PM>What evidence of 'planning for the future' do you have?
Stephen : <<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. >>
So how does this show "planning for the future". You have not shown this, you have merely shown, looking back that the changes were fortuitous. But how can you claim that this was 'planned for the future' ?
PM>Or is it 'interpreting after the future has happened'.
Stephen : << 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:>>
And therefor the "planned for the future" might very well be related to this looking back rather than to an actual "planning".
>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 ?
Stephen: <<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 learning from dictionaries <g> ?
Stephen: <<And besides, even *Darwin* got it wrong! The point is that evolution does
not predict such built-in redundancy, whereas Intelligent Design does.>>
Design does not predict anything and everything. But evolution does explain the observations.
>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?
Stephen : <<Transparent, attempt to change the subject noted! Please *first*
answer the question and then we will discuss "the 'flat earth'".>>
I was showing the logical fallacy in your argument.
PM>Irrelevant to my argument.
Stephen : <<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:>>
Intelligent design is not ruled out, just the supernatural kind.
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).
Stephen : <<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.>>
"reason" is a factor that 'Creationists' have to invoke to support their arguments. Perhaps you first should try to show that there was 'a reason' before claiming it evidence ?
>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.
Stephen: <<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":>>
Personal incredility ? Redundancy is what might have lead to evolution.
Stephen : <<"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. >>
On the contrary, the greater the degree of redundancy, the less dramatic the effects of the mutations will be and changes can take place.
Stephen : <<If you deny Intelligent Design, you are doing it on *philosophical*
grounds, not on evidential grounds.>>
What evidence ? Denton's words ? Words I disagree with ?
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' ?
Stephen: <<This is another good example of materialist-naturalist philosophy's need to
explain away the evidence, whereas Intelligent Design would just straightforwardly accept it.>>
What evidence ? I am telling you that this 'evidence' might be just 'in your mind'. For intelligent design you need a reason and a goal so you search for one and then claim that this is evidence of intelligent design. No, the true problem is 'creating evidence' when lacking.
PM>Only to those who are blinded by the evidence and the argument is
>based on a lacking understanding of what science is.
Stephen : <<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".>>
I see only examples of desparate acts in your insistance on creating 'evidence' where no evidence might be. It is all based on your perception of 'reason and goal', a perception that needs to be for intelligent design to even stand a chance. What I see is someone desperate for evidence perhaps creating it in his own mind. How do we identify 'goal' and 'reason' ? When in fact the two imply somethoing metaphysical.
Stephen : <<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.>>
Not at all, just the supernatural kind. Bring me an alien and you can support the intelligent design with more than a belief.
>SJ>A good definition of Darwinist macro-evolution! Thanks.
PM>Except for the fact that it can be observed,
Stephen: <<Please give me *one* example of "Darwinist macro-evolution" being
"observed".>>
Proves my case that science education from dictionaries is surely not working
PM>The same thing can not be said of 'intelligent design', something
>which you admit falls outside the realm of science anyway.
Stephen : <<*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:>>
How can science deal with something that is unpredictable, unobservable ?
>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
Stephen : <<You don't *know* that "intelligent design" is "unnecessary". You just deny
it outright without even looking at the evidence.>>
What evidence ? Your perception of 'goal and reason' ? But without intelligent design, science has done very well at explaining the observations.
PM>2) there is no supporting data
Stephen : <<Again, you just deny *in advance* that there *can* even in principle be any "supporting data".>>
Having troubles with comprehension dear Stephen ?
PM>3) it only complicates matters.
Stephen: <<How would you know? You don't even give Intelligent Design a fair hearing?>>
Does a hearing not require a fair argument first ?
PM>Sure there is intelligent design but not in nature.
Stephen: <<How do you know? You don't even consider the evidence?>>
What 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
Stephen : <<Thank you. You concede my point. Neither does Intelligent Design need
to "identify the exact person" of the Designer.>>
Chop...chop let's see what else there was
PM>but they do know who in general were responsible for the structure.
Stephen : <<Archaeologists do not even need to know "who in general were responsible
for the structure" to know it was designed.>>
Oh but they have. Sometimes Intelligent 'design' is mistakenly assumed.
Stephen :<<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:>>
Incorrect. Without additional knowledge it will be hard, if not impossible to understand the signals. That is why pulsars where initially mistaken for something they were not. And yet such a constant signal, without a design ? How could that be ?
Stephen :<<"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/>>
Some Creationists are confident they can show intelligent design. That does not make it so. Poor argument.
PM>The fact that 'intelligent design' cannot even address this simple
>question
Stephen : <<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.>>
No kidding.
PM>already indicates taht it is perhaps looking for something that isn't.
Stephen: <<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.>>
But there is not even a victim or a crime. Without a body there might not be a 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.
Stephen : <<This would only be true if you knew in advance that there was no
"potential suspect", that there was no Designer.>>
There is no reason to believe otherwise. Why believe in something for which no evidence exists ?
>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.
Stephen : <<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." >>
How would we know this ? Perhaps what we are seeing is our interpretation of a signal ? Would a steady repeated signal, very constant be a sign of intelligence ?
PM>But perhaps the 'intelligent designer' (for which no evidence exists)
Stephen : <<You just *deny in advance* that "evidence exists" for an "intelligent
designer", without even looking at the "evidence".>>
Not at all.
Stephen : <<To test this, please state what "evidence" for an "intelligent designer"
you would accept.>>
Observations, repeatability, predictability.
PM>and that there is a theory of intelligent design, even when data
>supporting the theory are severly lacking
Stephen : <<What "data" exactly "supporting the theory " of Intelligent Design
have you even seriously considered?>>
Your 'goal and reason' argument. Is there more ?
PM>The idea of 'intelligent design' as a science is lacking in 'theory',
prediction, and supporting data
Stephen: <<
Please give details of the "'theory', prediction, and supporting data" for
Intelligent Design that you have even considered.>>
I am going on what your arguments are. Perhaps you have some evidence then ? Show it.
PM>and by virtue of 'Occam's razor' defeated by theories which do not
>necessitate this 'invisible' and perhaps 'all powerful' designer.
PM>God is based on faith alone.
Stephen : 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.>>
Irrelevant. My God.
Stephen : <<Second, the "God" of the Bible is not "based on faith" at all. God is real,
whether we have faith in Him or not.>>
He just cannot be observed and predicted. He might be as real as your perceived 'goal and reason'. It is all in 'your mind' ? Faith.
Stephen : <<Fourth, on your version of "Occam's Razor", "God" is superfluous, so why
believe in "God" at all?>>
Occam does not apply to the supernatural. So it does not address the existance or non-existance of it.