(2021-01-25, 05:16 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm I think the Darwinist is putting forth a different - and fallacious - argument than the one I'm making.
I'm saying there are two separate parts to ID ->
Part 1. Is there evidence of design in the evolutionary chain?
Part 2. Who might be the designers?
Part 1 is up for grabs IMO, though it is hard to know how we get rationality and the capacity to hold concepts in our minds without some kind of intervention. But I also don't think IDers have shown a smoking gun.
Part 2 is something IDers pretend isn't up for any scientific analysis and so people can just decide for themselves, though I think this is wrong. We can use our science along with reason to at the very least rank the designer candidates. And God, as in the big-G who shows up in any scripture, is pretty far down that list.
The Darwinist seems to be saying that you can knock God off the list in Part 2, and this negates even consideration of the evidence in Part 1. Which, as noted above, is a fallacious argument but also not the one I'm making.
And what I'm trying to say is: does Part 2 matter? I don't care what someone believes so long as they are not inventing evidence. It seems to me, however, that their arguments have merit and stand whether or not God did it. I personally don't believe in the kind of omniscient designer god that is often put forward but I do think that there is some kind of teleological process going on. Your own arguments on this forum when pointing to the probability of fine tuning support that teleological view, don't they?
When I say, does it matter, I mean does it matter to the argument over the evidence for and against NS/RM? I just think that they are not two parts of the same question but separate debates.
(2021-01-25, 06:53 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]And what I'm trying to say is: does Part 2 matter? I don't care what someone believes so long as they are not inventing evidence. It seems to me, however, that their arguments have merit and stand whether or not God did it. I personally don't believe in the kind of omniscient designer god that is often put forward but I do think that there is some kind of teleological process going on. Your own arguments on this forum when pointing to the probability of fine tuning support that teleological view, don't they?
Well it matters if we want a complete scientific investigation into ID. For example, does a combination of Jim Carpenter's First Sight Theory of Psi + Sheldrake's Morphic fields allow a mechanism for an organism to pass own its experience epigenetically in the form of adptation?
But no, it doesn't matter in the sense of negating evidence. Someone can be wrong about Part 2 yet completely 100% correct about Part 1.
Just like Rovelli can be correct that QM shows we live in separate universes of separate (physical) information, but wrong about his claim that Physicalism is true.
(2021-01-25, 07:00 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Well it matters if we want a complete scientific investigation into ID.
And I'm not sure that it is possible to have a complete scientific investigation into the identity and nature of a designer or the intelligence in the system. Scientists would probably agree that such a question is beyond the remit of science which is constrained by adherence to methodological naturalism.
(2021-01-25, 07:07 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]And I'm not sure that it is possible to have a complete scientific investigation into the identity and nature of a designer or the intelligence in the system. Scientists would probably agree that such a question is beyond the remit of science which is constrained by adherence to methodological naturalism.
Archeologists might not be able to be 100% sure who built particular buildings, but they can at least try to suss it out.
We're in an even better position to see if there are non-local communication abilities in, say, bacteria that allow them to adapt in novel ways.
(2021-01-25, 07:11 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Archeologists might not be able to be 100% sure who built particular buildings, but they can at least try to suss it out.
We're in an even better position to see if there are non-local communication abilities in, say, bacteria that allow them to adapt in novel ways.
OK - I think I see where you are going with this now and, to some extent, I agree. It may be informative to try to determine nature of the influences on evolution - at least to the extent that we can say "well, that can't have been random" or "that bears the unmistakeable hallmarks of design" and that if we accept some kind of intelligent intent we may be able to move forward in our understanding - perhaps even to the point of universal acceptance that something beyond accident is at work in our universe.
However, for the foreseeable future, I strongly doubt whether Darwinists are going to accept a supernatural influence or ID researchers are going to be moved from their belief in an Abrahamic deity. In that respect, our discussion is probably more enlightened than either side.
(2021-01-25, 07:19 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]OK - I think I see where you are going with this now and, to some extent, I agree. It may be informative to try to determine nature of the influences on evolution - at least to the extent that we can say "well, that can't have been random" or "that bears the unmistakeable hallmarks of design" and that if we accept some kind of intelligent intent we may be able to move forward in our understanding - perhaps even to the point of universal acceptance that something beyond accident is at work in our universe.
However, for the foreseeable future, I strongly doubt whether Darwinists are going to accept a supernatural influence or ID researchers are going to be moved from their belief in an Abrahamic deity. In that respect, our discussion is probably more enlightened than either side.
But I think it can have relevance in the here and now. Can a biological entity use Psi to change their own structure?
Can someone prevent the passing on, or even development, of genetically inherited diseases?
Is psychic healing using the same mechanisms that might allow for bacteria to game probabilities in what gets passed to their offspring?
(2021-01-25, 07:31 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]But I think it can have relevance in the here and now. Can a biological entity use Psi to change their own structure?
Can someone prevent the passing on, or even development, of genetically inherited diseases?
Is psychic healing using the same mechanisms that might allow for bacteria to game probabilities in what gets passed to their offspring?
And I assume that, by extension, you are arguing that being faced with a "God did it" alternative to Darwinism, we might not see that kind of investigation?
(2021-01-25, 07:52 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]And I assume that, by extension, you are arguing that being faced with a "God did it" alternative to Darwinism, we might not see that kind of investigation?
Well I think simply not asking the question is denying the natural course of scientific inquiry. Even with Cosmological Fine Tuning you see people asking questions like,
"Is this Universe a Computer Simulation?"
or
"Does QM suggest Objective Idealism is true?"
So even in the case of the temporally far removed origins of this Universe science is looking for ways to test questions like the above.
It seems hard to believe that something much more [temporally] "local" to our current existence, evolution of life on earth, cannot have a fruitful line of similar inquiry.
(2021-01-25, 08:04 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Well I think simply not asking the question is denying the natural course of scientific inquiry. Even with Cosmological Fine Tuning you see people asking questions like,
"Is this Universe a Computer Simulation?"
or
"Does QM suggest Objective Idealism is true?"
So even in the case of the temporally far removed origins of this Universe science is looking for ways to test questions like the above.
It seems hard to believe that something much more [temporally] "local" to our current existence, evolution of life on earth, cannot have a fruitful line of similar inquiry.
Ok, I understand but I have to return to the point of this discussion and to reiterate that, from the books I have read or the videos that I have watched, I have found no form of insistence that the answers are to be found in the Bible. Indeed, you might disagree or think it insincere but those that I have read or listened to have always been at pains to distance their research results from their personal beliefs. On the other hand, the Darwinists have been uniformly dogmatic and consistently attempt to reduce the argument to one of faith vs science.
So again, while I have sympathy with your intention to discuss the nature of the intelligence, I still think that such a discussion is for another thread. I really fear that anything of value that might have been discovered by the ID researchers might be lost in the rush to denounce them all.
(2021-01-25, 08:17 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I understand but I have to return to the point of this discussion and to reiterate that, from the books I have read or the videos that I have watched, I have found no form of insistence that the answers are to be found in the Bible.
I never said they did. I'm saying IDers are leaving the science half-finished because they know that once we start trying to figure out the mechanism for non-local adaptation the jig is up.
Quote:Indeed, you might disagree or think it insincere but those that I have read or listened to have always been at pains to distance their research results from their personal beliefs. On the other hand, the Darwinists have been uniformly dogmatic and consistently attempt to reduce the argument to one of faith vs science.
Well I don't think it is wrong to pursue ID in the hopes of providing strong evidence that the same being who set the Finely Tuned constants also intervened in the biological chain of evolution. And that the best candidate for this being is then God in the traditional religious sense.
However this question of whether the Fine Tuner(s?) are the same as the Intelligent Designer(s?) is something that should actually be pursued with the seeking of evidence.
Quote:So again, while I have sympathy with your intention to discuss the nature of the intelligence, I still think that such a discussion is for another thread. I really fear that anything of value that might have been discovered by the ID researchers might be lost in the rush to denounce them all.
Well the question remains whether they've discovered anything at all. But sure, I can make a separate thread to discuss the identity of the designer(s).