpreting after the future has happened'.
Of course it is "interpreting after the future has happened". This is what
*all* science that deals with past events does. It's called retrodiction:
"Science is a pluralistic enterprise, validly pursued in many modes. But
Rifkin ignores its richness by stating that direct manipulation by repeatable
experiment provides the only acceptable method for reaching a scientific
conclusion. Since evolution treats historically unique events that occurred
millions of years ago, it cannot pass muster. Rifkin doesn't seem to realize
that he is throwing out half of science-nearly all of geology and most of
astronomy, for instance-with his evolutionary bath water. Historical science
is a valid pursuit, but uses methods different from the controlled
experiment of Rifkin's all-encompassing caricature- search for an
underlying pattern among unique events, and retrodiction (predicting the
yet undiscovered results of past events), for example." (Gould S.J.,
"Integrity and Mr. Rifkin", "An Urchin in the Storm: Essays
about Books and Ideas." Penguin: London, 1990, p234)
"It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are
untestable because they describe unique events. However the description of
unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable
predictions or retrodictions." (Popper K., "Evolution," Letters, New
Scientist, 21 August 1980, p611)
>PM>After all, after the fact one can always invoke such argument
>>with little predicting power.
>SJ>You cut out the bit about "Darwin" and "generations of students" in
>Gould's classes all wrongly "predicting" that lungs evolved from gills:
PM>So what ? This is why they go to school, don't they ? To learn about
what is known ?
By the time they get to Gould's classes at Harvard, they have already
*been* to "school" and probably done several years of biology.
And besides, even *Darwin* got it wrong! The point is that evolution does
not predict such built-in redundancy, whereas Intelligent Design does.
>SJ>If Darwinism has such great "predicting power" compared to
>Intelligent Design (otherwise what is your point?), why do all the
>Darwinists get this order wrong first off?>>
PM>Nice strawman. I guess that the 'flat earth' shows that creationism is
>lacking any predicting powers as well?
Transparent, attempt to change the subject noted! Please *first*
answer the question and then we will discuss "the 'flat earth'".
>PM>As a scientific explanation, intelligent design loses on many fronts.
>But it does make for an imaginative explanation though.
>SJ>Pim, we've been through all this before. As I have pointed out to you
>many, many times, "Intelligent design" is not even *eligible as a
>candidate* "scientific explanation" under the current ruling materialist-
>naturalist philosophical orthodoxy. Intelligent Design is excluded as a
>"scientific explanation" *apriori* by materialists:
PM>Irrelevant to my argument.
No. Your "argument" was predicated on the word "scientific", by which
you mean *materialist-naturalist* "scientific." It is highly releavnt that you
rule out "Intelligent design" in your definitions, before you even consider
the evidence:
>>SJ>But as Denton shows, redundancy is a major feature of both
>>intelligent design and nature:
>PM>Indeed. So why the need to invoke intelligent design when there
>>is no reason to do so ?
>SJ>Denton's argument is that the evidence of "nature" is that "there" *is*
>"reason to do so".
PM>Denton perhaps believes that nature has a reason? But perhaps the
>end result has nothing to do with future planning or reason? Reason is
>what we like to add to what we observe (and perhaps do not understand).
That "nature has a reason" and "Reason is what we like to add to what we
observe, is a *prediction* of Intelligent Design but something to be
*explained away* by materialism-naturalism.
>PM>After all nature itself is quite capable to generate what we see and
>we have yet to see 'intelligent design'.
>SJ>This is just begging the question, ie. assuming the conclusion in the
>premises:>>
PM>I was refering to Denton's remarks.
Denton, two pages later says: "the greater the degree of redundancy...the
more difficult it is to believe that evolutionary change could have been
engineered without intelligent direction":
"In other words, the greater the degree of redundancy, the greater the need
for simultaneous mutation to effect evolutionary change and the more
difficult it is to believe that evolutionary change could have been
engineered without intelligent direction. Redundancy also increases the
difficulty of genetic engineering, as it means that the compensatory changes
that must inevitably accompany any desired change must be necessarily
increased." (Denton M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology
Reveal Purpose in the Universe," 1998, p339)
If you deny Intelligent Design, you are doing it on *philosophical*
grounds, not on evidential grounds.
>SJ>"We do not *know* that "nature itself is quite capable to generate
>what we see". You only *assume* it on naturalistic philosophical first
>principles. And as for "we have yet to see 'intelligent design'", we see it all
>the time in our own plans and actions.
PM>We were not talking about our own actions. But indeed you have
>touched a good point. Perhaps our own plans and actions make us
>presume that nature has a 'goal' ?
This is another good example of materialist-naturalist philosophy's need to
explain away the evidence, whereas Intelligent Design would just
straightforwardly accept it.
And is not a case of either/or, but both/and. That we have "our own plans
and actions" enables us to correctl;y see that there are also "plans and
actions" built into "nature".
>SJ>And in any event, except for the most trivial examples of evolution,
>they are as invisible as creation:
PM>Only to those who are blinded by the evidence and the argument is
>based on a lacking understanding of what science is.
Intelligent Design has *no* troubled whatsoever with "the evidence". It is
*your* materialist (or theistic)-naturalism which is trying hard to explain
away "the evidence".
And your rider "lacking understanding of what science is" just gives your
game away. You have to erect a special definition of science as being
100% naturalistic in order to exclude Intelligent Design from even being
considered.
>PM>It cannot be observed, it cannot be predicted but hey, it only
>>requires a little bit of faith to invoke the tooth fairy explanation. It
>makes for interesting stories but poor science.
>SJ>A good definition of Darwinist macro-evolution! Thanks.
PM>Except for the fact that it can be observed,
Please give me *one* example of "Darwinist macro-evolution" being
"observed".
PM>predicted
Please give me *one* example of "Darwinist macro-evolution" being
"predicted".
PM>and requires no faith
Please give me *one* example of "Darwinist macro-evolution" which
"requires no faith".
PM>and is based on good science.
Please give me *one* criteria of "good science" that: a) "Darwinist macro-
evolution" fits; but b) mediate creation by an Intelligent Designer does not
fit.
PM>The same thing can not be said of 'intelligent design', something
>which you admit falls outside the realm of science anyway.
*I* do not say that "'intelligent design'...falls outside the realm of science".
It is *you* who are setting up a special definition of science using
demarcation criteria that protects naturalistic evolution from competition:
"The deployment of flawed or metaphysically tendentious demarcation
arguments against legitimate theoretical contenders has produced an
unjustified confidence in the epistemic standing of much evolutionary
dogma, including "the fact of evolution" defined as common descent. If
competing hypotheses are eliminated before they are evaluated, remaining
theories may acquire an undeserved dominance." (Meyer S.C., in Moreland
J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994, p100)
>PM>After all let's assume there is 'intelligent design'.
>SJ>Which just further confirm my point that the apriori scientific position
>is that "there is" *not* "intelligent design". And the very fact that you put
>it 'intelligent design 'between quotation marks shows that you are still not
>really assuming that "there is intelligent design".
PM>Why assume something
Why then say :"let's assume" something when you don't really mean it?
PM>when 1) it is unnecessary
You don't *know* that "intelligent design" is "unnecessary". You just deny
it outright without even looking at the evidence.
PM>2) there is no supporting data
Again, you just deny *in advance* that there *can* even in principle be any
"supporting data".
PM>3) it only complicates matters.
How would you know? You don't even give Intelligent Design a fair
hearing?
PM>Sure there is intelligent design but not in nature.
How do you know? You don't even consider the evidence?
>PM>Who is the designer?
>
>SJ>For scientific purposes it is not necessary to identify "the designer" to
>accept design. Archaeologists may never know who designed an artifact
>but they accept it *was* intelligently designed:
PM>Archeologist might not have been able to identify the exact person
Thank you. You concede my point. Neither does Intelligent Design need
to "identify the exact person" of the Designer.
PM>but they do know who in general were responsible for the structure.
Archaeologists do not even need to know "who in general were responsible
for the structure" to know it was designed.
Or consider the case of SETI. If a signal was received from outer space, it
would not be necessary to know even "who in general were responsible" to
know that it was intelligently designed:
"We apprehend design from the system itself, even if we don't know who
the designer is. For example, the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence) scans space for radio waves that might have been sent by
aliens. However, we have never observed aliens sending radio messages;
we have never observed aliens at all. Nonetheless, SETI workers are
confident, and I agree, that they can detect intelligently-produced
phenomena, even if they don't know who produced them." (Behe M.J.,
"Reply to my critics", Boston Review, November 1996) http://www-
polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/
PM>The fact that 'intelligent design' cannot even address this simple
>question
Intelligent Design *does* "address this...question." I've given you quotes
from Intelligent Design theorists which "address this...question.".
But it is *not* a "simple question". That something has been intelligently
designed is relatively "simple". Who designed it is definitely *not* simple.
PM>already indicates taht it is perhaps looking for something that isn't.
Just because Intelligent Design is limited in that it cannot identifiy the
Designer, it does not follow that there "isn't" (or wasn't) a Designer. That
a detective cannot identify the perpetrator of a crime, does not mean there
was no crime.
PM>Archeologists at least could identify the origins of the structure,
>perhaps not the individuals though. But without potential suscpects, there
>is no reason for suspision.
This would only be true if you knew in advance that there was no
"potential suspect", that there was no Designer.
>PM>Another species from outside our worlds ?
>SJ>Thanks. This is a good example. If a message was received from
>"another species from outside our worlds" it would not be necessary to
>identify who the sender was to accept that it was intelligent:
PM>That depends on the message.
If the "message" identified the sender well and good, but even then we
might not understand the identification. But even if the "message" did not
identify the sender, we would still know that "the sender...was intelligent."
PM>But perhaps the 'intelligent designer' (for which no evidence exists)
You just *deny in advance* that "evidence exists" for an "intelligent
designer", without even looking at the "evidence".
To test this, please state what "evidence" for an "intelligent designer"
you would accept.
PM>could have been an extra terrestrial, no supernatural powers at all,
>just advanced technology.
Agreed. You have confirmed my point. Intelligent Design can only claim
that there is an Intelligent Designer. It cannot say who was the Designer.
>PM>The Christian God ? Or any of the many other Gods ? They all
>>make equally well candidates of this 'intelligent designer', or should
>>that be equally poor?
>SJ>Intelligent design theory is not necessarily religious. One could accept
>intelligent design without worshipping the Designer. For example,
>Michael Denton and Fred Hoyle do this.
PM>Yes, but in general 'intelligent design' is abused by creationists to
>imply that there must be a god.
Please give examples.
PM>and that there is a theory of intelligent design, even when data
>supporting the theory are severly lacking
What "data" exactly "supporting the theory " of Intelligent Design
have you even seriously considered?
PM>and the data are equally well or beter explained by non-intelligent
>theories.
Since to date you have shown no evidence that you have even considered
the "data" supporting Intelligent Design, your comparisons of it with "non-
intelligent theories" are not worth much.
>SJ>Nevetheless to Christians the Intelligent Designer is *by definition*
>the same one true Creator-God that they worship. But that does not mean
>that He may also be the same supreme God that some other religions
>worship. For example, St Paul affirmed that the Unknown God of the
>Greeks was the Christian God (Ac 17:23).
PM>Or perhaps he is merely one of the other gods ?
I said "to Christians".
SJ>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:17:58 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>Yep I am a believer although I do like to play devil's advocate
>>every now and then.
>SJ>In view of the above, are you being *serious* in arguing against
>Intelligent Design, or are you just playing the "devil's advocate"?
PM>Not at all.
I take this to mean that you *are* "serious in arguing against
Intelligent Design" and are *not* "just playing the "devil's
advocate"?
If so, what did you mean that you were just playing the "devil's
advocate"?
PM>The idea of 'intelligent design' as a science is lacking in 'theory',
prediction, and supporting data
Please give details of the "'theory', prediction, and supporting data" for
Intelligent Design that you have even considered.
PM>and by virtue of 'Occam's razor' defeated by theories which do not
>necessitate this 'invisible' and perhaps 'all powerful' designer.
You continue to misunderstand (or misrepresent) "Occam's razor" even
though I have explained this to you before. Occam's Razor basically says
that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." ("Ockham's
Razor", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984,
Vol. vii, pp475-476). The key words are "beyond necessity". The only way
for you to *know* that Intelligent Design is "beyond necessity" is if you
already knew *everything* about nature, including its origins!
PM>God is based on faith alone.
First, what do you mean by "God"? Do you mean the personal, omniscient,
omnipotent, Creator "God" revealed in the Bible? Your "Yep I am a believer"
does not say what you are "a believer" in.
Second, the "God" of the Bible is not "based on faith" at all. God is real,
whether we have faith in Him or not.
Third, if "God is based on faith alone", what is that "faith" in turn based on?
Fourth, on your version of "Occam's Razor", "God" is superfluous, so why
believe in "God" at all?
PM>If we pretend that we can find him with science then we are doing
>Him as well as ourselves a real disfavour.
On what basis (philosophical, theological, or other) do you make that claim?
Why exactly can't we "find" "God" "with science"?
And why exactly does it do: a) "Him"; and b) "ourselves a real disfavour"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------