Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.
He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.
Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.
Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design? That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?
Sadly, it seems not. Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point. Here they are:
For example, consider this typical objection: “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”
If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.
Yes, indeed, Barry. It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID. There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out. And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle. There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”. I wonder where Barry found that quotation?
The point sailed right over REC’s head. He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”
I doubt it sailed over REC’s head. I expect it was the very point he was making – that there is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.
But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC! We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.
REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case. But you are missing the point. If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.
Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time. That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant. The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier). The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious. They don’t work. Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology. They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.
In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.
And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon. If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.
You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.
Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important, But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory. In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?
Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference. Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.
That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.
What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID. Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:
…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference. Even if it’s true.
And
are mutually exclusive, even though you were careful to use “person” and “mind”. The only minds we know of are carbon based, therefore there cannot be a mind as we know it behind the universe.
Yes, and I’m saying that if it has not been so revealed it is therefore not murder to turn HAL off. Or turn anyone else off.
And that’s what’s so scary about religion. Identify the enemy as soulless then is it not murder to kill them.
I’ve already suggested that there is no argument that you could make that HAL is not conscious that does not also apply to you.
That is my case.
If you want to play, make an argument why HAL is not conscious.
But note, “it has not been revealed to me HAL is conscious” is not an argument, it’s an exercise in navel gazing with no relevance to anyone other than you. So if that’s all you’ve got, you lose.
Evolution is not the only type of motion, of course.
If Alan is underestimating, then keiths is overestimating, exaggerating, taken hold of the ideology of scientism.
We can also know entities exist artistically, musically, philosophically and through the eyes/ears of theology/worldview. Science is not such a personality-dominating ‘method’ as keiths pretends it to be. I’ve spoken with many scientists, conducted interviews with them, worked with them, broken bread and shared stories with them; they are not the objectivist impersonal ‘robots’ that keiths makes them out to be.
Even Lizzie is not a robot, though she tries her hardest apparently to give away her heart and soul, at the philosophistic bidding of Dennett, to ‘Science.’
Returning to the main point, Lizzie’s OP reveals her amateurish and rather confused views of PoS. Nothing more than that need really be said Sure, she can probably teach music in a school classroom better than most of us (hopefully not just materialistically, anon HT). She knows more about schizophrenia and dyslexia than most of us and probably draws pretty well, or at least uses CAD architecturally better than probably all of us. But only a fool would trust her when she speaks about ‘methodological naturalism’, which is a proper topic in the domain of PoS. And yet she writes as if she knows and feels better than others who are so trained…
LOL! M-N-M. Lizzie is merely demonstrating her anti-theistic worldview. That’s the real point of her ‘apologetics’ for Science (beyond music or architecture, since she became an apostate), of course. Lizzie has done nothing that I can remember in the history of her founding and participation on this blog to actually promote theology or religion (except for quasi-Buddhism), which means more than just saying ‘they are allowed.’ That’s why (particularly Abrahamic) theists feel so unwelcome here.
No, MN is an ideology. Hint: that’s why ‘methodological’ is the qualifier. Is Lizzie unaware of this? She understands what an adjective is and what it qualifies, yes?
Hello Lizzie, that’s because you don’t believe in it. The lack of belief comes first, personally, in real human terms. No ‘science’ will provide the definition for you; that’s why you run and hide.
Lizzie’s view (let’s not even call it ‘philosophy’, because it is so stunted) of science falls quickly into predictivism, falsificationism and empiricism. She thinks her view of ‘science’ is the only one, best one and correct one. Not *all* science, however, makes predictions, not all theories are falsifiable and not all scientific works are empirical.
I am rather amused, to say the least, by Lizzie’s confused yet confident claims of which ‘kinds’ of research *are possible* given her rather unusual scholarly pathway and personal combination of (academic) fields.
keiths has clearly bested both Lizzie and Alan in this thread re: MN. But keiths, as with most ‘skeptics’ here, stuck in atheism or agnosticism, misses out on a much more colourful world that is both real and natural and even more beyond that which his ideologically shrunken senses disallow him to perceive. What is sad is that keiths will put up Science as his shield, while failing to speak almost at all about how the ideologies he holds impact his worldview.
Science was and is being created, done, produced by religious believers, not only by atheist robots. ‘Supernaturalistic science’ is nevertheless a wrong-headed idea (including religious folks like Alistair McGrath who want a theistic science). It tries to put God in a box.
keiths’ attack on MN nevertheless succeeds. But myopic ideological scientism trying to swallow God comes up empty.
p.s. this should really open another thread because it has almost nothing to do with UD’s jackass leader, other than perhaps Lizzie’s jealousy of his faith and shared misunderstanding of PoS
How would it also not apply to Porky?
check it out .
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/122899/signs-of-intelligent-life
peace
PS Of course you know that I have a perfectly good argument that applies to me and not to HAL but it involves quoting scripture 😉
HAL is made of silicon. I rest my case
peace
So you don’t think pigs have minds?
You keep using that word argument, but I don’t think you actually know what it means.
You have just shown that your god cannot exist.
What case? You’ve made no case! No structured argument. No marshalling of evidence.
Your “case” is “has it been revealed to me”.
Religion is fine, but don’t confuse it with reality.
HAL is made of Baryons, just like you and me.
I don’t think it’s murder to order a ham sandwich. Do you? Please explain your answer
peace
Leviticus 11:7-8
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
I have explained it in the same way you “explain” your answers. Somewhat unsatisfying, no?
Never.
The Carbon based thing was your argument not mine I’m just asking for consistency.and if you are consistent you have just shown that you don’t think that Hal is a person.
I have no prejudice toward any particular mineral when it comes to minds.
peace
fmm,
Can you or can’t you make an argument without quoting the bible?
Whatever. Why don’t you try making an actual argument that HAL is not a person?
So to sum up, it’s not murder to destroy a self-aware emotional and rational being, just because it has not been revealed to you that it is really really conscious.
Got it, thanks.
Mark 7:15
checkmate
peace
Chuckle. Yeah, duelling bible verses are the pinnacle of argumentation for you it seems and you cannot make an argument without them.
You influence on the world is therefore minimal.
I guess it never occurs to you if that one cancels my one why god bothered to cause the first one to be written?
It’s lucky for you the world has people who do more then read the bible, or you’d not have that nice computer to preach on, you’d still be sitting in a cave.
How do you know that something is really a self-aware emotional and rational being and does not just appear to you to be such?
Some people think their car is a person and some people think the wind is. How do you know they are wrong?
peace
Do you think that there should be restrictions on the level of cruelty animals farmed for food can be forced to suffer? Or do you think, as they are mindless, that no consideration should be given to their quality of life whatsoever?
Can you name something that appears to be a self-aware emotional and rational being but which is actually not such a thing?
Are car’s self aware and emotional then? Is the wind?
ever hear of context? The first verse was written to members of one covenant the second verse to members of another very different covenant,
Your ignorance of this fact this is telling.
peace
So, just to clarify, it’s not murder to destroy a self-aware emotional and rational being, just because it has not been revealed to you that it is really really conscious or it might just be the case that it has the appearance of consciousness.
I get it. Peace? Never, ever ever.
Yeah, its telling you that I’ve not wasted any of my life on the Bible once I realized what a crock of shit it all is. And I actually know all the arguments here anyway, so you’ve no need to make them, everybody knows how the wholesale murder and rape in the bible is justified by people like you. Jesus came and wiped all that away. Blah blah blah.
But the point is, you are happy to murder beings that are different from you based on some spurious verse from the bible that tells you that only humans can be conscious. I get it. You are a scary person.
Lets start with Hal or any sophisticated computer program designed to fool folks
I don’t think so but I have no compelling argument for this. That is the point
peace
By your own criteria. Does the wind express emotion? No. Is it self-aware? Not that I’m aware of.
I can’t prove the wind is not self-aware but based on what I’ve experienced I would bet it is not.
Whereas a being that acted as if it was self aware, that expressed emotional responses. Sure, I’d err on the side of caution and not ‘delete’ such a being arbitrarily.
So you just don’t get it do you. I can’t prove the wind or my sock is not self aware. and when you ask me to prove a negative it just demonstrates that you don’t actually have any actual arguments and just want to occupy the default position which you think is what happens when I can’t prove a negative.
But the fact remains that you’d murder a self aware entity because you have not had revealed knowledge that it is conscious.
No
You are inconsistently happy to deny that the wind and other phenomena in nature is conscious based on nothing at all. That is the point
peace
Yes, lets. Demonstrate that HAL is not conscious.
No, it’s not the point. The point is some things exhibit signs of consciousness and others don’t. You are saying there is no significant difference between something like HAL (which expresses sadness over it’s impending doom) and the wind, which has never been noted to express sadness over anything.
That you cannot see this is amazing.
No, I’m saying I’ve not seen any evidence of it, whereas with HAL there is clear evidence (self aware, expressing sadness over it’s demise).
I CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE. IS THIS COMPLEX?
YOU are denying that HAL is not conscious on what basis again?
In the past that same argument was made against people that looked or acted differently than the in-group.
peace
In fact, yes.
Again, I say you are happy to murder beings that are different from you based on some spurious verse from the bible that tells you that only humans can be conscious. It was not murder to unplug HAL
Now, are you going to make an argument that HAL was not conscious or not?
BUT THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT THE WIND WERE THEY?
YOU ARE THE PERSON MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THINGS THAT EXHIBIT CONSCIOUSNESS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONSCIOUS UNLESS THAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO YOU.
YOU ARE THE NAZI IN THIS ROLE PLAY.
oops, godwined the thread. oh well.
That is not evidence at all
Even with my almost non-existing programming abilities I can create a program that feigns sadness over it’s demise.
The wind makes sounds that could be interpreted as expressing all kinds of emotions.
peace
Can you prove otherwise? Present your argument then explain why it does not apply to mind(s) behind the universe.
You can’t or you would have already
peace
Wow, you boys really like each other, don’t you? 😉
I noticed you missed out the “self-aware” criteria. Go on then, make a program that feigns self-awareness. And when you tell it you are about to delete it and it begs you not to, what will you do then?
Heh, I’m talking to someone who is telling me that evidence of self-awareness is not evidence at all unless they are in the right category of person, i.e. where revelation has shown that ‘person’ really is a person. The analogies to Nazis are unavoidable frankly.
Don’t you get it? It’s because I can’t prove otherwise is why I would not turn off HAL, a being exhibiting self-awareness etc.
And I don’t believe there is a mind behind the universe because I’ve seen no evidence of such behaviour. I can’t PROVE there is not, but as explained at great length OVER AND OVER YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE!
No that is what you have done when it comes to the mind(s) behind the universe.
You have it exactly backwards
peace
Does the wind say “I’m alive, please don’t delete me?”
Very well. What is the evidence that the universe is conscious?
It’s you that wants to murder entities that exhibit self awareness, not me.
Yet you are an atheist rather than an agnostic. That is a position that holds that there is not mind(s) behind the universe.
peace
You want to murder the mind(s) behind the universe.
peace
Why not go have your fun-loving date in Noyau?
Are you conscious? Are you separate from the universe?
peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9NlVu2UEu0
peace
OMagain,
Now there’s some bumpersticker theology that I’d be happy to have on my car.