(2020-09-07, 08:20 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Another good article that I don't believe is in the round-up:
Signature in the cell?
But we can look to the IDer Dembski for even more confirmation that the interpretation of ID evidence pointing to what we normally think of as "God" in the "Creator of All" sense is one of the poorer ones. I'd say it's akin to looking at the collapse of the wave function and suggesting the Many Worlds Interpretation, though probably not as bad as that.
Here's a worthwhile Dembski quote:
It seems Dembki even allows for the possibility that there is no designer at all, just an "impersonal telic process"? As for the "empirical data of nature", it seems we can at least portion out some likelihood of the varied options. For example if we have independent grounds for thinking we are in a simulation, it would make more sense to say the designers are the programmers themselves or some AI left to manage the simulation that tweaked the probabilities to get us toward a desired outcome without restarting the simulation run of our biome from scratch.
And if the empirical data includes the rest of parapsychology, of which I believe ID is merely a small piece, then it seems we can look at Vallee's Passport to Magonia and easily conclude those sorts of entities seem capable of altering the probabilities ID depends on. See also Paranthropology's description of varied spirit entities, or Survival cases where a ghost displays PK.
As to whether we should fold ID into parapsychology, I'd note Dembski's own explanation of ID from The Design Revolution. He offers the following scenario:
but then:
If this is what he means by design, then he has hit upon a description that clearly parallels the PK experiments involving the influence upon a random number generator.
IDers could even set up experiments, seeing if humans attempting PK can affect the randomness of mutations. And does this influence improve when one invokes the aid of some spirit?
Additionally we already have the mediumship healing case of George Chapman so if we accept that evidence we know it's within the bounds of a spirit to manipulate the body to a great degree.
If ID is a serious science this is the kind of stuff that they should be proposing, rather than pretending all the varied options for who the designer(s) is(are) have equal weight and it's simply a matter of faith as to which one we should pick.
ID is serious science regardless of this issue you are so concerned about. If its proponents in the DI are predominantly Christian so be it - their research and following of the evidence is still valid in coming to the conclusion that there has been an important teleological intelligent design element in evolution. So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures.
That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution.
Trying to understand the parapsychological psi mechanisms that may be behind the creative physical interventions in evolution that must have occurred is certainly a worthy goal, but it isn't necessary to simply demonstrate the bankruptcy of Darwinism. At this point in history Darwinism is very firmly entrenched in our culture to the point of being a de facto secular religion that stifles inquiry and promotes nihilism. First things first.
I wonder how the ID'ers from the DI, given that in general they have a strong belief in miracles the ultimate source which can only be christ or the devil - can speculate about a creator other than the christian god. It's interesting that dembski, meyer ect. have refered to their god at times in their interviews but haven't in my recollection refered to satan, lucifer, the devil. . .
(2020-09-07, 12:04 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]It is apparent that speculation about the nature of the designer isn't a part of the scientific method, and therefore isn't "scientific". To make speculation "scientific" it must be fleshed out with a formal hypothesis to provisionally explain observations, the crucial conducting of an experiment, and analysis of results. Speculation about the nature of the designer has no elements of observation and conducting of experiments and analysis of results versus predictions of the hypothesis. There isn't anything "scientific" about pure speculation.
The ID research conducted by those few ID-friendly scientists working in the field deliberately stays away from such speculation - it isn't science. These investigators are simply trying to scientifically establish that contrary to Darwinism there must have been some creative intelligent teleological factor in evolution, maybe a designer or designers, maybe something else. That is enough of a challenge, not finding "a bridge to a scriptural Deity" .
I think that scientists researching ID deliberately stay away from the question of the nature of the putative designer or designers (either immaterial or material) precisely because it just can't be investigated by the methods of science as it has been practiced for a few centuries.
It is a problem with threads that go on for hundreds of pages that points will inevitably get made and remade and remade. I can remember making this same point several times since I started this thread three years ago.
In short, scientists who argue that ID is unscientific often make the argument that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Naturalism means a definition of natural that excludes the so-called super-natural. Any appeal to a supernatural designer is therefore not scientific and it must follow that ID which, they say, clearly appeals to the supernatural, spiritual or divine, cannot be scientific.
However, while the more prominent ID researchers have made it clear that many of them are indeed practising Christians and that their research is funded by religious foundations, they have used precisely defined scientific methods to show the weakness of the neo-darwinian model. I've seen debates posted on YouTube where their opponents flatly refuse to address such research because, they claim, it is unscientific for the reasons just explained. I've posted a clip previously where methodological naturalism was specifically invoked to disqualify the arguments of ID proponents (skip to 49 minutes in this clip).
https://youtu.be/2S-OGNpItwo
Surely, if evidence of intelligence and purpose in nature is apparent, it should be a legitimate field of inquiry for science even if the nature of such intelligence is not? Otherwise, consciousness itself would be ruled out of bounds for science. Some eliminative materialists such as the Churchlands and Dennett (philosophers) would support that extreme position maintaining that consciousness is an illusion and has no actual reality. But for others, even hard-line atheists like Sam Harris (another philosopher), consciousness cannot be dismissed so lightly.
He says:
Quote:Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.
Even Scientific American has published articles on the relationship that science has with consciousness. This is a recent (and interesting) example:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...tractable/
(2020-09-07, 08:49 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]ID is serious science regardless of this issue you are so concerned about. If its proponents in the DI are predominantly Christian so be it - their research and following of the evidence is still valid in coming to the conclusion that there has been an important teleological intelligent design element in evolution. So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures.
That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution.
Trying to understand the parapsychological psi mechanisms that may be behind the creative physical interventions in evolution that must have occurred is certainly a worthy goal, but it isn't necessary to simply demonstrate the bankruptcy of Darwinism. At this point in history Darwinism is very firmly entrenched in our culture to the point of being a de facto secular religion that stifles inquiry and promotes nihilism. First things first.
Feser himself is Christian, and it was his criticisms that helped me see how bankrupt the idea that ID could show "God" - as in the deity who is credited with creation of Everything - exists. The argument is an a priori limit on what ID can reveal - in this it is in the vein of the Hard Problem which you yourself have referred to in the past.
So we already know that ID will never find evidence for a big-G God. Now, as for whether there even is "teleological intelligent design" you should take that up with Dembski and ask why he is mentioning impersonal telic process as an explanation for perceived design.
As for their findings, I'm curious what you believe counts as specifically *their* findings? What experiments have they conducted? If ID's primary vehicle is Neo-Darwinism's incompleteness as explanation, then it seems we should also note ID's own incompleteness given their lack of experiments regarding the likelihood of who or what the designer(s) is(are)?
In any case I am not challenging whatever their findings are, but I don't believe a serious science is simply a set of arguments in favor of a particular idea - in this case that there is evidence of design. For example we know neurons have something to do with consciousness, but we'd cry foul if neuroscientists simply stopped and refused to even look for signs of quantum biology because the latter is more accommodating of a soul. Or if physicists simply decided to stop at the collapse of the wave function without trying to find evidence for which interpretation is most plausible.
IDers, OTOH, largely seem content to stop just at the point where things get interesting.
(2020-09-07, 10:02 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Surely, if evidence of intelligence and purpose in nature is apparent, it should be a legitimate field of inquiry for science even if the nature of such intelligence is not? [url=https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/][/url]
Not sure we disagree -> See my most recent post above - How could the nature of such an intelligence not be a legitimate field of inquiry?
That IDers look for design but don't want to try and weight the varied interpretations for who the designer(s) is(are) is what I believe discredits the field.
I do agree that looking for evidence of design is a perfectly legitimate scientific inquiry, but stopping at that and pretending that any designer one wishes to project onto said evidence is acceptable is what I think is unscientific. Just as the Hard Problem gives us a priori reasons for rejecting Physicalism, Feser - a Catholic himself - clearly shows that ID will never provide a path toward the big-G God we expect from varied world scriptures including the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.
(2020-09-07, 10:13 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure we disagree -> See my most recent post above - How could the nature of such an intelligence not be a legitimate field of inquiry?
That IDers look for design but don't want to try and weight the varied interpretations for who the designer(s) is(are) is what I believe discredits the field.
I do agree that looking for evidence of design is a perfectly legitimate scientific inquiry, but stopping at that and pretending that any designer one wishes to project onto said evidence is acceptable is what I think is unscientific. Just as the Hard Problem gives us a priori reasons for rejecting Physicalism, Feser - a Catholic himself - clearly shows that ID will never provide a path toward the big-G God we expect from varied world scriptures including the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.
I don't think I was attempting to disagree with you, Sci. I just wanted to point out that this discussion has repeatedly reinforced the idea that ID research is a scientific challenge to neo-darwinism, not (as many would have us believe) an argument from religion. I just think that there is a difference between investigating evidence of design (science) and speculating on the nature of the designer (philosophy? religion? ideology?).
We could argue that scientific research has come up with evidence to suggest design which clearly requires intelligence but what we can't argue is that such evidence points directly to the Abrahamic God or some other divine being. It may be that consciousness has an innate tendency to evolve in a manner we would define as intelligent and that biological evolution reflects that tendency. Or it might be that consciousness has a creative nature and is able to construct worlds with living, self-aware beings within its own mind.
The fact is that there is something rather than nothing. How that something came about is probably a question that can never be answered but it is a fact. I would maintain that it is also a fact that this something is aware, creative and intelligent and probably evolving. I would contend that we, whether by science or by philosophy, are merely trying to discover our place within the evolving something. The alternative is a myriad somethings from nothing and order, complexity, subjectivity,
creativity, awareness and intelligence by sheer fluke. I don't buy the alternative.
(2020-09-07, 09:05 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how the ID'ers from the DI, given that in general they have a strong belief in miracles the ultimate source which can only be christ or the devil - can speculate about a creator other than the christian god. It's interesting that dembski, meyer ect. have refered to their god at times in their interviews but haven't in my recollection refered to satan, lucifer, the devil. . .
I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that the devil can do genuine miracles although I know the church often gives him far more credit than he deserves. I suppose it was prophesised that he would produce false signs and lying wonders, but are these the same as miracles? Anyway I see no problem with speculating about other possible "creators" from the point of view of their science - it would be unscientific not to do so. I am a christian because of personal evidence but if it wasn't for that, my desires would be for a watered down Hare Krsna faith and my intellect for pantheism. I can certainly speculate about other creator types if I wish without putting aside what I believe in. It's called hypothesizing.
(2020-09-07, 11:31 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that the devil can do genuine miracles although I know the church often gives him far more credit than he deserves. I suppose it was prophesised that he would produce false signs and lying wonders, but are these the same as miracles? Anyway I see no problem with speculating about other possible "creators" from the point of view of their science - it would be unscientific not to do so. I am a christian because of personal evidence but if it wasn't for that, my desires would be for a watered down Hare Krsna faith and my intellect for pantheism. I can certainly speculate about other creator types if I wish without putting aside what I believe in. It's called hypothesizing.
Sorry, I think most of the ID/DI folks want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to have the certainty of science and some how marry it to their literalistic belief in the Christian bible which they believe is the only way to salvation. Big disconnect for me.
There is a conspicuous lack of speculation of the possible sources of a creative intelligence or intelligent designer in their narratives other than the Big G. It's easy to see why they would not want to speculate very much about such a source given if discovered it could potentially undermine their entire world view.
(2020-09-08, 12:59 AM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]There is a conspicuous lack of speculation of the possible sources of a creative intelligence or intelligent designer in their narratives other than the Big G. It's easy to see why they would not want to speculate very much about such a source given if discovered it could potentially undermine their entire world view.
I feel even the basic premise of a big-G God, as in the Creator, being responsible for the evidence of design seen in ID raises questions that defeat the premise.
After all if the big-G created everything and is the Ultimate Cause for the evolutionary process itself occurring within our physical universe why would He/She/It need to later make the edits to [this same] process that IDers claim as their evidence? Not even direct edits but manipulations of probability?
Doesn't this suggest the big-G erred and needed to self-correct? How can this God then be All-Knowing? If we then posit that the evolutionary track was previously set off course by, say, fallen angels (or "asuras" for Hindus, "djinn" for Muslims, etc) and only then did the big-G intervene...doesn't that mean the evolutionary process is manipulable by entities far lower on the cosmic ladder than the big-G?
But if that's the case, why even posit the big-G's involvement at all? Why not some other entities that have nothing to do with the particular scriptural story the IDer wants to try and support with their evidence?
After all if you come to my house and see a ham sandwich on the counter by a reasonable analysis of causal proximity it makes more sense that I made it for lunch than God for inexplicable reasons made the sandwich all of a sudden. Similarly if a lesser spirit can weight the dice of random mutation it makes more sense to say that is the likely candidate for the "designer".
That the IDers aren't even discussing this sort of thing is why the practitioners aren't doing serious science.
(2020-09-08, 03:32 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I feel even the basic premise of a big-G God, as in the Creator, being responsible for the evidence of design seen in ID raises questions that defeat the premise.
After all if the big-G created everything and is the Ultimate Cause for the evolutionary process itself occurring within our physical universe why would He/She/It need to later make the edits to [this same] process that IDers claim as their evidence? Not even direct edits but manipulations of probability?
Doesn't this suggest the big-G erred and needed to self-correct? How can this God then be All-Knowing? If we then posit that the evolutionary track was previously set off course by, say, fallen angels (or "asuras" for Hindus, "djinn" for Muslims, etc) and only then did the big-G intervene...doesn't that mean the evolutionary process is manipulable by entities far lower on the cosmic ladder than the big-G?
But if that's the case, why even posit the big-G's involvement at all? Why not some other entities that have nothing to do with the particular scriptural story the IDer wants to try and support with their evidence?
After all if you come to my house and see a ham sandwich on the counter by a reasonable analysis of causal proximity it makes more sense that I made it for lunch than God for inexplicable reasons made the sandwich all of a sudden. Similarly if a lesser spirit can weight the dice of random mutation it makes more sense to say that is the likely candidate for the "designer".
That the IDers aren't even discussing this sort of thing is why the practitioners aren't doing serious science.
I sense a pronounced hostility towards the notion of there being something like the Christian God of the scriptures (especially the Old Testament). I think I share a little of that, but that doesn't change the fact that there is much scientific worth in the research and thought of the major proponents of ID in the DI.
Any apparent conflicts between their scientific findings regarding the evident operation of some sort of intelligent design process in the remote evolutionary past, and the supposed capacities and characteristics of the scriptural God, should most likely be ascribed to the human limitedness and sometimes folly of fundamentalist religion.
To repeat my earlier challenge, "So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures. That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution."
Do you have any arguments for the invalidity of intelligent design as elucidated by these mainly Christian thinkers and scientists, for instance of the concept of complex specified information as (beyond a certain level) the unique product of intelligence, and of the concept of irreducible complexity and its unachievability by blind processes such as Darwinism?