- If yes, in what sense?
- If no, do you think that evolutionists claim that it is?
- If yes, why do you think this?
- If no, what the heck are we arguing about?
174 thoughts on “ID proponents: is Chance a Cause?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A roll of the dice is also determined by the laws of physics but it’s still for all intents and purposes unpredictable.
Yes, it’s mystifying, especially as we note that nowhere in those stories is there any record of the Lord writing “this is my story, and I’ve proofread every page to make sure you silly humans didn’t make any mistakes in writing down what I said, and every word in it is true so you better believe it all happened exactly like I said it did!”
There’s no reason to assume that YHWH approves of the existing bible texts, except for the purely negative reason that YHWH hasn’t appeared to strike down with lightning all people who quote from or reproduce those texts. That’s not exacty a ringing endorsement by the author!
We can infer that if a book were dictated by an omnipotent god, by any reasonable definition of “omnipotent”, the scribe could have been forced to record exactly what that god said. Also he could be prevented by that power from making any mistakes either accidentally or from devilish meddling. But maybe the omnipotent god did not choose to exercise its power in that way. The supposedly “inspired” book we do have is full of mistakes. It’s far better to let YHWH off the hook as author, or at minimum, do YHWH the charity of assuming that some of the ridiculous things people claim in its name are not exactly what it said/meant.
To insist on believing a christian bible literally word-for-word is the ultimate act of disrespect towards the power that is supposedly the Creator of everything, including our entire visible universe with its manifest age, and ecosystems on our planet which show every evidence of having evolved without intentional direction. Evolved biology surely would surprise and delight any god who had created the whole shebang and then refrained from piddly messing about with its creation.
I don’t know either – could you explain, Blas? It would be interesting.
I thought it was the atheists that were angry? Please do elaborate.
Blas, before you answer why you are angry with ‘Darwinist[s],’ in case you didn’t see these threads before, this may help provide context re: who you are dealing with. There’s no Darwinists here except for the ‘Darwinists,’ after all. Lizzie, for example, claims to be a Darwinist, but not a ‘Darwinist,’ if you know what I mean.
Since you are not an ‘ID supporter,’ the second thread might be less helpful.
No. Caused by some physical/chemical factor(s) in accordance with the laws of physics – which, since the laws of physics are apparently non-deterministic at the quantum level, may mean that mutations (as well as other molecular motions) are non-determined. Which is also NOT the same as saying they are caused by “chance” – since “chance” cannot be a cause! It’s incoherent to say “chance” is a cause; it’s a contradiction in terms.
It’s a shame you’re having such a hard time with the subtleties of reality, Blas, but of course you’re not alone in that. It turns out many people have trouble with reality if they want to pin it down to black-and-white dichotomies.
Either a wave OR a particle, but not both? And most certainly not both AT THE SAME TIME? Well, too bad, that’s the nature of reality — our evolved mental processing of our images of medium-scale everyday reality turns out not to be well-fitted to understanding either the very large or very small scales nor the nature of causation with much more sophistication than “hit him with rock, him fall down”.
Let me follow your argument. Mutations are not determined by physical laws, chance it is not a cause. Then mutation do not have a cause, they just happen to be.
No, that’s not what I said nor what I meant. You even quoted me directly NOT saying that:
but you obviously don’t see it. Sorry, I don’t know what else I can do to help you see.
True, chance cannot be a “cause” because a “cause” has to be a type of thing (eg a physical force, or a supernatural entity) which can exert effects on the physical world. It’s incoherent to claim that “chance” might be something which could ever cause effects.
No. Back to wrong again. We have reason to believe that all mutations have causes (physical/chemical forces in accordance with the laws of physics).
What we don’t know, and apparently can’t know even if omnipotent/omniscient, is whether chain of events following directly on from quantum event A will lead to mutation B or C (or none) in a specific case.
Yes, it’s subtle. I hazard a guess that you’d be a lot less angry (your word) if you stopped trying to force-fit reality into your black-and-white presuppositions. IF that’s not good advice for you, then I apologize for reading too much into your words, but I do wish I could help you.
I guess it’s the other way around: he is an ID supporter but not an ‘ID supporter.’
Heh. Meant to put it in quotes. Still, we say dice are random with respect to outcomes, even if the point in craps is in our favor.
I do wonder whether sometimes Blas is missing some English negatives. I know that in Italian double negatives don’t mean what they do in English.
But for whatever reason: Blas, you are frequently misinterpreting what people are saying to be the exact reverse of what they are saying! That’s inevitable in a foreign language, but do ask if you are not sure – don’t just assume you have got it right.
It’s dead easy, Gregory: I am a “Darwinist” in the sense that I think Darwin’s theory is essentially right. I am an “evolutionist” because I think that the modern evolutionary framework is essentially right. In both cases I think they are far from complete, and I am prepared to be surprised at what future research turns up.
My only objection to the ID movement is that it is, so far, not a scientific project – it makes no testable predictions, and carries out no empirical studies that would falsify anything that isn’t a straw man.
How about Schrödinger’s cat? Is its potential demise caused by ‘chance’?
Well said! I’ve been wondering Blas’ position and why he ‘seems’ to be defending IDism, perhaps even ‘creationism’ or both. At least he had the courtesy to answer directly, so now we know.
Ok then quantum event A happen and led to a mutation. We cannot link quantum event A with mutation B, or C or none.
I assume you are meaning that mutation B or C have a cause in a quantum event, or at least a quantum event is a variable of the physical laws that lead to a mutation.
Now given quantum event A determined one an only one mutation for example mutation B but not C?
if no, what makes that given quantum event A we can have mutation A or B?
Where is the strawman? Where is the point where this meaningless sticking of molecules becomes something more, philosophically speaking, than just another film of oil floating on a stagnant pond?
That is the whole point of a non-materialist worldview. To us there is something more. When does a materialists worldview suddenly make a human life a special case? I haven’t seen any of you articulate this, other than it seems you know instinctively that it is different than a pool of sticky oil.
Lizzie,
Unfortunately for you, Lizzie, given that philosophy is obviously not your strong suit and your refusal or inability to have a coherent and significant discussion about ideology and the role it plays in science and in the science, philosophy and theology/worldview conversation more broadly, you’ve chosen to use too few words, to conflate terms unnecessarily, when the English language makes possible a more insightful and accurate approach. It’s like you’ve chosen a single toothbrush to clean the huge ice between hockey periods when a Zamboni is ready and available to you. Personally, I just don’t want to wait so long for you to finish all that brushing on your hands and knees when better terminology is available and ready at your service and I don’t understand your seemingly willful stubbornness to ignore that this terminology *IS* available and preferable. What would possibly make you come around (like in the ‘naturalist science’ thread, after a whole lot of tooth pulling, then a simple PoS note from KN finally led to your self-correction)?
To me, that makes you a supporter of Darwinian evolution – note the ‘-ian’ ending please – or an advocate of Darwin’s theories. As with you, I agree with many aspects of Darwin’s theories, but that does *NOT* make me a ‘Darwinist.’
To me, that makes you a supporter or advocate of evolutionary theory or ‘the modern evolutionary framework’ (given that you are not an ‘evolutionary biologist). Notice the lack of ‘-ist’ ending involved. As with you (but in this case perhaps less so), I agree with many aspects of evolutionary theories *IN* natural sciences, but that does *NOT* make me an ‘evolutionist.’
The thing is, for whatever mysterious reason, Lizzie, it seems that you actually *WANT* to appear as an ideologue – as a ‘Darwinist’ and ‘evolutionist – at least in the eyes of some because you are not (yet) content to use the ideologically neutral language that is readily available.
Please don’t feel like you are alone; there are many people who are similarly stubborn (or that’s just what they ‘feel’ is right for their personal way of categorisation and using the English language).
In short:
Darwinian theory, model, framework, approach, etc. = scientific
Darwinian evolution, natural selection = scientific
Darwinism = ideological
Evolutionary theory, model, framework, approach, etc. = scientific
Evolutionism = ideological
About your views of the IDM/IDT, I have no comments since I largely agree with your position against them/it.
I’m not sure whether you have read many of the responses to your earlier questions along this line, but I suggest you do. But the answer to your question is quite simple: when the whole configuration has properties that the individual molecules do not. Just as the molecule has properties that the individual atoms do not (and vice versa, of course). Entities are nested, in other words, each with properties different to those of entities higher or lower in the nest – a crowd vs a person; a person vs an organ; an organ vs a cell; a cell vs an organelle; an organelle vs a molecule; a molecule vs an atom; an atom vs a proton; a proton vs a quark…. Understanding quarks won’t help you understand people or crowds, or not much – because people and crowds have properties not possessed by quarks. That doesn’t mean they consist of anything other than the sum of their sub-entities. It means that wholes are different from parts.
Many people have articulated just this, including myself, yet again in this post. I’m trying to think which was the other thread I did it in – check for responses to your posts in other threads.
Gregory,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
Here
phoodoo,
Phoodoo, you seem to be asserting that an external / “superior” agent must give your life ‘meaning’. If so, who gives God’s existence meaning?
Further, in short, to be clear with terms, Lizzie, here is ‘normal’ usage for those who are competent in PoS (which is almost no one here at TSZ or at UD):
Evolutionary biologist, geologist, cosmologist, etc. = scientist
Biological (or any other kind of natural scientific) evolutionist = ideologue
Darwinian theorist = scientist
(Social or Natural) Darwinist = ideologue
Universal Darwinist (e.g. Campbell, Dawkins, Dennett, Heylighen) = (hyper-)ideologue
Thus, Dembski is just as foolish and myopic as you are when he calls ‘Darwinism’ a ‘science’ instead of an ‘ideology’ and ‘Darwinists’ as ‘scientists’ instead of ‘ideologues.’ So, if you don’t want to rise above Dembski’s low-level usage, then by all means, keep using the terms in the ambiguous and conflationary way you are currently doing.
Richardthughes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo
Obviously you possess the ‘can’t-talk-about-ideology-with-wisdom’ gene, so the disconnect is understandable 😉 Or is it the “people with weak egos grasping around desperately for simple explanations” gene? Sometimes that one’s hard to distinguish from the other.
I look forward to your blog Gregory where you can cast your pearls before a more enlightened audience.
I think we need a new term here.
“Gregoryism” – a confused mish mash of pseudo-science jargon and psychobabble that boosts its user’s ego while not advancing discussion even a smidgen.
It has to tell other folks just how wrong and unqualified they are as well.
Distinguishing between “Gregoryism,” `Gregoryism,’ and Gregoryism is left as an exercise to the reader.
Lizzie, it is predictable that naturalists, materialists, evolutionists, atheists and other ideologues, including the many advocates of scientism (most of whom protest loudly and proudly that their actual ideologies are unfairly being called out for what they are: ideologies) who are present in abundance here at TSZ will protest this lesson in CLARITY. I hold you to a higher standard than them, given that this is your blog, and implore you at least to consider the ‘lesson’ I’ve provided, which shows quite simply and without super-complexity how educated discussion by people who study this phenomenon of ideology, sometimes in the discourse of science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse and sometimes not, have come to understand the way ‘-isms’, ‘-ists’ and ‘-ians’ (-ologies are another story) are properly used to refer to distinct meanings. It’s up to you if you choose to reject or accept the possibility that I might know something about this that you don’t, that it might actually be helpful for communicative purposes or instead to take the risk of being interpreted as an ideologue by anyone who has discovered this appropriate semantic usage, when you refer to yourself as ‘Darwinist’ or as ‘evolutionist,’ even if you provide your autonomous definition every time you call yourself either of those terms.
This run-on sentence reminded me of Sarah Palin. The word CLARITY (capitalized!) does not really belong here.
Concentrate, Gregory!
I assume that if we can just get the terminology right, the science will take care of itself.
And the philosophy and theology/worldview might ‘take care of itself’ as well.
‘Just the natural science’ is often far less than humanly satisfying.
Maybe not to you, but that’s almost certainly because you’ve never done any of it.
I will not submit to your prescriptive usages, Gregory. I will happily define any terms I use if the specific meaning is unclear from the context, but there is no law that says that some words may only be used to mean certain things.
The way to be clear is to make one’s meaning clear; not to require lookup tables.
And I am getting rather fed up with this disruption to any thread with your insistence that posters conform to your specific jargon. I agree that people need to make their usage clear, and not equivocate (change definition mid argument without saying so). But I am not going to insist that they only use one definition. For as start we have people from many language groups and cultures here, including professional cultures.
You are a humanities scholar – you must surely know enough linguistics to understand that language is dynamic.
And enough about science methodology to know that precise definitions are key, but need not extend beyond the context in which they are being used, hence the term “operational definition”.
And this is a bit rich too. I’m no philosopher, but then nor, as I understand it, are you. I’m not philosphically illiterate – I can’t afford to be, given what I do do. And I certainly make no refusal to discuss ideology – I’d be more than willing to do so if you would like to make a post on the topic. But I’m against derailing scientific threads with discussions of terminology, when the meaning in context is either perfectly clear, or needs to be made perfectly clear, and may not have the meaning you like to associate with the term.
But I’d be delighted to discuss the ideology of science or whatever – it’s an interesting topic. Do post an OP.
A suggestion. How about, in future, you translate what you write from sociologese into English, so that we can read it. And, when reading what we post, you translate that from English into sociologese so that you can understand what we write.
It would make communication a lot easier.
1) You used the term ‘evolutionist’ in the OP without defining it.
2) No insistence or forcefulness, Lizzie. I’m simply educating you about something you obviously know very little about and are trying hard to refuse with your conceptual relativism cum personalist grammar.
When you write ‘naturalist science’ but actually mean ‘science,’ when you write ‘evolutionist,’ but actually mean ‘proponent of evolutionary theory’ you muddy the communication, rather than adding clarity.
Of course you don’t have to submit. But are you willing to learn, Miss Lizzie or not? You have so far shown utter stubborn unwillingness to gain new knowledge on this topic. What will it take for this to change?
Neither am I. You (and ‘they’) are free to choose, free to learn, free to discover and adapt your language as you wish. Just don’t blame freedom on your linguistic relativism. The coherency of your ‘definitions’ likewise cannot be demanded of your readers simply *because* you don’t want to listen to them. And you should already know that anything that appears to support naturalism, materialism, atheism, evolutionism and/or scientism will be supported by the majority of posters here on your Skeptics blog, Lizzie, which is a microcosm and not a representative venue in the general public or among scholars.
Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean language must be (Humpty Dumpty) relativistic in the way you seem to be suggesting. And it also doesn’t mean ‘ignore the experts,’ just because they reject/oppose one’s ex-Catholic, current agnostic worldview. Simply protesting that you gave a (supposedly) ‘clear meaning’ does not mean it is a coherent or appropriate meaning, especially when it flies in the face of the very fields that study the phenomenon you claim you can capably define for yourself.
Well, I do hold a master’s degree in philosophy, Lizzie. And I work with philosophers on an almost daily basis, in addition to scientists and humanists. We are both interdisciplinarians. Yes, I would call myself a social philosopher or cultural philosopher. Surely, I continually read and often quote the works of philosophers in my writings. Again, just remember the key is promoting science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse, which it seems you also (would secretly like to) support.
Sorry to say it, Lizzie, but thus far your intentional obliviousness to ideology betrays your claim. What you seemingly ‘cannot afford’ to be is actually quite obviously present in your conflations and equivocations. Perhaps philosophical maturity is a more appropriate scale than literacy. If you were philosophically literate, you would better understand ideology and be able to reflexively acknowledge which and how ideology(ies) affect your own position.
Look, you already crossed out ‘naturalist’ in your previous thread. Something KN said obviously got through to you. What was it? I made the point quite clearly why ‘naturalist’ was inappropriate in the other thread, but it took an extra push of some kind for you to act. What? A fellow ‘naturalist’ (who is now doubting his naturalism!), although he is not a natural scientist, as you are, rather than a theist explaining the reason ‘naturalist science’ was _______?
Let’s see about that, shall we? Skeptical (Zone), not skepticism, right? I’m a busy guy with my academic work also and it is highly unwelcome to be dog-piled upon here by anti-theists, often with no more depth than the coins you so enjoy discussing for their flip(pancie)s. If you really are not an atheist, Lizzie, I’d expect some moderation on your part helping to elevate the conversation, rather than reducing it into the crudities of naturalism, materialism, Darwinism and evolutionism. It doesn’t take much effort to be ‘skeptical’ about those things, not in our electronic-information era.
Neil Rickert,
That’s about as simple as it comes, Neil. A bit of learning about ideology and ideologues might actually do you some good, no? There’s nothing unclear in what is written and it is not ‘sociologese’ but as close to a mathematical equation as you or just about anyone might wish. One wouldn’t expect a computer programmer to care, but it’s good to see you’re willing to elevate from simple things to explore humanity at a much more complicated level. 😉
Do you live in Montserrat, Greg?
Nice Gregoryism bro. Or maybe “Gregoryism”.
Jaysus, Gregory, this is inexcusable.
It would be cute in a fifth-grader with a high IQ and a live smile. In a putatively adult teacher with a smiley, not so cute.
OK, I am not a computer programmer, Gregory. I am a theoretical physicist. I see nothing resembling a mathematical structure in your semantic exercises.
I am refusing nothing. This is a figment of your imagination. And while it’s interesting to know that terms are used differently in other fields, I don’t think anyone but you is misled by my use of them here.
I already struck out “naturalist” at your insistence Gregory, and I have made it very clear what I mean elsewhere.
I’m not going to learn a new language just for you, Gregory, at the risk of being misunderstood by everyone else. But I have already attempted to clarify so that you will not be confused.
If you want to post a thread about those isms, Gregory you are more than welcome to do so. But they are not what I am referring to when I mention science – or, if they are, I will make that clear. And of course this is a “microcosm” – it’s a bloody blog, not a Nobel speech.
Yes it does. If it is clear, then, by definition, it is coherent, and thus appropriate for the purpose. If the word is used in another way, in another field, tough. It happens all the time. Geez, I’ve moved through enough fields to know that you scarcely even have to travel across a corridor to be mutually misunderstood.
Stop imputing secret motives to me, Gregory. It’s against the rules of this blog. And the only sense in which I am interested in “promoting” such discourse is in the form of discussions on this blog. I am not trying to spread some gospel. And yes, it seems we are both interdisciplinarians. Cool.
You are breaking the rules of this site again, Gregory. I have no “intentional obliviousness” to anything. And I am NOT equivocating – equivocation, as you will, know, having a masters in philosophy and all, is the fallacy using a word to mean one thing in an argument, and then reusing it in a different sense in your conclusion. I do not do this. I have made it clear what I mean by my terms, and I have stuck to them. That you insist that I should have used some different term (which in my view would have been ambiguous in a different way, such as “natural science” which would exclude my own field) is not me equivocating. Frankly I think it is you being obtuse.
It was your suggestion, Gregory, I thought. If it was KN’s fine. I’m not entirely happy with it, because I meant something a little more specific (a methodology not used in all science – you’d pulled me up a year or so ago for using “science” only to refer to a single methodology), but frankly, anything for a quiet life.
Yes. In other words, a place where people can question assumptions, revisit unchallenged beliefs, find out that what you know may not necessarily be so. I can’t be bothered with isms.
Well, the moderation here is deliberately light, and while you are very welcome, you are of course under no obligation to post here.
I am an atheist, and I am not interested in how “elevated” the conversation is. My rules are clear, and being “elevated” is not one of them. As for the crudities of the “isms” you mention – I don’t know anything about isms. I’m interested in the science represented by the front of each word, not the ideology at the back.
But if you want to discuss the ideologies, as I keep saying, you are more than welcome to do so. You have OP posting permissions, and I’d be interested in any case you would like to make.
But don’t blame me for not discussing something that doesn’t interest you. I am under no obligation to post solely on topics that are of interest to you. But I am more than willing to discuss any posts you wish to make.
Sexist piggery.
Are you willing to amend your language, Gregory, to avoid being perceived as a perpetrator of sexist piggery?
A = scientific
B = ideological
C = scientist
D = ideologue
Is that really so tough, olegt? But of course you are not displaying *ANY* ideology here and are almost not a human being either, right? That’s a reductionistic Soviet attitude, my friend, like the ‘objectivism’ of that Russian-American who you might not even openly acknowledge.
Gregory, please read the rules, and absorb them before you next post.
I’m not going to respond to any more posts in which you violate them, and may move them to guano.
You are behaving rather badly IMO.
Greg, start your own thread. Please.
No, it’s not You’re wrong. Wrong for the first time in your life, no doubt, but wrong nonetheless.
Hehe.
Would you care then to acknowledge that in the other thread? Your change seems to be due to KN’s post, not to my lengthy explanations and appeals. Nowhere have you acknowledged that your change was due to my insistence.
Here’s the record: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3724&cpage=2#comment-36582
That’s exactly what I meant by ‘intentionally oblivious’ – you “can’t be bothered.”
Thank you for finally informing us.
Oh snap!
It would appear that “ideology” can be quite equivocal:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology
“1
: visionary theorizing
2
a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program”
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology
“i·de·ol·o·gy [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]
noun, plural i·de·ol·o·gies.
1.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.
such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.
Philosophy .
a.
the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.
a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.
theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.”
Greg, have a word with Greg about Greg’s use of equivocal words. He clearly doesn’t have the PoS training and he might learn something from you.