Munging ID

This OP may change over time. But for now…

  • Devolution
  • Rejecting common descent
  • Failure to address how designs are actualized
  • Materialism and Naturalism

“Devolution” is evolution. Stop trying to convince people that evolution and devolution are opposites.

Present the case for common descent. Address the subject of why IDists ought to accept common descent. Stop trying to convince people that ID and common descent are incompatible.

The designs that the science of intelligent design detects had to be actualized somehow. If the design that was detected is not an instance of an actualized design then it is a mistake to infer that it is designed. Tell us how designs are actualized without appealing to acts of special creation by a supernatural designer. There needs to be an alternative to God as The Designer who actualized his designs by something other than natural processes or there will always be a cloud over the claim that ID is a “strictly scientific” theory.

It’s not clear to me how introducing the immaterial into science would work. As things stand right now I see appeals to the non-material or the non-natural as unscientific and at odds with claims that ID is a strictly scientific theory.

Thoughts?

ETA: Mung has special powers, Gregory.

222 thoughts on “Munging ID

  1. OMagain: I suspect J-Mac is a Markov bot. I made one out of his last few OP’s and it’s not that far off how he normally sounds:

    Nope. Sorry. Bot-Mac sounds much more coherent than J-Mac, and the vocabulary is way more advanced. I’m not joking, nor am I being sarcastic.

    ETA: Perhaps if it produced shorter “sentences,” perhaps incomplete ones, and add “lols,” specially by the end of the “comment.” The produced “comment” should also be much shorter. Your bot looks like a J-Mac / Nonlin hybrid.

  2. BruceS: As it happens, I did post-graduate work in statistics, so I do know about 5-sigma.

    But of course, for that number to matter, first you must be correct in all ofthe following:the experimental design, justified hypotheses, associated distributions, and of course the statistical analysis.

    None of which Raid appears to have any relevant expertise in for QM.So I see no reason to believe his claims as you depict them.

    Take care J-MAlthough I suppose I may be just saying that to be polite.

    Your claim that his education level is not to your satisfaction is a rather tacky defense.

    Imagine how many people who make biological claims about Darwinism this could be said of.

  3. phoodoo: Your claim that his education level is not to your satisfaction is a rather tacky defense.

    Say what?
    You have the condescension precisely backwards:

    J-Mac’s shtick consists (pretty much in its entirety) of alluding to his superior personal brilliance (and that of his poor kids). He will dismiss people because they have not worked in a lab, or (alternatively) dismiss them because they have worked in a lab. That’s funny.
    J-Mac:

    I know that you really try to defend your preconceived beliefs… I don’t care!
    Do you know what 5 sigma measure is? Does newton? How about Mr. Cream of the Cream? Look it up!
    If the same results, 5 sigma in Dean Radin’s experiment, could be applied to any of the experiments ever performed that attempted to prove evolutionary theory we wouldn’t have this conversation…

    and
    J-Mac:

    Do you even know what 5 sigma is? Pity…

    [ironic in that 5 sigma corresponds to a measly P-value of ~10-7, and the phylogenetic evidence for common descent is off in the 10^-38 range. Heh.]

    Unsurprisingly, his condescension backfires. BruceS (like my daughter) has done graduate work in statistics, and is able to point out places where Dean Radin (the paranormal researcher, lol) may have gone wrong in his analyses.
    BruceS wrote nothing to disparage J-Mac’s level of education.

    Heck, Bart Barrell never went to college, but that didn’t stop them from singing songs about him at the LMB. 🙂

  4. DNA_Jock: Unsurprisingly, his condescension backfires. BruceS (like my daughter) has done graduate work in statistics, and is able to point out places where Dean Radin (the paranormal researcher, lol) may have gone wrong in his analyses.

    Sorry, my computer seems to have a glitch, it doesn’t show the part where Bruce shows what is wrong with Radin’s findings.

    It only shows the part where he says there must be a problem.

    Must be some kind of quantum entanglement glitch.

  5. Curiouser and curiouser, phoodoo,

    My computer must have had a glitch too, right when J-Mac referenced Radin’s results.
    What are the chances, huh?
    You misunderstood BruceS: he did not claim to show where Radin WAS wrong (after all, no-one has offered up any of Radin’s data yet), only where he might have gone wrong. Psi researchers do have quite the impressive record in this regard.

    I did look at his Electrocortical Activity paper, and I saw failure to adequately adjust for multiple tests, although I suspect that there was sensory leakage too. Is this his double slit data? If so, in addition to the multiple tests problem, there’s an absolute howler in there (look at Fig 4 !).

    Yowser!

  6. DNA_Jock,

    You don’t appear to have any relevant expertise in QM , nor in PSI research, so I see no reason to take your claims seriously.

  7. phoodoo: Your claim that his education level is not to your satisfaction is a rather tacky defense.

    Imagine how many people who make biological claims about Darwinism this could be said of.

    My note on 5 sigma should be understood in the context of my previous note on how people trying to understand biology or any scientific field should assess claims. I include claims by other posters, their own claims, and claims on behalf what their kids could prove in the basement.

    So if someone want to make claims about QM measurement with psychological experiments, they need expertise first in QM, then in psychology. Radin does not have QM expertise far as I can see. His psychological expertise in experimentation can be assessed by the acceptance of PSI claims in the psychological scientific community: ie low.

    That’s one reason I am comfortable in rejecting J-M’s depiction of Radin’s claims. The other is that virtually no modern researcher with expertise in the relevant areas of QM thinks consciousness has anything to do with “collapse of the wave function”, as covered in other links I posted.

    Turning to your quoted phrase: Use of the word ‘Darwinism’ is something Gregory’s community of experts might have the relevant expertise in, since I think many people posting at TSZ use the word for ideological and rhetorical reasons, not as a way of making a scientific claim.

    But if such posters intended the word to mean the understanding of biological evolution by Darwin and his contemporaries, then historians of science and sociologists of science would have the expertise I would look for.

    Or if someone were trying to understand modern biological evolution then biologists are who I would defer to, and I think the same applies to anyone covered by your quoted phrase.

    Not electrical engineers untrained in biology, for example.

  8. BruceS: The other is that virtually no modern researcher with expertise in the relevant areas of QM thinks consciousness has anything to do with “collapse of the wave function”, as covered in other links I posted.

    Ha, except for the ones who say otherwise, and who you claim don’t count, by virtue that they are saying otherwise.

    Convenient.

  9. phoodoo: Ha, except for the ones who say otherwise, and who you claim don’t count, by virtue that they are saying otherwise.

    For instance, which ones are saying otherwise?

  10. phoodoo,

    Um, you know, like Dean Radin, who doesn’t count, because he says consciousness has a correlation to the collapse of the wave function. But no one in science says it has a correlation to the collapse wave function, because those who were to say there is a correlation, they don’t count, because no one says that.

    See, Bruce loves credential, except when he doesn’t care about the credentials, and he is all for a variety of opinions and input, as long as all variety and input is exactly the same. It makes for great conferences.

    Everyone can sit in one room and say, “Now, we all agree whatever is the most bottom fundamental elements of life, it comes from a naturalistic cause, correct? Because we invited you all here, based on if that’s what you believe, so does everyone believe that? Good, its settled! “

  11. The reason that I do not take Dean Radin’s claims seriously is that he has consistently made statistical howlers. His double-slit experiment is full of them.
    We could discuss the statistics, if you like.

  12. DNA_Jock:
    The reason that I do not take Dean Radin’s claims seriously is that he has consistently made statistical howlers. His double-slit experiment is full of them.
    We could discuss the statistics, if you like.

    Here is Michio Kaku’s statment about the consciousness…He is not as accomplished as the Darwin’s boys…
    He belives in evolution though… Is he no good?

    https://youtu.be/LDGABLP8LxI

  13. Ah yes, argumentum ad youtubem. Veritably a killer argument, I say.
    Seriously though, what is your point? A physicist explains Wigner’s friend in a way that confuses you? Again, it is NOT interaction with consciousness that produces the collapse of the “weave” function.
    Would you like to discuss the statistics of Dean Radin’s claims, or would you rather keep changing the subject?

  14. This thread seems to have attracted the attention of Joshua Swamidass. A thread now exists over at “Peaceful Science.” But I am barred from viewing or making comments in that thread.

    Sorry, you don’t have access to that topic!

    Hilarious.

  15. Mung:
    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/munging-intelligent-design/4012

    Can anyone else here view this thread?

    I get same message from link. It also seems to be gone from search.
    But I did view it when it was first posted.
    So best guess is an admin has since hidden it.

    Speaking about PS, link there to the long mea culpa from PZ for his time as New Atheist. I am pretty sure you’ll enjoy it if you have not already seen it.
    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-was-the-new-atheism/4032/13

  16. J-Mac: Here is Michio Kaku’s statment about the consciousness…He is not as accomplished as the Darwin’s boys…
    He belives in evolution though… Is he no good?

    https://youtu.be/LDGABLP8LxI

    So just further to my moderation post on always saying what I mean, but not directly.
    For example, my post in your conscious dog thread where I mention the mangy cat and Wigner’s friend the dog.

    It links to Schrodinger’s cat and to Wigner’s friend (the conscious dog) thought experiments.

    Those links and the reference to the Wigner’s friend, the conscious dog, is an example of the Canadian indirectness I was referring to in moderation post.

    Your linked video gives a correct description of both thought experiments.

    It does not make clear that Schrodinger created the cat experiment to illustrate how ridiculous he thought the wave collapse idea was.

    But Wigner was serious. Few working on the measurement problem and QM interpretations take the idea seriously now, one reason being the infinite chain conscious observers noted at the end. (Which is really a revisit of Berkeley’s God in the Quad idea — click the link!).

    Different interpretations have different ways of dealing with the issues posed by the thought experiments. For example, the many worlds interpretation does basically say that the whole universe never collapses: each cat possibility exists in one of the worlds. As does a version of each of us.

    Most proposed solutions do involve decoherence. However, it is fair to say that no one thinks the problems raised by the thought experiments have been completely resolved.

  17. Mung:
    This thread seems to have attracted the attention of Joshua Swamidass. A thread now exists over at “Peaceful Science.”But I am barred from viewing or making comments in that thread.

    Sorry, you don’t have access to that topic!

    Hilarious.

    If this continues, PS is going to be for the approved members only… Whatta bloody joke!
    PS. I can’t wait to review Swamidass’ upcoming book lol
    I have been thinking to give him some pointers what to put in the book so that we can see the scientific evidence how exactly God guided the evolution…;-)

    Is it true that Swamidass actually believes that God guided the evolution of human from the embryo of the common ancestor of chimps and humans?
    This can’t be so, can it?!

  18. J-Mac: Is it true that Swamidass actually believes that God guided the evolution of human from the embryo of the common ancestor of chimps and humans?

    Probably.

    That seems a very reasonable belief for a theist.

    This can’t be so, can it?!

    This is what puzzles me. Many theists declare that their god is omniscient and omnipotent. But then they turn around and declare that their god is so limited that he could not possibly guide the evolution of humans from an earlier ancestor.

    Presumably, these theists find evolution to be repugnant. And therefore they believe it must be repugnant to their god. They admit to being sinners and to be wrong about all kinds of things. But they are unable to admit that they might be wrong about what is repugnant to their god.

  19. Neil Rickert: Many theists declare that their god is omniscient and omnipotent

    Not me…That’s one of the many reasons Christendom lost its appeal in the eyes of logic… If God is omnipotent and omniscient that means he must’ve known that Adam and Eve would sin. Ultimately, God would be responsible for all the sufferings including mine at TSZ….

  20. Neil Rickert: Presumably, these theists find evolution to be repugnant

    Again, it depends what you mean by evolution…
    The evolution of dogs from wolf within the “kind” (s) can’t be denied…It actually helps to free up some space on the Noah’s Ark….lol

  21. J-Mac:Ultimately, God would be responsible for all the sufferings including mine at TSZ….

    Entirely voluntary, of course. Quite a few of you moan about how much you hate it here. Don’t let us detain you.

  22. BruceS: It does not make clear that Schrodinger created the cat experiment to illustrate how ridiculous he thought the wave collapse idea was.

    I’m sorry for not being sorry earlier when I had mentioned it you more than once that Schrodinger’s cat is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT which exposed a flaw in one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics…

    I personally disagree that Schrodinger’s cat is the right thought experiment when considering the current understanding of QM…But hey! That’s just my view…

  23. J-Mac: I’m sorry for not being sorry earlier when I had mentioned it you more than once that Schrodinger’s cat is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT which exposed a flaw in one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics…

    I personally disagree that Schrodinger’s cat is the right thought experiment when considering the current understanding of QM…But hey! That’s just my view…

    Exactly. The interpretation S criticizes, or at least rejects as unbelievable, is the I understand you to favour: wave collapse by conscious (human) observer.

    I brought it up in the context of your dog thread because that cat experiment says that cats cannot collapse the wave functions (for if they could, the living cat would, making superposition with dead cat state impossible). So cats cannot be conscious in the sense you seem to require.

    So why would dogs differ from cats in ability to collapse wave function by consciousness? Maybe because they are man’s best friend and that requires them to be conscious? That was the link to Wigner’s friend. Admitted, that one is a bit less serious than the cat one.

    It is very Canadian of you to be sorry for not being sorry. Even if you meant that as ironic humor, it would still be a Canadian style of humor!

  24. Mung: Any reason at all to think that I made up that url?

    Your thread is back.

    It’s pretty threadbare for now, however.

    Be nice if you decide to comment on it. You seem to stir up PS trouble by short barbs on Darwinism or on Joshua’s posts, for example. But maybe being nice is a Canadian trait you’d be sorry to possess.

  25. Neil Rickert: J-Mac: Is it true that Swamidass actually believes that God guided the evolution of human from the embryo of the common ancestor of chimps and humans?

    That was pretty much the position of Arthur Clarke in the novel, 2001.

    Except the designers were aliens, and they only intervened at a moment of crisis. In a later book, the aliens intervened in the evolution of life on Europa.

  26. As for ‘dumb arguments’, Joshua’s promotion of ‘methodological naturalism’ even though he thinks it’s the wrong name, is a classical ‘dumb argument’ made by a specialised natural scientist who knows almost nothing about the ideologies that possess his thoughts.

    “I want to assert the I do affirm methodological naturalism. In science, as it is practiced today, we do not include God in hypothesis in science.”- Swamidass (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methodological-naturalism-so-falsely-called/265/4)

    That’s methodological atheism, not methodological naturalism. “Not include God” is a negative argument, not a positive expression of ‘naturalistic methodology.’ Joshua is pushing ideological naturalism & calling it ‘the scientific method’ still in a rather unsophisticated way. He’ll deny this, of course, and likely try to shift the blame to someone else instead of himself.

    I have much more respect for Mung than I do for Joshua because of the latter’s backroom manipulation, impolite and aggressive demands at PS. He believes his fellow MD Jon Garvey, who blatantly lied to him (or just didn’t understand what he was accusing me of), rather than properly address me as presenting strong, clear, calm, accurate & conclusive rejection of his nonsensical defense of MN. So it’s on Joshua to eventually face the music for what he’s done, if he ever comes around to grow a conscience.

    Jon Garvey told Joshua that I outed someone on this thread: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/canadians-promoting-intelligent-design-theory-cameron-wybrow-denyse-oleary-and-bruce-gordon/

    Would anyone here at TSZ call anything in this thread as ‘outing’?

    Who did I ‘out’? Jon Garvey in fact got quite a few ideas for his current work from me & yet won’t admit that, in cahoots with Joshua, because of what I wrote about his collaborator. I stand behind every word I wrote in that thread about Bruce Gordon, Denyse O’Leary & Cameron Wybrow and there is nothing ‘outing’ about anything written there; I was very careful not to write anything of the sort & yet Garvey is casting a stone at me in defense of his agitating IDist friend.

    If Jon doesn’t like the truth, at least he shouldn’t tell lies about others. Joshua banned me from PS after hearing Jon’s lie to him. Yet Joshua’s ‘methodological naturalism’ naivety isn’t something he’ll likely welcome to face when it comes to ‘Munging ID’ either.

  27. “So do you or do you not support the DI financially independently of buying a few books?”

    Obviously, that’s part of Joshua’s business to ask such a question to Mung. What a classy individual! : P

    Joshua, do you or do you not support YECists with your work? Clearly the answer is yes!

  28. Gregory: That’s methodological atheism, not methodological naturalism. “Not include God” is a negative argument, not a positive expression of ‘naturalistic methodology.’ Joshua is pushing ideological naturalism & calling it ‘the scientific method’ still in a rather unsophisticated way. He’ll deny this, of course, and likely try to shift the blame to someone else instead of himself.

    You might be right about that…

    Recently, someone at PS realized that Swamidass is pushing atheism under the veneer of Christianity and got really upset and vocal about… Have you seen it?

    I call his movement atheistic christianity…

  29. J-Mac,

    “Have you seen it?”

    It would save me time just by linking to it. It’s far from my top priority right now to visit PS.

    Besides, Swamidass is not ‘pushing atheism’. He rejects atheism. He is merely defending & protecting atheists on what he ludicrously calls an ‘Empty Chair’ (while he shoves people off his chair & demands people do as he says when he is cornered in discussions) & demonstrating confusion between ideologies & people who hold them. He’s just a specialist scientist, after all, & shouldn’t be expected to know better.

  30. Gregory: It would save me time just by linking to it. It’s far from my top priority right now to visit PS

    Neither is mine…. Someone alerted me few days back…

  31. Gregory: . He is merely defending & protecting atheists on what he ludicrously calls an ‘Empty Chair’

    What’s the difference? Didn’t Judas Iscariot do the same thing?

  32. J-Mac,

    To compare Joshua with Judas Iscariot only reveals how jaded your own mind & heart have become. Nobody should take your warped words seriously. I would stand up in defense of Joshua against an ex-Catholic fool who says such nasty things any day of the week.

    Being ideologically naive as he is does not make Joshua evil or vicious. Foolishly proud & arrogantly myopic, perhaps, but not evil. I believe Joshua sincerely thinks he is bringing peace to those around him who he believes are engaging in a ‘creation war’. & if he can help some of them, more power to him for trying. It’s not an easy road he’s on, one way or another.

    A comparison with Matthew would be more suitable; the turn from public sinning might provide hope for you also.

    https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/faith-and-character/faith-and-character/matthew-levi-the-tax-collector.html

  33. Gregory: That’s methodological atheism, not methodological naturalism.

    Can you help me understand the issue with Joshua’s view? I also think it is possible to separate methodological naturalism as a norm for scientific explanations from philosophical naturalism as a view on reality.

    There are many questions whose answers and explanations fall outside the scope of science. Why is there something rather than nothing? What are our moral duties? Do we have free will and moral responsibility? How should we govern societies? And many others. Scientific MN is irrelevant for exploring these issues, I would agree.

    As best I can tell, you are implying that it impossible to hold MN in science without (unconsciously?) holding some form of philosophical naturalism. So someone like Joshua who believes in both God and MN for science has an unacknowledged inconsistency in his worldview.

    Is that your position? If so, what is is the nature of the inconsistency?

  34. “There are many questions whose answers and explanations fall outside the scope of science. Why is there something rather than nothing? What are our moral duties? Do we have free will and moral responsibility? How should we govern societies? And many others. Scientific MN is irrelevant for exploring these issues, I would agree.”

    In brief, the discussion is warped by weak American philosophy (WAP). It was Paul de Vries, an ethicist & administrator at Wheaton College who imo unwisely coined the term ‘methodological naturalism’ in a paper titled: “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A Christian Perspective.” He later somewhat regretted the term (see Poe, linked in the comments of the link below).

    Joshua is a naive WAP victim too & is rather confused about naturalism, as are many natural scientists who can’t figure out the limitations to their own fields of study. So it’s hard to blame Joshua for his confusion, except for the fact that I’ve tried on several occasions to help him understand & he just stuck out his big chest & refuses to recognise that some people think more clearly & accurately than he does about this topic. He just did a ‘Me-Scientist-Man’ grunt & banished me from his sight for insulting his intelligence, which basically means, “scientists are smarter than philosophers & social thinkers” & Joshua simply guilty of natural scientific arrogance in his use of MN as if it’s an accurate descriptor.

    In short, MN vs. PN is not helpful. Both forms of naturalism are ideological & just pass the buck while wanting to appear clever. As I reject ideological naturalism, neither MN nor PN is an acceptable position, while at the same time, good natural science isn’t something to scoff at, but rather to embrace within one’s worldview.

    I wrote about this already here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/why-methodological-naturalism-is-a-questionable-philosophy-of-science/

    “someone like Joshua who believes in both God and MN for science has an unacknowledged inconsistency in his worldview”

    Yes, Joshua’s worldview is inconsistent & self-contradictory in his embrace & promotion of MN. He seems to intuitively know this, but won’t yet openly say it, at least not when I’m in the conversation holding his feet to the fire of reason, logic & clarity of communication. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, however, since he seems to be trying his hardest to change the LCMS from within, while his views go against most of his family, friends & clergy in that church (which is probably why he’s flirting with ‘post-evangelicalism’, though that may not be an improvement either). Joshua slips into ideological scientism rather often for a natural scientist, though he would of course protest and deny that until his cows come home. Sadly, Joshua continuing to embrace MN is an on-going example of misplaced, anachronistic WAP thinking & we have an evangelical, untrained ethicist to blame for arming atheists & agnostics with ‘proof’ of scientific ‘neutrality’ that it doesn’t merit when ideologies are involved, as they clearly are in this case.

  35. BruceS: But maybe being nice is a Canadian trait you’d be sorry to possess.

    Does it come with a Canadian sense of humor?

    BruceS: So best guess is an admin has since hidden it.

    Good guess!

  36. Gregory: To compare Joshua with Judas Iscariot only reveals how jaded your own mind & heart have become. Nobody should take your warped words seriously. I would stand up in defense of Joshua against an ex-Catholic fool who says such nasty things any day of the week.

    Really? What do you think Jesus would call him and you ?

    Mt 16:23

    “Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Get away from me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to me. You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.”

    Isn’t it what Swamidass is doing? Promoting his point of view on creation rather than God’s?

    Can you imagine Leonardo da Vinci agreeing with you and Swamidass that his masterpiece was created by blind dumb luck?

    Would it be just to say that Mona Lisa had no creator? Imagine you are Leonardo da Vinci standing next to the Mona Lisa and Swamidass comes by with 30 scholars who say: It’s a beautiful masterpiece…blind dumb luck really did an amazing job…

    What would you call them for saying this?

    Judas Iscariot sold Jesus…Peter is trying to persuade Jesus into his point of view on God’s and Jesus calls him Satan!

    Which one would you and Swamidass prefer?

    More so, which one do you deserve for promoting falsehood?

Comments are closed.