Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Umm ID doesn’t say anything about the designer- and only that which has a beginning requires a cause
Given what “data”? The data that says the earth exists?
But who are you, anyway?
Is it your designer that doesn’t need a cause because it had no beginning?
If so, we have an intelligent agent that does not depend on pre-existing CSI.
Is it? I don’t know- it’s dr who’s strawman
Google me. Always trust the insights of a time traveller on questions of origins.
I’m also someone who has described a strong law that your movement needs to falsify if its arguments about CSI are to be taken seriously.
Umm the way to refute CSI is demonstrate that matter, energy, necessity and chance can account for it. Nothing short of that will be taken seriously.
And dr who- I see the TARD of the Tardis has rubbed off on you….
You were asked about crystals. Are crystals CSI?
Crystals can reproduce with variation.
I responded with no, crystals do not have CSI- Dembski and Meyer go over tat with support from Leslie Orgel:
Specified, yes- complex, no
I wasn’t “refuting CSI”. I was pointing out why explaining the origin of biological CSI by intelligent design is a non-starter.
Huh? You were the one that brought up “only that which has a beginning needs a cause”.
What do you mean by that?
LOL. that’s the favorite comeback when you point out that God apparently doesn’t require a cause; therefore not everything requires a cause.
I suppose they never considered the possibility that if existence doesn’t have a beginning, then existence doesn’t require a cause.
Well, I just wanted to confirm that your answer is the same as the ID/creationist answer.
However, it’s wrong; and it is wrong for a large number of reasons. For example, DNA and RNA and many organic compounds are crystals. How do you think we know this? Do you know how x-ray crystallography works? Do you know how Rosalind Franklin obtained her Fourier transform images of DNA?
So are the various forms of carbon (look it up) and most other condensations of atoms and molecules.
In particular, crystals near their melting temperatures can take on all sorts of complex patterns of continued evolutionary growth. They can evolve, and morph into other forms in very much the same way that living organisms do. We even use this knowledge in the lab and in the industries that make things.
In case you think of melting temperatures as thousands of degrees, note that water melts at 0 Celsius; and most living organisms are made up of soft matter in the temperature range of liquid water. What happens to soft matter if you cool it sufficiently?
The question of “complexity” has no meaning if you cannot say what complexity refers to and at what point on an evolutionary scale it becomes relevant.
Dembski et.al. rule out crystals because they think crystals are frozen things. No ID/creationist has ever looked beyond their narrow dogmas at the huge fields of condensed matter and organic chemistry. They simply have no idea of what is going on around them in the physical universe and in the huge industries that use this knowledge.
What you see in the “simple” world continues on right up the ladder to organic compounds and the compounds that make up living organisms. How do you think we know this?
So how much CSI is there in a polar bear?
Above, you said:
“Again- CSI pertains to ORIGINS- which means before natural selection is even involved.”
“Whatever Joe F- According to Dembski AND Meyer biological Intelligent Design, and therefore CSI, pertains to the origin of life.”
“Biology- CSI refers to the OoL- and in general CSI pertains to its origin- as in how did it get there? The ORIGIN of the CSI.
Side-loading/ intervention is OK as the ORIGIN of that SI is still the agency.”
So, CSI pertains to the “origin of life”, but it pertains to the “ORIGIN of the CSI”, and “CSI pertains to ORIGINS- which means before natural selection is even involved”, but “Side-loading/ intervention is OK as the ORIGIN”, even though any side loading/intervention would have to occur after natural selection is involved which means after evolution takes place.
What about top loading, bottom loading, back loading, boat loading, and free loading? Is CSI and ID okay with those too?
No you just made some comment and think that the fact that you posted it makes it so.
I pointed out that what you are calling “CSI”, judging by your examples and descriptions, is a prerequisite for all known intelligent designers. If you think that that’s not so, then show me an exception.
You can’t explain CSI itself by evoking something that requires it. So I.D. requires an exception to a strong observation based law. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Exceptions have been found to observation based laws, like Newton’s. However, it does mean that the intelligent design of the first life is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary positive evidence to support it.
As for your constant demands for others to “support their position”, do you mean the position that natural, physical explanations for physical phenomena are by far the most likely? That’s supported by all the available evidence. Whenever we find a correct or well supported explanation for physical phenomena, it is always physical/natural. It’s 100% so far, just as the observation that your “CSI” is a prerequisite for all known intelligent designers is 100% so far.
If you reply to this, please try to leave any guano out of the post, because I think I may have missed some of your previous replies due to your tendency to include it. (I don’t mind it personally, but Liz does, it’s her blog, and it’s true that guano free commenting does make for more constructive discussion).
What evidence supports “natural, physical explanations for physical phenomena are by far the most likely”? Please be specific and please produce mathematically rigorous definitions for “natural” and “physical”.
Well just because YOU say so, tat does NOT make it so. Ya see scientists do it all the time- see archaeology and forensics.
I explained the evidence in the last post, and I’d need a mathematically rigorous definition of “definition” before I can translate the standard meanings of words into numbers.
JoeG: Well just because YOU say so, tat does NOT make it so. Ya see scientists do it all the time- see archaeology and forensics.
Archaeologists deal with human artifacts, but they do not explain the human ability to design them; the origin of the information required. You’ve been talking about the origins of CSI. It can’t be explained by something for which it is a prerequisite.
The origin of information in this universe can be explained by CSI that exists or existed outside of it.
OK, I took a bowl of water and reduced the temp to 0 C- it didn’t melt. It didn’t change at all.
Obviously your world is very different than my world. In my world water is a liquid- when I order a gin and tonic (water) I don’t want a gin on the rocks (ice). And when I order a double Captain on the rocks (ice) I don’t want rum and water.
But that is my world- and there is a caveat- when in some countries when I want a rum and water I will order it on the rocks and let it melt.
Hey Mike-
What is the correct tempertaure for a tuna melt? 🙂
You forgot “artificial”-
Whenever we find a correct or well supported explanation for physical phenomena, it is always physical/natural or physical/ artificial.
There’s nothing unnatural about artifice, and there’s nothing unnatural about intelligence, either. Intelligence is an attribute of some organisms, and observation tells us that life (as well as CSI) is a prerequisite for it.
Proposing intelligence as the explanation for the first life ever is like saying the builders of the first life used muscles to construct it.
You can’t take things which are particular to life systems and use them to explain life’s origins. It’s like claiming that the first water ever was formed by raindrops.
Trust a time traveller. There weren’t any living beings before the first life (obviously) and dead things can’t think.
That all depends on how you are deining “natural”- nature, operating freely cannot produce artifacts, so in that sense they are unnatural.
And there isn’t any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce intelligence.
As a matter of fact nature, operating freely can’t produce nature.
No one is making any claim about the first life ever.
If science squeezes the magic out of things then why is your position trying to force magic back into science?
Of course you never make a typo or use the wrong word or mix words up or misspell anything, do you?
From what I’ve seen, I doubt that you made it through third grade.
That’s strange, since you keep claiming that ID and CSI pertain to the origin of life, which means the first life ever.
“As a matter of fact nature, operating freely can’t produce nature.”
You must be joking.
How do you define “nature” and “natural”? How do you define “operating freely”? How do you define “artifacts”? How do you define “intelligence”? How do you define “unnatural”?
Is a beaver dam an artifact? Is it natural? Is a beaver natural? Is it intelligent? Can beavers produce more beavers? Is beaver reproduction artificial, or natural?
Describe in your own words the specific difference between intelligence and instinct, if any, and point out an intelligent act versus an instinctive act by an animal other than a human.
Who’s this “we” you keep referring to?
Then explain what CSI is in a way that makes sense and demonstrate how to measure it in a wide variety of things, and demonstrate how CSI can explain the origin of whatever kind of information it is that you’re referring to.
And aren’t you going around in circles? The I in CSI is for information, but you claim that CSI pertains to the origin of life, or to the origin of CSI, or to the origin of the universe, or whatever is convenient, so you’re claiming that complex specified information can explain the origin of information and the origin of life and whatever else needs explaining. You’re using the things you’re assuming to try to explain the things you’re assuming.
If CSI exists or existed outside of this universe, where and by whom or what is or was it stored, and where and from whom or what did that thing get it?
Is there CSI in stars, black holes, planetary orbits, asteroids, comets, gravity, magnetic fields, impact craters, solar wind, solar flares, and atoms? If so, how much?
Joe G said: “And there isn’t any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce intelligence.”
After you define intelligence, please tell me who or what can produce intelligence. An intelligent being? A God? If so, where and from whom did the God get its intelligence? Is the ‘intelligent designer’ God natural, unnatural, supernatural, artificial, or what, and if it’s not natural, or not in this universe, where is it, how and why does it interact with this universe, and what’s it like where it exists?
You keep ridiculing the “position” of other people even though you usually know little to nothing about their “position”. Obviously, in your dogmatic mind, science and any “position” that doesn’t exactly match yours is wrong, has no evidence, can’t be tested, has nothing, makes no testable predictions, has nothing to do with science, is “tard”, and a lot of other useless and negative things. I’m surprised that you’re not willingly living in a jungle somewhere, with no access to anything that science has ever provided.
I can’t help but notice that you avoid many relevant questions and that you must think that your assertions and snarky remarks are all you need to do to overthrow the fields of science that bother you. It won’t work.
Will you please point me to your papers in a peer reviewed journal?
Joe G,
That all depends on how you are deining “natural”- nature, operating freely cannot produce artifacts, so in that sense they are unnatural.
Certainly. I was using the broader use of natural, rather than the casual opposite of man-made. All animals which make artifacts and those artifacts are natural in this sense. A fairy who could magic a Prince into being a frog wouldn’t be natural.
Joe G: And there isn’t any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce intelligence.
We observe intelligence in natural beings, brains are made of matter, not fairy dust, and intelligence is certainly a general advantageous trait in any environment, so natural selection would favour it. I don’t understand your use of the phrase “operating freely”.
As a matter of fact nature, operating freely can’t produce nature.
It’s probably universal and doesn’t have a beginning. We certainly haven’t identified anything else, which is why natural processes are always the observation based default explanation for any unexplained phenomena. As I explained in a post above, when we do find well supported explanations for things, they’ve always been natural, so it’s a 100% record. When faced with something we haven’t yet explained (the formation of the rings of Saturn, for a current example) scientists can be at least 99.9% sure that the explanation will be natural based on passed experience.
The same applies for the OOL, but you seem to be saying that I.D. makes no claims about this when you say:
No one is making any claim about the first life ever.
“No one” presumably meaning no one in the I.D. movement. That should interest the owner of this blog, and many of the commentators. It’s news to me. Thanks for the info.
Obvioulsy. Would it exist in the absence of beavers? No. Beavers are intelligent agencies.
Good luck finding evidence to suppoort that bit of tripe.
“Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief.”– Jonathan Wells “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”
In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn’t say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
He goes on to say:
But I am sure that will be ignored also…
What has science provided us?
Or are you conflating science with engineering and technology?
“Good luck finding evidence to suppoort that bit of tripe.”
Only took a few seconds. See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_Strategy
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
And there’s lots more. Who do you think you’re fooling?
LoL! wikipedia is not a trusted authority on anything- and nothing in any wikipedia article says ID = religion.
Do you even know how religion is defined?
Philip Johnson is a Christian- tat does not make ID = theology.
Dawkins is an atheist, by your “logic” the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory.
That may just be the dumbest question I’ve ever seen.
Without science, there wouldn’t be any engineering or technology.
Are you conflating your bald assertions and ridiculous questions with rational discourse?
I say without engineering and technology there wouldn’t be any science.
And I have noticed that you still don’t have any positive evidnce for materialism…
Would lava exist in the absence of volcanoes? No. Volcanoes must be an intelligent agency and lava must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Would the stink of scat exist in the absence of scat? No. Scat must be an intelligent agency and the stink must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Would drunkenness exist in the absence of alcohol? No. Alcohol must be an intelligent agency and drunkenness must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Would trees exist in the absence of sunshine? No. Sunshine must be an intelligent agency and trees must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Would fish exist in the absence of water? No. Water must be an intelligent agency and fish must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Would humans exist in the absence of carbon? No. Carbon must be an intelligent agency and humans must be an artifact of that intelligence. Right?
Sure, why not? It can ooze right out of a fissue. I would bet we could even drill down and have it ooze out
The existence of scat = the existence of an intelligent agency.
Drunkenness can only occur with an intelligent agency.
Yes- many plants, trees included, can be grown via artificial light.
Fish are intellignet agencies.
Carbon is a key component of the design of living organisms, ie intelligent agencies.
But anyway beavers are intelligent agencies because they can and do puposefully manipulate nature to produce a desired effect.
Just when I think that you’ve reached the limits of dumb answers, or the limits of avoiding the actual questions, you manage to surprise me.
No, Flint- YOUR position is incoherent, no matter how it is interpreted.
It is based on faith, so it is also some sort of theology.
And still no evidnce to support materialism…
Joe G,
Imagine Christianity but without the holy books, the churches, the priests, rituals, holy days, saints, prayers and belief in gods.
Now do the same with Hinduism.
Now compare them.
Are there any differences?
Now compare them to atheism.
The conclusion is that if you take everything away from a religion that actually makes it a religion, you end up with atheism.
Nope, you end up with Intelligent Design- atheism, whether it is acknowledged or not, is a religion dedicated to Mother Nature, Father Time and some still unknown natural processes.