Fine tuning?

I would say science often has to deal with evidence that is not utterly conclusive, but normally it does its best - think of archaeology for example.

If you mean “on the balance of probabilities” I’d agree

Agree with both of you. I'm not saying "Until Survival/Psi is as replicable as QM we can dismiss it" but rather that for some such a standard is the only way they would accept Psi or Survival. Also I think we should distinguish that which we can be scientifically certain of and that which is acceptably plausible.

OTOH this standard should be applied more comprehensively, as fields from Archeology mentioned by David to Economics don't always have this replicable level either. Also a bunch of psychology has to be reformed/rechecked, and only now are experiments making economics a true science. And of course all the hype for quantum computing which may still not scale into something usable.

Really once agents are involved, like they are with Psi and Survival, one is not dealing with the kind of simplified reality of repeatable phenomena...Though also worth considering no one yet knows why the indeterminstic weird QM level resolves to the classical repeatable level...

“An element of proto-consciousness takes place whenever a decision is made in the universe. I’m not talking about the brain. I’m talking about an object which is put into a superposition of two places. Say it’s a speck of dust that you put into two locations at once. Now, in a small fraction of a second, it will become one or the other. Which does it become? Well, that’s a choice. Is it a choice made by the universe? Does the speck of dust make this choice? Maybe it’s a free choice. I have no idea.”
 -Penrose

As I see it, the DI is arguing the following:

Creating life by chance is impossible (see particularly James Tour).

James Tour is an enigma to me. His arguments from the POV of his scientific experience and research are entirely convincing. Just as an aside, he ran an in-depth series of rebuttal videos highlighting the comparative lack of understanding of the science which were posted by a YouTube skeptic/atheist calling himself Professor Dave. Yet Prof Dave had an easy target when it came to James Tour's faith which is evangelical to the point of biblical literalism. I just don't get that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a man with such a comprehensive knowledge about biological origins and evolution can justify biblical literalism.

With the questions of both fine tuning and origin of life, I feel the rebels are on the right track. Yet it bothers me to see the debate devolve into a science vs religion bun fight. I've watched the debates with Stephen Meyer and yes, indeed, he constantly has to deflect attacks on his faith and has an uphill task trying to get his opponents to answer the points of scientific interest. The DI scientists believe they have the perfect, ready-made answer to the huge problems posed to materialist scientism and that is to be found in religion. My point in this series of posts has been to express the wish that more scientists and academics would come forward with an alternative to both extremes. It seems that most of us here can see that alternative, why can't they?

If you read it again you might see that the mention of lies was with regard to news organisations. The comparison was really about bias and fact-checking. On the other hand, I don't trust anything I read from ideological sources, be they skeptical or evangelical. May I ask where you go to check what you read at the DI?

Though I too am not Christian, it appears that I have more respect than you do for the scientific objectivity of DI scientists and philosophers. I might point out that in their writings they are careful to separate their religious belief system from their scientific deliberations, to the point where they invariably equate ID with the search for evidence and proof that design is inherent in the history of life and the Universe, with the nature and identity of the designer or designers being beyond the scientific goals of ID. 

On the other hand, the Darwinist materialist followers of the church of scientism very freely combine their supposedly scientific judgements about evolution and cosmology and fine tuning with their religious faith-based materialist convictions. 

And (as already pointed out), Darwinists generally produce mostly invalid objections to the work of DI based on the religious faith of the DI organization, with little valid scientific substance.  

I would really be interested - please specify even just one lie or egregiously biased scientific statement in DI scientific statements concerning evolutionary biology.

Though I too am not Christian, it appears that I have more respect than you do for the scientific objectivity of DI scientists and philosophers. I might point out that in their writings they are careful to separate their religious belief system from their scientific deliberations, to the point where they invariably equate ID with the search for evidence and proof that design is inherent in the history of life and the Universe, with the nature and identity of the designer or designers being beyond the scientific goals of ID. 

On the other hand, the Darwinist materialist followers of the church of scientism very freely combine their supposedly scientific judgements about evolution and cosmology and fine tuning with their religious faith-based materialist convictions. 

I would really be interested - please specify even just one lie or egregiously biased scientific statement in DI scientific statements concerning evolutionary biology.

EXACTLY. People act like atheist materialist science has zero agenda or bias, but when you think about Christian science, one of the whole major tenents of Christianity is to not lie due to the belief of hell.

Granted there’s been lots of cases of Christians lying/scamming, but in general people who have some fear of hell aren’t gonna be purposey fudging/screwing data as much. And you have to wonder if some of those grfiters were non-believers taking advantage of Christian belief.

There’s also a lot more proof for a lot of this stuff (afterlife, ID, etc) than a lot of faith based materialist stuff like multiverses and magical abiogenesis

Though I too am not Christian, it appears that I have more respect than you do for the scientific objectivity of DI scientists and philosophers. I might point out that in their writings they are careful to separate their religious belief system from their scientific deliberations, to the point where they invariably equate ID with the search for evidence and proof that design is inherent in the history of life and the Universe, with the nature and identity of the designer or designers being beyond the scientific goals of ID. 

On the other hand, the Darwinist materialist followers of the church of scientism very freely combine their supposedly scientific judgements about evolution and cosmology and fine tuning with their religious faith-based materialist convictions. 

And (as already pointed out), Darwinists generally produce mostly invalid objections to the work of DI based on the religious faith of the DI organization, with little valid scientific substance.  

I would really be interested - please specify even just one lie or egregiously biased scientific statement in DI scientific statements concerning evolutionary biology.

Once again, I DID NOT claim that the DI scientists are lying (the mention of lies was directed at news organisations) so please stop with the straw man arguments. I did make the point that they are influenced by their religious faith and therefore I would like some non-religious commentary on their scientific research. That DOES NOT mean that I am all in with the evolutionists - far from it. The DI does fund some non-Christians - David Berlinski (self-described as a secular Jew) comes to mind, but I would like to hear more from scientists not affiliated to religious sponsors. Yet I too have made the point you are stressing - that Meyer et al are at pains to separate their research from their faith-based beliefs. My original comment in this thread was about the difficulty in talking about ID with an atheist who would not listen to a word after the mention of the DI. That is regrettable but true.

To put it in as succinct terms as I can manage - I am not a scientist. I do not have the knowledge or training to decide whether one scientist or another is presenting unbiased conclusions. I have read material from both sides and find myself more convinced by people like Meyer and Behe than, for example, Dawkins. The longest running and, by far, the most commented upon thread on this forum is about this very subject and guess who started it? Yes, I did. You might like to look back at some of my posts in that thread before you unload on me for some perceived slight against your convictions.

James Tour is an enigma to me. His arguments from the POV of his scientific experience and research are entirely convincing. Just as an aside, he ran an in-depth series of rebuttal videos highlighting the comparative lack of understanding of the science which were posted by a YouTube skeptic/atheist calling himself Professor Dave. Yet Prof Dave had an easy target when it came to James Tour's faith which is evangelical to the point of biblical literalism. I just don't get that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a man with such a comprehensive knowledge about biological origins and evolution can justify biblical literalism.

With the questions of both fine tuning and origin of life, I feel the rebels are on the right track. Yet it bothers me to see the debate devolve into a science vs religion bun fight. I've watched the debates with Stephen Meyer and yes, indeed, he constantly has to deflect attacks on his faith and has an uphill task trying to get his opponents to answer the points of scientific interest. The DI scientists believe they have the perfect, ready-made answer to the huge problems posed to materialist scientism and that is to be found in religion. My point in this series of posts has been to express the wish that more scientists and academics would come forward with an alternative to both extremes. It seems that most of us here can see that alternative, why can't they?

Wow - that is some interesting background that I didn't know. Here is a video of a debate between Professor Dave and James Tour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvGdllx9pJU

James Tour injects a lot of chemical realism into the subject of the origin of life - I posted one of his videos recently. They really stand on their own without reference to Christianity. The real point is simply this:

Could life as we know it have been created by undirected chemistry. He reminds people of awkward facts that they would prefer to ignore, such as:

Even if a molecule of RNA or DNA (with a useful code) or some other useful biomolecule were to somehow emerge from the chemicals seething in a pre-biotic Earth, it wouldn't survive long. Organic  chemistry usually involves purifying the thing you are trying to make at every step or almost every step. If you leave them in contact with the bi-products for long, they react and are destroyed!

The people who argue for a natural origin for life, can't make even the simplest living entity, even with the facilities of a large chemistry lab at their disposal.

etc.

It isn't as though those on the other side don't know such facts - but they just try to hide them from non-experts.

I agree it would be interesting to hear him combine his beliefs with his chemistry in a bit more detail!!

Edit: Oh boy that debate was a bit absurd I couldn't stand it for long, though I think Professor Dave is relying on bluffing - hiding the fact that abiotic reactions would branch randomly and create useless mixtures of chemicals.

All the talk (shouting) about 'lying' is slightly missing the point. There is massive scope for ambiguity - so paper may make ambiguous assertions that look good if you don't probe into the details.

The moderator should have done far more, but he did question the term "functional RNA" and Professor Dave didn't seem to know to what it referred.

David

Though I too am not Christian, it appears that I have more respect than you do for the scientific objectivity of DI scientists and philosophers. 

Just to emphasise a point I made above when referring to that long-running thread I started. Here's a quote from a post I made early in that thread, way back in 2017.

Having read and listened to Stephen Meyer quite a lot over the past couple of years I am something of a fan - at least of his dignity and honesty in debate if not his ultimate conclusions.

Just to emphasise a point I made above when referring to that long-running thread I started. Here's a quote from a post I made early in that thread, way back in 2017.

Yeah Meyer really impressed me. I'm not quite there with him on whether Intelligent Design is really observable at the biological level but he has my attention for the reasons you stated.

Also important to note that one can be convinced Materialism is nonsensical, that there is merit to the Fine Tuning argument in the sense that there is something to be explained, and even that there is evidence of ID in biology....and still not be committed to the idea of "God" as many religions define this being.

And you can accept some of those propositions and reject others. As I've said since the Skeptiko days, I'm not convinced Psi/Survival really supports any existing religions or even supports the idea of a religion at all if you take the data in a comprehensive way.

Yeah Meyer really impressed me. I'm not quite there with him on whether Intelligent Design is really observable at the biological level but he has my attention for the reasons you stated.

Also important to note that one can be convinced Materialism is nonsensical, that there is merit to the Fine Tuning argument in the sense that there is something to be explained, and even that there is evidence of ID in biology....and still not be committed to the idea of "God" as many religions define this being.

And you can accept some of those propositions and reject others. As I've said since the Skeptiko days, I'm not convinced Psi/Survival really supports any existing religions or even supports the idea of a religion at all if you take the data in a comprehensive way.

I was more taken with his Signature in the Cell arguments. When you look at DNA in action in a cell and take into account the complexity which is akin to running a factory and organising the various "workers" in their respective tasks, not to mention the astonishing coding that is so similar to our human-designed computer codes, I am absolutely blown away by this information. I have yet to see a materialist explanation of this beyond the argument from large numbers which is a total cop-out in my book (as it is with the multiverse "explanation" of fine tuning).
https://youtu.be/7Hk9jct2ozY?si=EWFKxK8fgsCPxKDt

I was more taken with his Signature in the Cell arguments. When you look at DNA in action in a cell and take into account the complexity which is akin to running a factory and organising the various "workers" in their respective tasks, not to mention the astonishing coding that is so similar to our human-designed computer codes, I am absolutely blown away by this information. I have yet to see a materialist explanation of this beyond the argument from large numbers which is a total cop-out in my book (as it is with the multiverse "explanation" of fine tuning)

I loved that video, and it does illustrate the problem involved in starting life from scratch.

Someone must have had a whale of a time inventing the sounds that accompany the images!

Where did you find that video?

David