Sandbox (1)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox (1)”

  1. petrushka:
    I don’t think anyone says the “brain” is immaterial, but most ID advocates seem to think that mind is immaterial. Some have written books about it.

    So the challenge would be to demonstrate the existence of a mind sans brain.

    No, the challenge is to show that materialism can explain the brain.

  2. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    Please think about this.

    Why do we hallucinate then when we are very tired?

    If the brain and mind were separate, a tired brain may find concentration difficult, but a brain on its own should not be able to do what a separate mind does, and that is generate new “information” in the form of a hallucination.

    If the brain could do this, there would be no use for a separate mind, since that functionality would be proven to exist in a brain on its own.

    So, if we can generate mind functionality with the brain alone, that would seem to indicate that a separate mind does not exist.

    LoL! A computer’s hardware and software are separate but when one damages specific hardware one can also damage the software.

  3. And still no evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce a living organisms out of non-living matter. IOW there is still no evidence to refute Sewell.

    Rhetoric isn’t going to do it…

  4. Joe G:
    And still no evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce a living organisms out of non-living matter. IOW there is still no evidence to refute Sewell.

    Rhetoric isn’t going to do it…

    I’m curious, do you or Sewell have any evidence that “the designer” can produce living organisms out of non-living matter? In other words, do you have any evidence of the origin of life that is directly attributable to “the designer”? And do you have any evidence of the origin of “the designer”? I’d hate to think that all you have is rhetoric.

  5. Joe G: Why do you avoid the question?

    Who thought the brain was immaterial?

    And you need to present positive evidence for your position so I will know what you will accept- I have already presented positive evidence for ID. Yet you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for materialism.

    You never avoid questions, do you?

    And you sure do like to move the goalposts.

  6. Joe G: No, the challenge is to show that materialism can explain the brain.

    The challenge, eh? You obviously think that whatever version of religious scripture you believe in is the ultimate standard to which all evidence, ideas, inferences, hypotheses, and theories should be compared, and judged.

    Would you be kind enough to elaborate on which version of religious scripture you believe in, why you think that it’s the ultimate standard, and why science should care?

    Here’s another question you’ll probably avoid: Are atoms material?

  7. Joe Felsenstein: Physical scientists (and biological scientists too) use lots of very intelligently-deisgned models.For example, really clever fluid-dynamic models used to predict weather.And that is not an argument that the weather is changing from hour to hour because of the intervention of a Higher Intelligence.In fact, the models are intelligently designed to explain the weather only by nonintelligent processes of fluid dynamics and heat flow.So pointing out the intelligence of the researcher is no argument whatsoever.

    Way to miss my point entirely- and it has nothing to do with the researcher.

  8. Joe Felsenstein:
    Elizabeth, I agree with your post.In my 2007 article, I cited about 7 people who had made this criticism of Dembski’s No Free Lunch argument, starting with Richard Wein and with Jason Rosenhouse in 2002.

    I think that Dembski regards his Search For A Search argument as the rejoinder to his.Only a tiny fraction of all possible fitness surfaces are smooth enough to let evolution by natural selection work.He would regard the very ability of natural selection to succeed as evidence that a Designer chose the fitness surface out of all possible ones.

    There are two problems with that:

    1. He is then backing away from his claims that natural selection cannot work to improve adaptation.In the Search For A Search argument the Designer is working only at the start, and then leaving evolution to do the rest.Most biologists would call a process Intelligent Design only if the Designer intervenes at least once after the start.

    2. Physical processes, that have influences dying away by inverse-square laws, may be sufficient to explain why the fitness surface is not infinitely jaggy.In a fitness surface randomly chosen from among all possible fitness surfaces, one change of one base in the DNA takes us to a fitness that is horrible.In fact, to one that is just as bad as changing all bases simultaneously! Real biology does not work that way, and I think this is because real physics does not work that way.

    Please provide a reference that he ” claims that natural selection cannot work to improve adaptation”- my bet is that you won’t support that.

    As far as real biology- well there isn’t any evidence that in real biology a fish can evolve into something other than a fish

  9. Creodont: I’m curious, do you or Sewell have any evidence that “the designer” can produce living organisms out of non-living matter?

    Yes we do- and to refute our inference all you have to do is step up and produce evidence that mothernaturedidit.

    In other words, do you have any evidence of the origin of life that is directly attributable to “the designer”?

    Yes we do- OTOH your position doesn’t have anything.

    And do you have any evidence of the origin of “the designer”?

    Please provide a citation that says the designer needs an origin.

  10. Creodont: The challenge, eh? You obviously think that whatever version of religious scripture you believe in is the ultimate standard to which all evidence, ideas, inferences, hypotheses, and theories should be compared, and judged.

    Would you be kind enough to elaborate on which version of religious scripture you believe in, why you think that it’s the ultimate standard, and why science should care?

    Here’s another question you’ll probably avoid: Are atoms material?

    I don’t have any religious scripture- you are obvioulsy clueless.

    And atoms are matter, therefor they are material- but your position cannot explain them.

  11. Creodont: For an IDist who regularly says that ID isn’t anti-evolution, you sure are anti-evolution.

    Nope- evolution is OK with fish evolving into fish.

    IOW you don’t have any idea what “evolution” means.

  12. Creodont:
    Joe G,

    “And oleg, I am well aware of page 193, and 194 and all the pages in the book. However, unlike you, I am able to read them in context and don’t just consider them in isolation.

    Ya see before page 193 comes page 149- section 3.8- “The Origin of Complex Specified Information”. But even before that is:

    So, it’s the origins claim again. Can you explain, demonstrate, and show positive, testable evidence of/for the origin of CSI? Can Dembski?

    Don’t you claim that CSI and algorithms were front loaded into every ‘kind’ of organism at the moment of creation by “the intelligent designer”? But don’t you claim that ID is also OK with side loading/intervention in organisms (i. e. new, amended, or revised CSI and algorithms) by “the intelligent designer”? And don’t you claim that the universe itself was front loaded and/or was/is side loaded with CSI, natural laws, and algorithms by “the intelligent designer”? Can you produce positive, testable evidence and a testable hypothesis for any of those claims?

    Since Dembski and you rely on what he says: “Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI”, and since you (and apparently Dembski) claim that origins are what ID/CSI are all about, and since, according to you and other IDists, the origins originated in/from “the intelligent designer”, I’ll remind you that you have the burden of explaining, demonstrating, and producing positive, testable evidence of “the designer” and the ultimate origin of “the designer”, and everything else.

    I will remind YOU that YOU have the burden of explaining, demonstrating, and producing positive, testable evidence for materialism.

    But you can’t so you have to whine away wrt ID.

  14. Joe Felsenstein: This is just Joe G making his claim that Dembski’s CSI argument is only supposed to be applied to the Origin OI Life.He and I have been back and forth on this.Not only has he failed to convince me, he has failed to convince any of the other people here who have read Dembski, including any of the other ID proponents here.He is all alone in that.

    For the full flavor of Joe G’s subtle wisdom on this, interested readers should see the discussion of this at his own blog Intelligent Reasoning.

    Joe Felsenstein chokes again! Dude I asked you to support your claim and instead you post a non-sequitur.

  15. Then you should be eager to demonstrate the origin of CSI in biological things,

    Do you want a video?

    and the origin of the originator (aka “the designer”) that the CSI originally came from.

    I am still waiting for the citation that says the original designer came from something/ somewhere.

    Is “the designer” biological?

    Don’t know.

  16. Joe G: Do you want a video?

    I am still waiting for the citation that says the original designer came from something/ somewhere.

    Don’t know.

    A video, shot at the time, would be fine.

    Citation? A citation from me is necessary for you to back up your origins of ID/CSI claims? Heck, strange that, go figure. If you’re going to rely on and press the “origins” claim, you have the burden of supporting the existence and origin of “the original designer”.

    I’m surprised that you don’t know if “the designer” is biological. Do you have a testable hypothesis to help figure it out by any chance?

  20. Elizabeth:
    This thread now has a new home, on the menu bar.

    But it has also disappeared from the list of threads and there seems to be no way to move comments to it by using the Edit menu.

  21. Joe G,

    If something as complex as the designer could exist without being designed, why does something less complex, like us, need a designer?

  22. olegt: But it has also disappeared from the list of threads and there seems to be no way to move comments to it by using the Edit menu.

    Ah. I can do that. I’ll try to institute an alert system.

  23. Elizabeth: I’m sure CSI pertains to origins. But we can’t compute it for OOL, because we don’t know how simple the simplest Darwinian-capable self-replicator was.

    So we can’t tell whether chi>1.

    LoL! You don’t even know if there was any self-replicators. As I said the science says in a RNA world it takes two RNA strands just to get the replication part, so you are out of luck.

  24. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    If something as complex as the designer could exist without being designed, why does something less complex, like us, need a designer?

    Again I don’t know about the designer- IOW you have a problem…

  26. Creodont: I am still waiting for the citation that says the original designer came from something/ somewhere.

    I am still waiting for the citation that says the original designer came from something/ somewhere.

  27. Joe G,

    If something as complex as the designer could exist without being designed, why does something less complex, like us, need a designer?

    In other words, if our degree of complexity is already improbable, why is that not a barrier to the designer?

  28. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    If something as complex as the designer could exist without being designed, why does something less complex, like us, need a designer?

    Please provide a citation that says the designer(s) were/ are more complex than we are.

    In other words, if our degree of complexity is already improbable, why is that not a barrier to the designer?

    Look to refute ID all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate matter, energy, chance and necessity are all that is required.

  29. Joe G,

    Joe G: Please provide a citation that says the designer(s) were/ are more complex than we are.”

    He would have to be or ID fails as an explanation of life.

    By suggesting a “natural” designer, with less CSI than “natural” humans, your are inferring that CSI can increase due to “natural” objects.

    In effect, a lower value of CSI attributed to the designer as opposed to his designs, infers the designer could be the RESULT of a steady increase in CSI, since lower values of CSI can generate objects with higher values of CSI, who then created all life.

    ID however, claims that the designer is ground zero for life, and according to the “Privileged Planet”, all the physical properties of the universe.

    Do you disagree with that ID claim?

  30. Joe G,

    Toronto: “In other words, if our degree of complexity is already improbable, why is that not a barrier to the designer?”
    //——————————————————————–
    Joe G: “Look to refute ID all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate matter, energy, chance and necessity are all that is required.”

    Improbable complexity attributed to a designer, is a claim that ID itself has made.

    If I was a student in high school and asked you to back up your claim right after you made it, would you refuse to do it?

  31. Joe G: Please provide a citation that says the designer(s) were/ are more complex than we are.

    So, it could be multiple designers?

    Are you claiming that the the designer or designers are/were less complex than humans? How about slugs? How about bacteria? How about rocks?

    Look to refute ID all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate matter, energy, chance and necessity are all that is required.

    Why does science have to refute ID, and does science have to refute every other belief that every person has or might have?

  32. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    He would have to be or ID fails as an explanation of life.

    Good luck supporting that bald assertion. As I said ID is concerned with the ooL in this universe.

    By suggesting a “natural” designer, with less CSI than “natural” humans, your are inferring that CSI can increase due to “natural” objects.

    LoL! Humans would be artificial- nature would be artificial. And CSI can increase due to agency involvement.

  33. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    Improbable complexity attributed to a designer,is a claim that ID itself has made.

    If I was a student in high school and asked you to back up your claim right after you made it, would you refuse to do it?

    I am sure that happens all the time wrt “theory” of evolution. No teacher can back up the claims of that vague nonsense.

  34. Look to refute ID all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate matter, energy, chance and necessity are all that is required.

    Why does science have to refute ID,

    ID is science- materialism isn’t. If it were you could produce positive evidence to support it, yet you cannot.

  35. Joe G,

    Toronto: ” If I was a student in high school and asked you to back up your claim right after you made it, would you refuse to do it?”
    //—————————————————————————–
    Joe G: “I am sure that happens all the time wrt “theory” of evolution. No teacher can back up the claims of that vague nonsense.”

    So your message to your student is that you can be just as vague as your opposition?

    The student won’t think this is simply a choice of yours, they’ll think you can’t do it, and from what I see of the ID argument, they’d be right.

  36. Joe G,

    Toronto: ” By suggesting a “natural” designer, with less CSI than “natural” humans, your are inferring that CSI can increase due to “natural” objects.
    //——————————————-
    Joe G: “LoL! Humans would be artificial- nature would be artificial. And CSI can increase due to agency involvement.

    Does that mean the designer is not bound by the laws of physics as we are?

  37. Joe G,

    “Joe G: “LoL! Humans would be artificial- nature would be artificial. And CSI can increase due to agency involvement. ”

    If an agent has less CSI than his design, it would imply a growth in CSI aqs time progresses.

    When looking into the past, we should then see a decrease in CSI with the designer being a result of no CSI at all.

    Is that a fair statement to make?

  38. That’s because you don’t understand evolutionary theory. If you did, you’d see the relevance.

    Even if true (which, IMO, it is not), an appeal to the ignorance of your adversary is a fallacy.

    In any event, I’m not going to beat this to death endlessly. We can just agree to disagree. What does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

    Off-Topic:
    I have an idea for a new thread. I’ve been wondering what the subtitle to this forum means. Why are you beseeching those that believe in Christ to consider that they might be wrong? What purpose does that serve? It has struck me as odd ever since I came here. I’d start the thread, but I don’t get what it is supposed to be about or why it’s there. It would just be me asking you to expound on it.

  39. William J. Murray: Even if true (which, IMO, it is not), an appeal to the ignorance of your adversary is a fallacy.

    Not necessarily. But I’ll cast it as a hypothesis instead. You do seem to be very confused about evolutionary theory.

    In any event, I’m not going to beat this to death endlessly. We can just agree to disagree. What does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

    Not a lot, it’s just a bit frustrating all round.

    Off-Topic:
    I have an idea for a new thread. I’ve been wondering what the subtitle to this forum means.Why are you beseeching those that believe in Christ to consider that they might be wrong?What purpose does that serve? It has struck me as odd ever since I came here. I’d start the thread, but I don’t get what it is supposed to be about or why it’s there. It would just be me asking you to expound on it.

    It’s a quotation from Oliver Cromwell (who was a Christian), popularised by Dennis Lindley, a statistician who named “Cromwell’s Rule” the rule that in Bayesian statistics “one should avoid using prior probabilities of 0 or 1, except when applied to statements that are logically true or false”.

    It isn’t beseeching only those who are Christians – it’s beseeching anyone, Christian or otherwise.

    The original strapline to the blog was “Park your priors by the door”, but I prefer Cromwell 🙂

    The take-home message is, simply, what it says, although you can beseech in the name of whoever or whatever you like. But I think Christ would have approved.

  40. William J Murray,

    William J Murray: “Why are you beseeching those that believe in Christ to consider that they might be wrong? ”

    I read it as an emotional appeal and nothing to do with Christ at all.

    e.g. I beseech you as a fellow human, consider the fact that you may be wrong.

  42. Why are you beseeching those that believe in Christ to consider that they might be wrong?

    Is that what is being beseeched? If there were a book on this, I’d bet against that with everything I own.

  43. I guess I’m not well enough versed in Christian theology to know that Christ was strongly opposed to understanding adaptive feedback processes. To the point where no demonstration of them could be even comprehensible, and no discussion of them could possibly be understandable.

  44. Just in case there is anyone who doesn’t know, the phrase in the strapline occurs in a letter of 3 August 1650 sent by Oliver Cromwell to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland imploring them to reconsider their support for the royalist campaign to regain the English throne in the name of Charles II.

  45. WJM: “Off-Topic:
    I have an idea for a new thread. I’ve been wondering what the subtitle to this forum means. Why are you beseeching those that believe in Christ to consider that they might be wrong? What purpose does that serve? It has struck me as odd ever since I came here. I’d start the thread, but I don’t get what it is supposed to be about or why it’s there. It would just be me asking you to expound on it.”

    Wow. Could anything better illustrate the paranoid “science is out to get we Christians” attitude that is so prevalent on C/E discussion boards?

  47. Wow. Could anything better illustrate the paranoid “science is out to get we Christians” attitude that is so prevalent on C/E discussion boards?

    You might have a point if I was a Christian, and if I had said anything about science.

  48. I suppose it’s pointless to say that it is not only believers being enjoined to consider that they might be wrong.
    Good scientists are always aware that they might be wrong – hence painstaking testing of null hypotheses, and recasting of hypotheses to accommodate new data.
    However, we often find that non-scientists seem not to be even aware of the possibility that they might be wrong.

    Which is, in turn, why scientists tend to get things right (in aggregate, and over time), whilst religious folk and woo-merchants tend to get things wrong, and are gradually painted into ever-shrinking corners as they continue to defend the indefensible

  49. William J. Murray: Even if true (which, IMO, it is not), an appeal to the ignorance of your adversary is a fallacy.

    In any event, I’m not going to beat this to death endlessly. We can just agree to disagree. What does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

    Thinking this over, I have a more extended answer.

    The reason I care about whether people understand evolutionary theory or not, and, indeed, about whether people understand why ID arguments against it don’t work is not simply because it keeps me off the streets but because I think that ID arguments are actually dangerous. Not terribly dangerous, but dangerous nonetheless, for two reasons that combine:

    a) they are fallacious – bad science (with one or two minor exceptions)
    b) they are promoted with a tag that says: evolutionary theory leads people away from religion, and as religion is good (and non-religion bad), it is important for people to understand that evolutionary theory is wrong.

    The first alone wouldn’t be worth dealing with (ID would just rumble along like other crank science proposals, not doing anyone much harm, and being occasionally entertaining). The second alone isn’t especially harmful as it can be easily rebutted – if a the only objection to a scientific theory is religious ideology then the objections will go the way of geocentrism.

    It’s the combination that is dangerous – a crank theory that sells itself as the antidote to an allegedly morally deficient theory.

    And that’s why I think it is worth taking apart the crankiness and demonstrating why it doesn’t work.

    And that’s why I get frustrated when you mount your rebuttals, then don’t engage with the counter-rebuttals!

    But I’m actually enjoying No Free Lunch. It’s certainly a much better book than Meyers’ (the last ID book I read). Dembski is a much more rigorous writer, and trying to figure out just where he’s made his errors is an interesting challenge.

    Not a very hard one though 🙂

  50. It’s fairly easy to look up quotations and get the context.

    I thought it was fairly obvious considering the name of the forum. A plea to take seriously the other person’s position.

Comments are closed.