A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org

All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.

http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design

Discuss!

828 Replies to “A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.”

  1. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    categorising is it’s own reward. The utility of this activity is the same as for all activities God undertakes, It shows his Glory.

    You Are Just Making Stuff Up. You wanted me to ‘concede’ that the problems I documented would not be a problem for an atemporal entity. I showed that by ‘collapsing’ the temporal axis of the tree, the shading problems actually increase, in complete opposition to your contention that it makes them disappear.

    So now you claim to know what God enjoys doing. An irrelevant tangent if ever I saw one. So much for ‘concession of an inch’. He (atemporally) enjoys dichotomising a continuum? What larks!

    Only God could do what we are describing, He loves doing stuff that only he can do.

    So God, for fun and his own up-his-own-backside Glory, declares that a single offspring, almost identical to its parents, is a ‘new species’. It then goes off to find a mate – which must be one of ‘the old species’ unless (just to keep your leaky boat afloat) instances of ‘the new species’ spring up all over the shop. But why would we suppose that? In order to preserve your myopic vision, you require a special mode of saltational, multiply-instantiated novel birth. Where has that sprung from? Is there nothing too ad hoc for you?

    Continuity of offspring with parental species can still lead to indefinite change in lineage. How does God deal with that? By not letting it happen, or by not caring? God has no reason to be bothered about the taxonomic conundrum of a non-saltational view because he has no need of categories. He can identify every hair on your head, so he hardly needs to worry about chronospecies, simply because you and your four-year-old assistant can only see lions and tigers. If he is atemporal, he can see their ancestors too, and hence the underlying continuity.

    Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?
    (Isa 40:12)

    Is that a rhetorical question?

    God is all about measuring and categorizing. We are sort of like him in that way

    He already knows it. He doesn’t need to do anything to find it out. He has absolutely no use for categories or a measuring stick. We, on the other hand …

    Allan Miller cladists, don’t attempt to fine down their categories to single-generation level.

    fmm: They would if they could but they can’t so they don’t.

    They can – there is just no purpose to it. So they don’t. They are sort of like Him in that way.

    That is something only God can do.

    What – pretend there is an Absolute on species concepts? Nope, that’s something that seems restricted to Creationists. The only reason you cling to this view is that you are blind to the conflict between horizontal discreteness and vertical continuity in descent. So you presume that God is equally blind. If you are evangelising for God’s greatness, you do a poor job in basing it on your own restricted view, which seems fundamentally incapable of assimilatiing the pretty basic points I am making. Creationists succeed only in making God look limited and petty.

  2. hotshoe_
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: ifth, at 3:11 AM:

    I believe that God is the mind behind the universe.

    Two hours earlier:

    keiths:

    If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion?

    fifth:

    I have no idea.

    So Allan was right all along, and it was you, not he, who was arguing in bad faith.

    Of course.

    There was never any doubt.

    But thanks for the proof, keiths.

    I do wonder about the worth of making effort to go back and locate and copy people’s comments to set the record straight, but in this case, I’m enjoying the result. So obviously,
    it was worth it! 🙂

    And now we have the slimeball equivocation.

    fifthmonarchyman: No you are incorrect. This is not a discussion about God anymore than a discussion about love is a discussion about God.

    I believe that God is the mind behind the universe Is God and I believe that God is love. You do not believe those things neither does the vast majority of humanity .

    That is why I said I have no idea. Because I don’t know what you believe about the matter

    He doesn’t “know what [we] believe about the matter”, but somehow he KNOWS that we all believe in god (and are just self-deceptive about our own beliefs). That kind of double-think on his part is just plain creepy.

    And he has the nerve to make smartass remarks about people swearing when exposed to his nauseating conduct.

  3. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s a good thing FMM has revelation to screw up what he writes.

    Who’d want to accept responsibility for that? It’s just God not keeping up, you know…

    Glen Davidson

  4. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    hotshoe:

    And now we have the slimeball equivocation.

    And it’s slimy, indeed.

    Fifth pretends that he was answering a question about my beliefs:

    That is why I said I have no idea. Because I don’t know what you believe about the matter

    The question was obviously about his beliefs:

    keiths:

    If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion? [Emphasis added]

    fifth:

    I have no idea.

    Fifth,

    You pretended to have no idea, then admitted two hours later that you had a very definite idea: that God is the mind behind the universe. Allan was correct and it was you, not he, who was arguing in bad faith.

    Now you are pretending that my question was about my own beliefs, not yours.

    What is wrong with you?

  5. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: So God, for fun and his own up-his-own-backside Glory, declares that a single offspring, almost identical to its parents, is a ‘new species’.

    I think the correct expression for this is (or at least used to be) ‘for shits and giggles.’

  6. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:
    hotshoe:

    And it’s slimy, indeed.

    Fifth pretends that he was answering a question about my beliefs:

    The question was obviously about his beliefs:

    keiths:

    fifth:

    Fifth,

    You pretended to have no idea, then admitted two hours later that you had a very definite idea: that God is the mind behind the universe.Allan was correct and it was you, not he, who was arguing in bad faith.

    Now you are pretending that my question was about my own beliefs, not yours.

    What is wrong with you?

    This criticiism is entirely unfair, btw. Try to read his post a bit more charitably and I think you’ll see why. He thinks the morning star is the evening star. You ask him what the morning star is if it’s NOT the evening star and he says ‘I have no idea’. He put’s this on what you think because maybe you are one who, unlike him, denies this identity. What the hell is wrong (or ‘slimy’) about that?

    FMM ain’t perfect by any stretch: If you feel the need to whack him (something with which I can definitely sympathize), I recommend you criticize him–as Allan has just nicely done–for some actual defect(s) in one (or more) of his posts.

  7. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: This criticiism is entirely unfair, btw.

    I don’t give IDists credit for being able to communicate well enough to be dishonest or disingenuous.

    To be fair, I frequently have trouble following brief and cryptic remarks referencing things said a dozen posts back. I prefer posts that stand alone, or at least reference the preceding post.

  8. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: So God, for fun and his own up-his-own-backside Glory, declares that a single offspring, almost identical to its parents, is a ‘new species’. It then goes off to find a mate – which must be one of ‘the old species’ unless (just to keep your leaky boat afloat) instances of ‘the new species’ spring up all over the shop.

    Your objections would have a lot more impact if you could make them with out constantly slipping back to a temporal perspective.

    Allan Miller: he has no need of categories.

    He has no need period.
    This is not about what God needs to do but what he can do

    Allan Miller: They can – there is just no purpose to it. So they don’t.

    If they can then why are you claiming that it is a problem?? if the only problem is that you don’t see a purpose in the exercise then by all means don’t bother yourself with it.

    I would hazard a guess that most folks would say that there is a purpose in categorization. It’s sort of what we intelligent agents do.

    Allan Miller: he only reason you cling to this view is that you are blind to the conflict between horizontal discreteness and vertical continuity in descent.

    I’m not blind to the conflict. I think there is a way to move beyond the conflict

    peace

    PS I find it to be interesting that as soon as you discover that a particular discussion is not about God you abandon it like a hot potato for one that is about him.

    peace

  9. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: FMM ain’t perfect by any stretch:

    I want to again commend you for your patience here. I really enjoy your perspective.

    I know we could have some interesting discussions on the front porch over some lemonade. I would think we have much more in common than you know.

    I will look back over Reid but I still think he would agree with me. 😉

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: To take just one disanalogy, the other minds issue is (at least for the vast majority of philosophers) about justifying an inference that requires that one have the concept of mind handy. The problem of perception arises even if one hasn’t got the concept of table.

    Would a person who has never experienced a table perceive a table? I know I asked this before and I apologize if I have over looked your answer.

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: As Allan said, It’s pretty clear that you’re not actually open to learning –even considering–anything that might conflict with any deeply held desire of yours.

    I honestly think this is true of us all. I just think you can’t see it when it comes to your own presuppositions.

    It is much easier to see these sorts of things in others.

    peace

  12. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    walto:

    This criticiism is entirely unfair, btw. Try to read his post a bit more charitably and I think you’ll see why. He thinks the morning star is the evening star. You ask him what the morning star is if it’s NOT the evening star and he says ‘I have no idea’. He put’s this on what you think because maybe you are one who, unlike him, denies this identity. What the hell is wrong (or ‘slimy’) about that?

    walto,

    Perhaps you should reread the relevant comments.

    1. Fifth blasted Allan for inferring that fifth’s “mind behind the universe” was in fact God. Allan was right, and fifth had no reason to blast him for it. That was slimy.

    2. Fifth cited Allan’s mention of God as evidence that Allan wasn’t arguing in good faith. That was slimy.

    As Allan said:

    It’s not an argument about God? You shoehorn your beloved deity into every conversation, regardless the topic, then you accuse ME of bad faith because I make the entirely reasonable [and correct] assumption that ‘mind behind the universe’ and ‘God’ are the same in your view?

    3. I asked fifth who he thought the “mind behind the universe” was. I deliberately added the phrase “in your opinion” so that it would be absolutely clear that I was asking about fifth’s own beliefs, not anyone else’s. He answered “I have no idea”, which was false. That was slimy.

    There’s more, but that ought to be sufficient to make the point.

  13. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: I deliberately added the phrase “in your opinion” so that it would be absolutely clear that I was asking about fifth’s own beliefs, not anyone else’s.

    That is not how I took the question. I thought you were asking what in my opinion was the general consensus of humanity regarding this issue.

    I would never refer to God as the mind(s) behind the universe It’s not how I talk and it’s not how I think. God is not some vague amorphous mind out there behind the scenes. He is a specific personal being with a history and a personality.

    I’m sorry if I created any other impression.

    My interest in this topic has nothing to do with God it has to do with epistemology justification and warrant.

    I suppose you could accuse me of having God in the back of my mind in this discussion. I’d plead guilty to that charge However I would hope you would understand that God is in the back of my mind always unless he is in the front of my mind 😉

    peace

  14. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree that Allan was right to assume that by “mind behind the universe” FMM meant God (because he does). I also understand that by “mind behind the universe” FMM doesn’t mean God (because he doesn’t).

    How is this possible? Words have connotations as well as denotations.

    So there was a miscommunication. There was no bad faith on anybody’s part, and no intention to mislead and no slime. Then there was a desire to fight about….pretty much nothing.

  15. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: walto,

    Perhaps you should reread the relevant comments.

    I’m inclined to think that walto’s analysis was correct.

  16. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    walto,

    There was no bad faith on anybody’s part, and no intention to mislead and no slime.

    Come on, walto. How is the following not slimy?

    1. Fifth blasted Allan for inferring that fifth’s “mind behind the universe” was in fact God. Allan was right, and fifth had no reason to blast him for it. That was slimy.

    Allan’s complaint was entirely justified:

    It’s not an argument about God? You shoehorn your beloved deity into every conversation, regardless the topic, then you accuse ME of bad faith because I make the entirely reasonable [and correct] assumption that ‘mind behind the universe’ and ‘God’ are the same in your view?

  17. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m inclined to have stopped reading Fifth’s posts about a month ago. I scan quickly through the responses for any indication of some new twist, but haven’t seen one.

    All the fifth threads are self-similar at any magnification.

  18. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka:
    I’m inclined to have stopped reading Fifth’s posts about a month ago. I scan quickly through the responses for any indication of some new twist, but haven’t seen one.

    All the fifth threads are self-similar at any magnification.

    Simple certainty.

    Not even interesting to debunk.

    Glen Davidson

  19. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths,

    I’ve already said Allan was quite right to think what he did.

    And I totally understand petrushka’s decision to skip FMM’s posts–they are extremely repetitive (when not morphing), self-assured, and often a bit selective in what criticisms they respond to. (Plus, petrushka has to keep up with all the literature on language since Verbal Behavior–and that’s a huge task!).

    I just don’t find any slime or intention to mislead. It was a misunderstanding at best, or maybe a slight weaseling at worst. Big fucking deal.

  20. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: they are extremely repetitive (when not morphing), self-assured, and often a bit selective in what criticisms they respond to.

    I will take note of the criticism and try to do better.

    walto: And I totally understand petrushka’s decision to skip FMM’s posts

    I also think this is not a bad tactic to employ. I only post because I think some here might be interested in another perspective. I certainly don’t want to filibusterer.

    If no one responds I’ll be more apt to spend the time working on the sequence tool/game

    peace

  21. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I will take note of the criticism and try to do better.

    How can you not like this guy?

  22. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    walto,

    I’ve already said Allan was quite right to think what he did.

    And fifth was wrong to blast him for it. Fifth pretended that Allan was wrong in order to score points, and that’s slimy.

    Having lied about that, he proceeded to lie about Allan not posting in good faith, which is also slimy.

    The evidence is right there, walto. Not sure why you’re determined to ignore it.

  23. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: The evidence is right there, walto.

    Like the evidence that I don’t care about free speech when it’s practiced by Jews? You obviously get a thrill out of trying to make people who disagree with you look evil. It’s a team thing, I suppose, putting adversaries up for public ridicule among your guys.

    To each his own. I’m guessing Allan has gotten over this transgression, but what do I know–maybe he’s still seething and is glad you”re around to characterize his oppressor as a slimy, lying bastard. Anyhow, I hereby leave you to it. Go get him!!

    ETA: I just wanted to add that I don’t like it when mung does the same sort of thing over at UD with his guys. Fifth doesn’t do that. Elizabeth, Ruth, KN, Bruce, a bunch of others don’t do it. But a few feel the need, apparently.

    Me, I just think all y’all suck

    ETA2: Who the fuck is Ruth??

  24. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: And fifth was wrong to blast him for it.

    Does the following comment really amount to a “blast” in your opinion?

    quote:

    Who said any thing about God? we are talking about the belief that there is mind(s) behind the universe. Period the end.

    God’s existence is totally beside the point. I thought I made that clear from the beginning.

    The fact that you think this is an argument about God explains your apparent unwillingness to discuss in good faith.

    end quote:

    It would help if you explained exactly where I was being inappropriate.

    I honestly meant no offense. I was just trying to steer the conversation back on track to the topic at hand.

    Perhaps the comment about “apparent bad faith” was a little over the top but come on Allan was suggesting that belief in mind(s)/intention behind the universe was the equivalent of belief in little people living in the radio.

    Surely you can see why I might question his interest in an honest discussion of the topic.

    peace

  25. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh, just admit it, Fifth. You’re a bastard.

  26. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Oh, just admit it, Fifth. You’re a bastard.

    quote:

    The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
    (1Ti 1:15)

    end quote:
    😉
    peace

  27. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: quote:

    The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
    (1Ti 1:15)

    end quote:
    😉
    peace

    And you’re the FOREMOST of the foremost.

    Just ask Ruth.

  28. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    walto,

    To each his own. I’m guessing Allan has gotten over this transgression, but what do I know–maybe he’s still seething and is glad you”re around to characterize his oppressor as a slimy, lying bastard. Anyhow, I hereby leave you to it. Go get him!!

    Good grief, walto. You are the one who is dragging this out by insisting, against all evidence, that fifth is being treated unfairly.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.