(2019-07-17, 05:12 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Where I agree with you is in the observation that support (financial and material) for ID does come from organisations committed to that religious interpretation. It then becomes difficult to separate the scientific evidence from the ideological motivation but I believe that Meyer, Behe and others do try to maintain that separation.
To be clear I'm not criticizing the research, that can in theory show some probabilistic critiques of evolution occurring by unguided chance alone.
Where the criticism lies is in the idea that any inference from this ID research to God in the sense of the Ground of Being who created the Real is in error. There's no valid way to get to God in the big-G sense by looking at ID research. [Also the other direction is flawed, a complete disproving of ID in some future science is not a reason to abandon belief in God either.]
I'm not even sure one can definitively distinguish design from other "paranormal" explanations, but admittedly I'd have to look deeper at the research.
(2019-07-17, 04:39 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]It seems pretty clear that the goal of many IDers is to support the existence of the Biblical God, just as many materialists true goal is oppose the same God's existence. My point is that this entire conflict is deeply flawed intellectually, as per Feser's "Where's God" essay.
But I'd be curious what evidence can distinguish top down intelligent design from teleological principles or Psi effects.
ID research shows ingenious planning, purpose and even foresight. In our experience, only mind, not a mindless process like Darwinian evolution, is capable of that. Not even "teleological principles", or psi effects on their own. As unacceptable as this conclusion is to the modern mindset. The nature of that mind or minds is another matter.
(2019-07-17, 10:53 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions.
While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).
I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.
I'm not sure whether there's a missing or extra "not" or negative here, or I'm just misreading it:
"I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions."
That sounds as though anyone reading the evidence must come to the same conclusion - that the Christian God did it.
However I'm not sure whether or not that was the intended meaning. If it was, then I disagree.
(2019-07-17, 06:01 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]ID research shows ingenious planning, purpose and even foresight. In our experience, only mind, not a mindless process like Darwinian evolution, is capable of that. Not even "teleological principles", or psi effects on their own. As unacceptable as this conclusion is to the modern mindset. The nature of that mind or minds is another matter.
Could you give some examples of the bold? Thanks!
(2019-07-17, 06:30 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure whether there's a missing or extra "not" or negative here, or I'm just misreading it:
"I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions."
That sounds as though anyone reading the evidence must come to the same conclusion - that the Christian God did it.
However I'm not sure whether or not that was the intended meaning. If it was, then I disagree.
Badly phrased. What I mean is that Meyer, for example, concludes that the evidence points to the Judeo-Christian God. For me, the evidence is not proof of such a deity and others might interpret the evidence differently again. Examples might include some kind of collective mind or alien manipulation or living in a virtual reality ... any number of possibilities with one of the least likely being the neo-darwinist orthodoxy, IMHO.
(2019-07-17, 08:20 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Could you give some examples of the bold? Thanks!
Examples: the bacterial flagellum, the human blood clotting cascade, and the relationship between DNA, RNA and proteins. Discussion:
An irreducibly complex machine is a system which is composed of a number of interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Examples in biology include the bacterial flagellum and the human blood clotting cascade. Behe used the human blood-clotting system as an example of irreducible complexity, because all of its complex components have to be present in order for a clot to form when and where it’s needed. Missing any of its many components can have devastating consequences. But the components themselves do not depend on the prior existence of the other components.
A blind purposeless stumbling-in-the-dark process like neo-Darwinism just can't create these systems, as shown by scientists like Michael Behe. Various mechanisms proposed to be able to do this by Darwinists have been shown to just not work. These usually involve "co-option". There have been no successful schemes or "blueprints" that in the necessary detail show how any of these systems could have come about through the Darwinistic mechanism. Just a few "just so stories" that generally ignore the vanishingly low probabilities of encountering each of the supposed steps through random mutations.
There is deep ingenuity evident in biological nature in designing and implementing systems like complicated irreducibly complex machines. To do this absolutely seems to require a process that in some way incorporates in some form the basic stages of design, the necessary steps in the design of any complicated machine. It starts with analysis of the engineering requirements - defining what is the problem, what is the purpose of the design. Perhaps there is a tradeoff study of different envisioned possible structural solutions to the problem. Then there is implementation and testing. Then perhaps a feedback to try a different structural solution. This overall process requires engineering insight involving purpose, visualization, foresight and planning, especially with irreducibly complex machines. This is an irreplaceable act of consciousness.
Marcos Eberlin just published a new book on the many examples of causal circularity (requiring design) that are found in biology. Causal circularity is a much stronger claim than just irreducible complexity, and (as Eberlin repeatedly points out) it also poses a serious problem for the notion that the components of the system and the system itself evolved step-by-step from simpler entities. His book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, is discussed
here.
Quote:"A (simple) example of causal circularity is: to get A we need B, but to get B we first need A. We can’t have one without the other. To get both together, we need foresight.” In other words, we need intelligent design. Eberlin describes cases of causal circularity throughout his book. In each case, the organism needs A to make B, but it has to already have B before A exists. And in Eberlin’s examples A and B are both complex entities.
“We find examples of this causal circularity — and thus the need for foresight — throughout living systems.” One example is the relationship between DNA, RNA, and proteins: “Without DNA and RNA, the cell could not synthesize the proteins it needs. Yet without a suite of complex proteins the cell could not synthesize more DNA and thus could never divide. And without another suite of complex proteins the cell could not make RNA. No DNA and RNA, no proteins. No proteins, no DNA or RNA.”"
It occurs to me to add an aside: notice that in this little summary exposition of some major elements of ID theory I have not once mentioned God, Christian or otherwise, or any gods, or any other description of the agent or agents. This is not necessary in showing the bankruptcy of Darwinism and the necessity of seeing life in the light of design.
For me, the whole subject is peppered with just-so stories. Whether we talk about origin of life, the astonishing complexity of the factory within every cell or biological evolution itself. Unfortunately the argument has become polarised into yet another science vs religion issue which is very sad for those of us without ideological commitments to either materialism/atheism or religion. Scientific careers can founder on the rocks of faith. We saw a
video posted here recently containing explanations as to why the current thinking on origin of life is flawed. When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma. Nobody seems to want to address the facts.
From the materialist side, the origin of life argument seems to be: there is no such thing as magic so the process must be natural. We have some naturalistic proposals which are being researched and they will eventually come up with all the answers: "we are close!". The religious argument, conversely, takes what Tour and others say about the sheer magnitude of improbability against the chance combination of chemicals producing life as leading to the automatic conclusion that it therefore must be proof of God and the bible. Unfortunately, it seems, Tour himself takes that route towards biblical literalism.
(2019-07-18, 08:28 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma.
According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!
(2019-07-18, 11:27 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!
Correction: Apparently Tour is a "Messianic Jew," which means he accepts Jesus as the Messiah. I must admit that's not something I was familiar with.
(2019-07-18, 08:28 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]For me, the whole subject is peppered with just-so stories. Whether we talk about origin of life, the astonishing complexity of the factory within every cell or biological evolution itself. Unfortunately the argument has become polarised into yet another science vs religion issue which is very sad for those of us without ideological commitments to either materialism/atheism or religion. Scientific careers can founder on the rocks of faith. We saw a video posted here recently containing explanations as to why the current thinking on origin of life is flawed. When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma. Nobody seems to want to address the facts.
From the materialist side, the origin of life argument seems to be: there is no such thing as magic so the process must be natural. We have some naturalistic proposals which are being researched and they will eventually come up with all the answers: "we are close!". The religious argument, conversely, takes what Tour and others say about the sheer magnitude of improbability against the chance combination of chemicals producing life as leading to the automatic conclusion that it therefore must be proof of God and the bible. Unfortunately, it seems, Tour himself takes that route towards biblical literalism.
Yeah, it's hard to sort out the arguments when the evidence is so hotly political in addition to relying on deeper knowledge of biology.