ArborealDescendent
Posts: 29
Joined: Feb. 2015
|
| Quote ( Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2015,19:11) | | That's exactly what SAI does. |
I’m glad to hear this. I started reading your paper yesterday and I’m going to look at the other one to before I go further with my arguments. Apparently, my arguments so far demonstrate that I’m out of the loop. Thanks for the references.
| Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2015,19:21) | | How is deism distinguished from "materialism"? Other than deism might make you feel better? |
I concede I don’t know yet. Materialism is “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. (google)” So unless any possible IDer/creator is bound materialistically, “materialism” equates to atheism in my view. It seems to me that matter would not exist if there was not some kind of ultimate intelligent creator. In fact nothing would exist at all. But this is just my philosophy and religious belief I admit. On a philosophical level can you tell me why something exists at all if there isn’t a creator? If the universe created itself, as the atheist Hawkings proposes, then still the universe is in essence the Creator as Hinduism suggests. Unless one alleges that what we see around us is in fact “nothing” and meaningless, which I don’t think many people would agree with.
| Quote (NoName @ Mar. 03 2015,20:17) | And just because we can't observe, nor test, the notion that the universe was brought into existence last Thursday, complete with the appearance of age, and complete with memories of the early days of their lives prior to that wondrous day, when the Invisible Pink Unicorn, pbuh, doesn't mean we should rule it out, right?
I mean, just think of the social effects if we could show that this is true! Surely it must matter, matter enough for science to take seriously, and begin searching for the fingerprints of her awesome hoofs, right? |
Well I remember events from before last Thursday so there you go….. This argument just as easily throws all of science into question. How can you disprove the Omphalos hypothesis? In my opinion, only some kind of cruel and deceitful Creator would realistically implement such plans. By studying the nature of god and evil, I suspect we can rule them out. What I call “evolutionary ID” (evoID), in my opinion, is not analogous to the five-minute hypothesis.
But I noticed you said nothing about Ken Miller’s quote. Do you accept that evolution exhibits form-function design? That evolution is a design process? Is what Miller says accurate?
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) |
Really? I didn't know that evolution was either prescriptive or capable of claiming that morality is only an illusion. There could be a god who prescribes morality, for all that "evolution knows," and if that seems unlikely (does to me), it hardly means that the sense of good and evil didn't evolve.
There are people mistaking evolution for a totalist view, when it is ideally open, and limited in its claims.
|
Can you not see Miller’s point that many religious anti-evolutionists in the US and around the world subscribe to Santorum’s views, which is based on the misunderstanding that evolution is indeed a “totalist” random and accidental process, the implication of which render’s life meaningless? This misguidedness implies illusory morality. Miller is making a call to action in order to help provide clarity for these people by reframing the debate about design. To emphasize to the public evolution does not prescribe morality as illusion. That even if the sense of good and evil did socially evolve, this doesn’t preclude an ID agency handing down morality via this process. That evolution exhibits design and is non-random at some levels.
I don’t see many evolutionists emphasizing these points in debates with IDers or creationists. I share Miller’s assessment that until they do, IDers/creationists will continue to back us into a corner. I would agree that religion is not an exclusive source of morality, like NoName mentioned in a previous post, rather religion is mostly a “target” of morality as it was put. However, many religious, anti-evolutionists in the US I suspect, don’t see it this way. Miller’s proposal offers them a different perspective.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | Not true, at least not for the most part. Scientists rightly say that there isn't evidence for design in nature, not that there is no design. At least most do when they're being careful. |
Sorry, can’t agree with you here. I think Miller is spot on. If you accept as Miller says that there is exquisite correlation between form and function in nature, then how can one not interpret this as a form of design; one that deserves emphasis? Of course evolution is not perfect showing many improvisations (e.g. optic nerve fibers in front of the vertebrate retina creating a blind spot), but it is design nonetheless (i.e. ”jerry rigging”).
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | which is that we have no evidence that the universe was set up for evolution |
If the universe was not set up for evolution, we would not have evolution it seems to me. No?
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | Of course evolution is, more or less, predictable (that is, many of its effects are expected, while the forms taken are not, long-term) |
Really? How does one explain the myriad instances of convergent evolution? There are common form-function solutions that appear again and again to solve organismal fitness problems. Physics and chemistry make predictable forms in living and non-living matter according to constructural laws. There are always variations but many common foundational forms are widespread. Am I misunderstanding something here?
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | Not even close. The "natural world" can allow evolutionary development, there's nothing that makes it "inherent." |
Same difference seems to me. The one empirical example of a universe that we have, our own, permits evolutionary development of life. By this reckoning so, far the probabilities that universal law allows this is 100%, which follows that the evolution of life is inherent. This is not a priori, it’s empirical. Show me evidence of a universe that doesn’t have life and I will be convinced to reconsider.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) |
Hm, well, in some broad sense I'm willing to call it a design, but in what way does inheritance imply any sort of design that Paley would recognize? |
The form – function designs in nature are far, far more intricate and complex compared to any human made watch in my opinion….or anything else humans have invented. Human machines haven’t even approached the energy efficiencies of natural mechanisms last time I checked. Look at the energy efficiency of the Rubisco enzyme in plants. Paley broadly recognizing this was the basis for his analogy.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | Structure tends to dictate function. I can't even imagine how this truism is supposed to relate to such design claims. |
Yes and what dictates the design of effective and efficient structures? The selective pressures of evolution. The fact that evolution selects for structures that, with time, are better and better at allowing specific functions so that organism can survive has “design process” written all over it in my book.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | What religious conclusions? I think many who don't believe in God would hardly credit evolution with having a lot to do with it, save perhaps for discrediting very creationist religions. The lack of any apparent intervention throughout phenomena studied by science really does have a lot to do with it, for many. |
I got the mistaken impression that some of you might be categorically denying the possibility of an ID agency due to lack of scientific evidence. I stand corrected. Partly, this may have to do with my past personal experiences with atheists that justify their beliefs with evolution.
On the issue of “intervention,” the term has to be defined. Constructural laws themselves could be considered the by proxy guiding/intervening mechanisms of an ID agency?
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | No, I was disagreeing with the notion that functionality indicates design. |
Oh I see. How about the consideration of form and function together? Especially, considering that the energy flow efficiencies natural form-function correlations allow by far rivals in human invention. Yet the latter case bespeaks intelligence and the form does not?
There is a problem in nature….that of organisms surviving. There is a process for solving this problem, one that selects for structures that allow the most efficient functions necessary to hedge against environmental contingencies that would otherwise kill an organism. Evolution designs the organism efficiently according to constructural physical laws, which in turn increases survival probability. It is a design process no? So the products are designed seems to me….I could be wrong.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | We're waiting for evidence to do that…..What makes you think that we have any reason to adopt it, sans good evidence? |
It’s staring us in the face in my opinion. There’s evolution denial and design denial….I oppose both.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | Who said that it [i.e. science] will never be able to do so [i.e. prove ‘real’ design]? The usefulness of trying to do so is in question, it is true. |
It seemed to me that NoName and others were implying that because science has been trying to detect natural intelligent design for centuries and has failed it would be a futile endeavor going forward. They posed the question to me why dredge it up/resurrect it and keep beating a dead horse.
Yes the usefulness seems to be in question. Science would go on as normal either way. But so would be the case if we discover ET on a planet thousands of light years away, but it won’t stop us from allocating valuable resources to such an endeavor. To me it’s worthwhile and probably so, I hazard to guess, for a large majority of humanity.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | I would prefer that science would be honest about the data and what may be inferred from it……You really seem to think that because Miller made some claims that the argument has been made, possibly even won. It doesn't work that way. |
So Miller’s not being honest? Evolutionary design seems a reasonable inference to him and I agree. Science philosopher Robert Pennock and, if I remember correctly, anthropologist Eugenie Scott seem to agree, according to what they said in the 2002 American Museum of Natural History debate on ID. Pennock had a slide that listed several kinds of design that he considered compatible with evolution. I’m willing to bet that there are probably more reputable scientists that would agree with Miller, though they are probably the minority or Miller wouldn’t be making a rallying cry. However, Miller’s speech was in 2008 so more may have come around since then.
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17) | | This is where the intellectual bankruptcy of such a position really shows. First off, no one said that the lack of evidence does allow anyone to categorically deny the possibility of a godly role in the universe, and secondly, the problem is that it is up to you and your fellow believers to give us a reason to suppose that some spiritual (or whatever) entity is responsible for the universe/evolution. |
I’m glad to read what you say in the second sentence….I may have been misinterpreting before. As mentioned, I do personally know atheists that justify their beliefs with the scientific evidence of evolution however. Some famous scientists do as well, like Dawkins and Hawkings. This is where I get confused.
True what you say here I admit, about the burden of proof that is. To me it just seems intuitive, but I understand that’s not enough for science. I will keep trying to think of ways.
|
