If Uncommon Descent (UD) is not suffering from our departure, then why has the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture stooped to lame promotion of the site? I’m referring to an ID the Future podcast, “Eric Anderson: Probability & Design.” It begins with Casey Luskin singing the praises of UD.
[Eric Anderson…] for the past year has been a contributing author about intelligent design at the great intelligent design blog, UncommonDescent.com. So, quick plug for Uncommon Descent. If you’re an “ID the Future” listener and you’ve never checked it out, go to UncommonDescent.com. And it’s a great ID blog, kind of like EvolutionNews.org. It has many participants, and many contributors, of which Eric is one of the main authors there.
And it ends with Casey Luskin steering listeners to UD.
And I would encourage our listeners to go check out the blog Uncommon Descent. That’s Uncommon, and the last word is spelled D-E-S-C-E-N-T, dot com. So “descent” like you’re going down into something. So UncommonDescent.com.
Well, it doesn’t quite end there. Anderson, whose “main focus is analyzing the logical and rhetorical bases of arguments to help people understand the strengths, weaknesses, and underlying assumptions used in the debate over evolution and intelligent design,” closes by tacitly characterizing us as illogical fools:
Well, I’ll just add that when we look into some of these arguments — this is just one example of an argument, that we’ve analyzed today — but when we have critics put forward arguments against intelligent design, what I’ve typically noticed, and found upon closer scrutiny, is that when you parse through it, you find that it actually underscores the whole validity of the approach that’s been taken by the major proponents of intelligent design, in formulating a careful approach to design detection.
Anderson lives up to Jeff Shallit’s characterization of him, revealing that he is laughably far behind the curve. He’s not worth my time. And there’s something wrong if you think that he’s worth yours. Then again, he was about the best choice Luskin had for the interview.
UD degenerated into a madhouse long ago. Barry Arrington has done everyone a favor, having finally gone too far, and given us a clear reason to do what we should have done already. I know that some of you are itching for him to post something that permits you to rationalize a return to UD. Please work to kick your UD habit for good.
I offer as “methadone” the Discovery Institute releases on ID, including the news feed Evolution News and Views, the podcast series ID the Future, and the YouTube channel DiscoveryScienceNews. There’s also the DI’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, with prime pickings for the philosophically inclined. Now, I know that you get no rush at the thought of this. None of the big fish would argue (and argue about arguments, and argue about arguments about arguments) with you. But you would get a rise out of the UD minnows — a fix, though not what fully feeds your habit. For a change, they’d be responding to you, rather than you to them. Wouldn’t that be an improvement?
To close on a positive note, I want to emphasize how amazing it is to see the travesty of discussion at UD shut down. To be honest, I didn’t think you could do it. You have my sincere thanks for exercising the discipline that you have.
I’ve read a few posts on this but I’m just not familiar enough with the topic to have a fluent sound-byte answer if any of my students bring it up. My overall impression is that both SC and AI have blatant dead-in-the-water flaws with them, but if that’s the case how is it that Dembski speaks at reputable computer science depts. and doesn’t get torn a new one?
Could you explain the basis of the above contradiction…if it is a contradiction? Would Dembski admit it do you think?
keiths said:
Let’s see … I have said that when I “believe” a thing, that means I act as if that thing is true. I do indeed act as if intelligently designed phenomenal are recognizable. Everyone acts as if ID is true, or else they wouldn’t bother trying to read posts and write corresponding replies. I acted as if ID was true before I ever heard about it, and will continue to act as if it is true for as long as I have a cogent mind capable of acting as if some things are the product of ID and as if other things do not have that appearance.
Christ man, NOBODY SAYS OTHERWISE. What’s wrong with you?
Wouldn’t that involve mung?
This is not in dispute.
This is
So when you say
You are deliberately conflating unconnected concepts.
I agree, and William is not the first nor the last to do so. I know there is not universal support but making the capitalization distinction between “Intelligent Design” and the use of “intelligent” and “design” in normal language can reduce the length of rabbit trails (maybe 🙂 ).
I don’t consider them to be two different concepts, so I don’t really know what to make of your accusation that I am “deliberately” conflating two different concepts.
Perhaps not. But I recall some sort of discussion about the sex of god where you said something like you consider it a deliberate slap in the face to call god a she to a Christian. You know that ID and id are considered separate here, so you must be doing that as a slap in the face too.
But then again, if IDists could communicate effectively there’s be no ID. It’s murky in the big tent.
If it is not in dispute that some intelligently designed artifacts can be recognized as such in contrast to what we call “natural’ phenomena, then ID theory is accepted as sound in principle. The only question is if there is a way to make such a determination in an acceptably scientific manner.
That one is easy. Darwinism will be defeated today (and tomorrow, and the next day).
But somehow it keeps coming back. It must be a resurrection.
Hmm, maybe that’s why Darwinists need a good explanation of miracles.
</sarcasm>
Slow hand clap for William everybody!
Congratulations. You’ve finally caught up.
And this is what entities like FIASCO are all supposed to be all about. A bar is set, and anything above that bar must be designed as “natural’ phenomena could not construct an object with a FIASCO higher then that bar. Hence design.
It’s been mentioned here a few times. Did you not notice?
OMagain said:
I consider that distinction to be contrived in an attempt to make the scientific ID theory about something it is not.
No, it is you that is insisting on calling ID theory a theory about god; IDists specifically state the theory is not about god, and specifically states that it cannot scientifically reach such a conclusion. Therefore, the theory as stated by the IDists themselves has only ever been about so-called “lower case” intelligent design and nothing else.
And, that’s exactly how I have always argued about ID on this or any other site – as human ID being an example of ID, not a mere analogy.
I started a post on this last week. Sorry, but I need to ask you to watch for it. I’ll tell you now that the cool aspect is that we can put aside the issue of whether the measures are any good or not. They should not contradict one another.
Darwinism, like materialism, has been dead for generations. What’s left is what I hold to be anti-theistic sentiment characterizing current evolutionary theory as “darwinistic” when it most certainly is not. Also, materialism was disproved long ago experimentally; what I take as the same anti-theistic activists changed their terminology and arguments to characterize what is clearly a non-materialistic universe as still being, in principle, materialist.
IMO, the ID and materialism debates are really not much more than proxy wars between theists and anti-theists. While theism is currently winning on the scientific front in terms of facts and evidence, anti-theism is currently winning the culture/media/propaganda war.
IMO, all of this really boils down to theism vs anti-theism.
William J. Murray,
LULZ. Citations needed.
If it was defeated, why was your attempt to kickstart ‘non materialist science’ so pathetically feeble?
Actually no. It is not. If you want to argue about that, there are some Dembski quotes you should read.
So it won’t work. You can’t turn it into that. It’s not about if god did it or not. It’s about if living things are best explained by an intelligent cause or not. That’s all it’s about. It’s just a bonus that the average commenter at UD makes it clear it’s really about justifying their existing belief in god.
Do they? Well, that makes sense then as what can science say about god?
So if the designer is not god I expect ID to be investigating it forthwith! As, after all, it can!
That’s great! And so what’s your actual point there? If you want to believe that I can go along with that for the sake of argument. And that’s what things like FSCO/I are about – attempts to determine design. I agree! And yet they fail at it. Their methods fail. If you dispute that, well, all you have to do use use one of the methods they claim detects design to detect design! It’s very simple really.
And is there evidence of such “human ID” being responsible for any aspect of biological life then? As that’s the only thing any of this is actually about, for me.
At heart William this has mainly been an argument about if the “BIGNUM” maths trotted out at UD has any use in doing what they say it can do – detect design.
Just go and ask KF to calculate the specific value of FSCO/I in, well, anything at all. His answer will, if you pay careful attention, tell you all you need to know about the veracity of the claims from the ID camp regarding their design detection tools.
Now that William has realized what the argument is actually all about he trots out his “well, I’ve won anyway, you’ve been defeated decades ago anyway” victory dance.
You are fucking pathetic.
Oh? What *is* it properly characterized as then? You sound confident. Let’s see if you are actually wearing any trousers, mr Mouth.
We can identify human designed artifacts because we have a good understanding of the nature of humans and the mechanisms (and limitations) available to humans. How do you propose we identify design in biology when we are not allowed to ask about the nature of the designer or the mechanisms used by the designer?
It’s interesting that you say ID and materialism as if they represent two mutually exclusive categories. A moment ago you were saying
Yet now it’s proxy wars between theists and anti-theists? But that’s not right, as what does theism have to do with ID and why would you naturally slot ID in on the side of the theists?
I’m guessing that the IDists are the theists you refer to here, right? So that means ID is about god. Or is it the other way round as the designer might be aliens and it’s the evilutionists who are the theists as they believe in and worship Darwin?
You seem very confused. Perhaps you should invent some new words.
Unless you are saying we could not expect to identify any alien artifacts of intelligent design, this is simply a denial tactic. There are things that, whether or not we know any human built them, we would recognize as the product of ID and know that some kind of intelligent creature/agency was responsible. If you cannot admit that, there’s no reason to pursue an argument.
Whether or not we know if a human created some of the more intricate crop circles, we know some kind of intelligence was responsible. We know if we find certain kinds of artifacts on another planet, it will indicate intelligent life. To argue otherwise is to simply not be interested in honest debate.
William J. Murray,
How does our ability to identify artefacts have any bearing on whether or not humans are themselves an artefact? ID is not about manufactured goods, but about replicated ones. eta – you can’t just declare them artefacts.
OMagain,
You’re conflating what a theory actually states with what some may use the theory to implicate. Darwinism was used to implicate that non-whites & non-Europeans were biologically inferior. Darwinism was used to advance several social agendas. To debate a theory logically or scientifically, one must address what the theory actually states, not what it is used by some to advance or implicate. Darwin himself thought his own theory necessarily implied some very racist perspectives. Does that mean that Darwinism is necessarily racist? Of course not.
Do ID proponents use ID theory to implicate theism? Of course they do. It advances their perspective. Does that mean theism is what ID is about? Of course not. Howefver, it and Darwnism, as I said, are being used by many as proxies for theism vs anti-theism commitments.
Allan Miller said:
Says who?
William J. Murray,
Says anyone who has ever placed ID in opposition to evolution as an explanation for biology.
The point being, no organism alive today (as far as anyone can tell) was tooled by a Designer, as an actual artefact. They were born, or arose by fusion or fission, and have a long ancestry of similar origins. If there was an original ‘tooled form’, that can’t be determined simply by looking at the modern denizens of the world.
I’m not aware of any manufactured product that could do what Lenski’s bacteria did. Nor what malaria organisms can do to resist drugs.
Perhaps william can name a human designed artifact that could self-replicate with occasional useful modifications.
This is so wrong (IMO) it’s hard to know where to start. So I’ll start at the beginning.
Absolutely not. Darwin had two great insights: one was that the nested hierarchies of Linnaean taxonomy represented a family tree. The other was that self-replication with variance in reproductive success results in adaptive evolution.
Both those are overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and the latter is actually used to solve engineering problems, so effective is it.
Not even sure what “materialism” is in this context, but there is nothing dead about the project to discover the laws that govern the material world, and allow us to make valid predictions.
There’s nothing “anti-theistic” about the role of darwinian mechanisms in current evolutionary theory, and darwinian mechanisms have a key role in current evolutionary theory – with great predictive success.
Inasmuch as this means anything, it is simply wrong. And it doesn’t mean much. If you mean that “psi” effects have been “proven”, a) they haven’t been and b) if they had been it wouldn’t “disprove” “materialism”.
Nobody except those opposed to the bogeyman they see as “materialism” has changed any terminology. Materialism was never restricted to matter.
On one side, apparently, yes: a sub group of theists see a bogeyman called “materialism” which they mistakenly characterise as a fusion of atheism and Darwinian theory, and see as a threat to all they hold dear. On the other side, no: most “materialists” so called have no issue with theism, but with bad science on the one hand, and the threat of theocracy on the other.
No, it isn’t, and never will, because theism is an untestable hypothesis. Inasmuch it has generated testable hypotheses (e.g. YEC) it has largely been falsified.
Well, it would help if theists would stop murdering people in the name of their god.
In that case stop pretending it has anything to do with science.
Other than things like bird nests, beehives and the like,do you have any examples? Could you point to a non human made artifact and conclude that it was the result of intelligent design? If an intelligent alien being left an artifact on earth, are you certain that you could identify it as an intelligently designed artifact? I don’t think that you could say this for certain unless you postulated the nature of the alien and the mechanisms they used to produce the artifact.
Similarly, there is no way you can infer design in a living organism unless you also postulated on the nature of the designer (material?, immaterial?, constrained by physical laws?, etc.) and the mechanisms that were used to produce these living organisms. Until you do this all you have is “it sure looks designed“.
Talking of crop circles (derail alert!), this is quite interesting
but …
Watch the first one all the way through (and don’t read the spoiler) before moving on to the second. I am such an instinctive skeptic that I thought the first was fake, but apparently not.
My favourite crop ‘circle’ simply consisted of the message “Greetings earthlings”!
This is not even wrong. What other kind of intelligence are you proposing? What other suspects are you proposing for flattening wheat stalks in intricate patterns? A couple of guys with a plank can work miracles.
Some crop designs are just too intricate to be man-made. A bit like this.
We’ve only recently (even by YEC standards) been able to do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Still working on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
which nature accomplished by simply having enough mass.
I would say that gecko’s feet, shark’s skin and the wing of an eagle are examples of very intelligent design.
When you say “very intelligent”, what do you mean exactly? Do you have some way of assessing a quality you call “intelligence” quantitatively?
I would say rather that a gecko’s feet are remarkably well adapted for the niche the gecko is found in, ditto for sharks and eagles. I’d suggest the niche environment supplies the design element in adaptation.
What, specifically, is a shark’s skin well designed for? Other than to use as sandpaper. But I am pretty sure that this is not good for the shark.
Cornelius Hunter is hinting at moving the UD discussions to his site. I have no experience with Cornelius but if we proposed this option to KF, how could he object?
And if we starve Barry enough, maybe he will adopt a more civil attitude. I won’t hold my breath, but I believe in the concept that people can change.
A lifetime spent working on human designed and constructed machines has given me the experience to recognise intelligently designed components. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, I see no need to over quantify it.
What if sharks had never existed and the equivalent of shark’s skin had been of human design? Imagine there were two speedboats, one with a smooth hull designed to give a very good drag reduction and a second with human designed “shark’s skin” which out-performed the other boat. Would you not say that the former was well designed but the latter was very well designed?
There was a period where Cornelius closed all comments. But I don’t think his comment policy was ever as erratic as UD’s.
So the niche is there and the organism just happens to develop the feature which enables it to exploit that niche. Smacks of a just-so story to me.
The oldest known gecko fossils already had the requisite footpads.
Maybe you should Google shark skin!
CharlieM,
http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/how-sticky-toepads-evolved-geckos-and-what-means-adhesive-technologies
CharlieM, given that I am a marine biologist, I am we’ll aware of shark skin. But, again, what is it ideally designed for?
Why, because they’re all derivative of ancestral solutions to problems, without input from other lineages? Seems rather narrowly specific to vertebrate evolutionary processes, not open to other possibilities like actual designers are.
Find the kind of borrowing designers exhibit (or, for the super-intelligent, it might all be from first principles), rather than slavish derivation from ancestors, as heredity requires in the lineages of those animals, and then you’ll have something.
Glen Davidson
So you are a marine biologist. Then you already know that the design of a shark’s skin allows it to move efficiently through the water. So why are you asking me this? I don’t believe that the best use you can see for shark’s skin is as sand paper.
And the scales of a fish allow it to move efficiently through the water. And a squid’s jet propulsion allows it to move quickly through the water. And an octopus’ camouflage abilities allow it to hide from predators. And a barnacle’s penis is 8 times the length of its body. They are all great adaptations (especially that last one). But I don’t see design in any of it.
A forum like UD is not starving or dying when another forum has a hugh number of posts weighing if the former forum is distress.
This is the evidence its a player.
By the way I see many commentators here who get great attention by the bosses on UD. They are trying to get along and everyone but origin subjects are a contacxt sport.
Its for the smart, knowledagble, and tough skinned. Sure it is.
Everybody has to take a few punches in the corners when no ref is looking.
Don’t scream bloody murder to the hosts of the forums.
I bet nobody onTSZ has been banned, attacked, warned, abused like me.
I don’t sweat it and survive. Yes I always think I’m the good guy being done wrong.
These are intellectual front lines and very well may be referenced in the future by historians of kids doing school projects about the origin contentions of these times.
Super especially if the ID/YEC prevails over the other side. which will happen.
So arguing here today has forms of conduct reasonably or not enforced.
Interestingly, I see it as exactly the opposite — I think that all available evidence and arguments are completely neutral with regard to theism and non-theism. (Not sure if there’s a conceptual or merely rhetorical difference between “non-theism” and “anti-theism,” but also not sure how much it matters.) I see a very watered-down, anodyne theism as being very much the status quo in the United States and in most of the Global South. It’s only Canada, the UK, and the EU that are committed to secularism. (Of course secularism and theism are perfectly compatible, but such nuances ruin the narrative of “the culture war.”)
That said, I do not think that any of the debates or pseudo-debates over theism, atheism, anti-theism, non-theism, materialism, or anti-materialism have anything at all to do with the epistemology and metaphysics of contemporary evolutionary theory, whether in the Modern Synthesis or in any of the suggested supplements or complements in evo-devo or the extended synthesis. And since ID is wholly spurious as a scientific theory, it is of interest to me only as a sociological phenomenon.