Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 22 2008,13:10) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 22 2008,14:59) |
I believe you snip the parts you have no good answer for. |
Then you should press me on those points, and see if that is the case. |
I figure you'd answer the points if you could. Why is it up to me to keep the pressure on you to answer a point I've already made?
| Quote | | Quote | | So you're admitting that a scientific philosophy based solely on naturalism could not predict the construction of something as complex as life? After all, if it is a highly contingent series of events, it would not be predicted to happen, (except of course under the "everything's possible" catch-all category). |
Contingent events don't necessarily happen. They occur only if certain other other facts are also the case (that's the definition of "contingent.") |
Please. Stop with the condescension. My point was contingent upon the definition of 'contingent' (see I even used it in a sentence!).
My point (reiterated) was that a theory dependent upon natural mechanisms would have no basis for predicting such a contingent event.
| Quote | The emergence of life on earth was contingent upon the prior formation of heavier elements in supernovas. It was contingent upon existence of water in liquid form, which in turn required that the earth and its star stand in particular relation to one another. Among myriad other facts. I believe that might easily have not occurred. But it did.
I also happen to believe, BTW, that the emergence of life SOMEWHERE in the universe, and probably in many places, was/is inevitable (because the universe is so vast, the likelihood of the required contingent events arising together in many locations is very high).
But these are my personal beliefs. I don't claim that they are "scientific" assertions, nor am I representing myself as a spokesman for all of science. |
The only reason you're predicting that it would happen elsewhere is because life already exists on this planet. It's not something you would predict if you knew nothing of life.
| Quote | | BTW, you still don't seem to grasp the problem entailed in "predicting" events that have already occurred. |
I don't? Ha! Now that's funny!
| Quote | | Quote | | Quote | | Quote | | Now, I'm not smart enough to make a specific prediction about anything and then tell you how it could be empirically verified. |
THANK YOU. But the problem isn't your IQ. The problem is that it simply isn't possible to generate tractable empirical predictions of power and specificity sufficient to guide empirical research from the framework you are advocating. Regardless of IQ. |
I think you're wrong. If I knew more about biology, my predictions would be more specific. |
Then I invite you to search the ID literature high and low and find an example. You're the one making the claim that empirical predictions of sufficient power to test and falsify your hypothesis are possible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that.
| Quote | | But what if God (or some other being) actually did create life? |
| Quote | | My argument is that life is so intricately organized - it requires God as its source. |
| Quote | | However, within the God-centered empirical framework, we'd predict that a rational, creative God would create spectacular, incredibly marvelous things. |
| Quote | | I'd expect God's creations to be the same - only orders of magnitude more advanced. |
| Quote | | 1) God organized the first cell(s) from the raw materials available here on earth. |
| Quote | | 2) God fitted these cells with 'universal' genomes which contained information for their differentiation... |
| Quote | | First, God is not a man - he is not bound to our physical limitations. He's also all powerful. Essentially he could just will the atoms into place. |
| Quote | | God made the first cell(s) in the same way man makes a car. He put the parts together. |
| Quote | | When have I appealed to "supernatural" mechanisms? |
Oy. |
I guess you automatically hear "supernatural" when someone says "God". The only statement you listed that would qualify as an appeal to supernatural mechanism would be this one (which was just a way of saying "I don't know" for me): | Quote | | First, God is not a man - he is not bound to our physical limitations. He's also all powerful. Essentially he could just will the atoms into place. |
The rest are not appeals to supernatural mechanisms - they are appeals to an intelligent basis for nature, (and my label for that intelligence just happens to be "God").
Listen carefully Bill: Pointing out that intricate organization which is so far beyond the capabilities of nature that it requires intelligent agency is not an appeal to "supernatural" mechanisms - since it can be said about a car.
The reason I use the term "God" to describe this required agent is because the organization at the heart of life is orders of magnitude beyond any organizations man is capable of. From this observation it follows that the level of intelligence required would also be orders of magnitude higher. This is consistent with the commonly accepted characteristics of what we have come to describe as "God". I'm not appealing to "magic" or "superstition".
| Quote | | Quote | | why would one expect the universe to be based on "lawful regularity" from a naturalist POV - except for the fact that it already is observed to be? |
Actually, "it is already observed to be" is good enough. "We don't know" is also an option. |
Hmm... I don't know who said this, but it seems somehow apropos: | Quote | | BTW, you still don't seem to grasp the problem entailed in "predicting" events that have already occurred. |
Bill, you once said this: | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 17 2008,16:50) |
You're too clever for your own good, Daniel, and you've been bilked by your own argument.
To see this, describe to us the empirical predictions and resulting research that arise uniquely from your position, motivating empirical investigation that would otherwise not have been pursued.
(Long silence.)
That's right. There are none. No unique empirical predictions arise from your position. "The one thing that would falsify my argument would be if the major systems present within life can be shown to have a plausible natural origin" describes research efforts already ongoing from the perspective of methodological naturalism. Your model contributes nothing - can contribute nothing - to that empirical work.
Ergo, your postulate is scientifically empty.
(Not to mention that "end of history" thing vis your "empirical test.") |
Let me try to use an analogy that will (perhaps) better illustrate my argument:
Say we found, on Mars, a group of rocks organized in a similar fashion to Stonehenge. There are two possible explanations.
This organization was a result of:
1) natural forces.
2) intelligent agency.
So let's say scientists are divided into two camps with each camp embracing one of the two theories.
How would the empirical research be different in pursuit of these two theories? The 'natural forces' people would be looking for positive evidence for natural forces and negative evidence for intelligence, while the 'intelligent agency' people would be looking for negative evidence of natural forces and positive evidence of intelligence. But, (and here's the key Bill), their empirical research would be the same - only their predictions would be different.
To illustrate; which camp would be looking for chisel marks? The answer is that it could be either camp - one would be expecting to find them, the other would not expect to find any.
Which camp would spend most of their effort looking at natural mechanisms? The answer again would be "both". Since it is already understood that intelligent agency could form such a structure, most of the research by the 'intelligent agency' camp would be focused on disproving the 'natural forces' argument. Again, their empirical research would be the same - only their predictions would be different.
So, this argument of yours is another in a growing list of strawmen Bill. Any theories about life will be looking at the same evidence and testing it in similar fashion - only the predictions will be different.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
