Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Peter_Plato]

I.

Also, there may even be aspects of “truth” that all religions are ignorant of, and not even aware of as a conception (not even having an erroneous conception of it, but no conception at all).

So you could say, “this religion got things basically right, when it addressed them directly. But there are aspects of truth that it *never *addressed, and was completely ignorant of; it never even suspected their existence.”

I don’t disagree with any of this, but you have forgotten a possible role for revelation. You seem to presume that religious truths are a “one way” deal. That God has completely left it up to human beings to find out all there is to know. This presumes a certain “passive” sort of God. Another possibility is that God actively reveals on a “needs to know” basis. Perhaps humility, sincerity, integrity, honesty, purity of heart, simplicity have all been extolled for a reason.

The truth may not be as complicated or inscrutable as might be presumed by a Promethean type of mind that is habituated to use stealth and deception to acquire knowledge.
Perhaps God simply hands it over (like bread) provided we do not tamper with it or attempt “sensible” modifications.

 

[Portofino]

I don’t disagree with any of this, but you have forgotten a possible role for revelation. You seem to presume that religious truths are a “one way” deal. That God has completely left it up to human beings to find out all there is to know. This presumes a certain “passive” sort of God. Another possibility is that God actively reveals on a “needs to know” basis. Perhaps humility, sincerity, integrity, honesty, purity of heart, simplicity have all been extolled for a reason.

The truth may not be as complicated or inscrutable as might be presumed by a Promethean type of mind that is habituated to use stealth and deception to acquire knowledge.
Perhaps God simply hands it over (like bread) provided we do not tamper with it or attempt “sensible” modifications.

I definitely don’t mean to make it sound as if there would be no love “out there”, and that we would just have to scrounge for truth by ourselves.

I think the closest I can come to conveying my sense about it – as a possibility, at least – would be the kind of feeling a Christian gets when he reads the works of “virtuous” pagans such as Plato or the Stoics. It was almost extraordinary, the clarity with which they put their finger on some of the truths of Christianity; they had so much of it already, without being aware of it as such.

That’s how I sometimes consider the matter, even today – having one’s finger on “so much”, without necessarily being aware of it as such. This could hold true emotionally speaking – in terms of humility, integrity, honesty, love, humor, creativity (in a way that shows great emotional clarity and “knowingness”) and also in terms of ideas.

I suppose that, where the Christian posits original sin, I would posit a kind of original “ignorance.” Grace exists, in spite of original sin, and yet both original sin and free will still exist. There are no safeguards, per se, on original sin or the exercise of free will.

Just so, I have a hard time conceiving – even in the face of revelation – any safeguards against distortion. I conceive of revelation whereby no sooner is it touched by human hands – or filtered through a human mind – than it becomes like looking “through a glass, darkly” (to use Paul’s analogy, in a not dissimilar context). It becomes like translating from one language to another, where some of the sense of the original is lost; or, for that matter, like the metaphor of Plato’s allegory of the cave (the shadows are not illusions, but they are shadows; and thinking about it further, can engender the shadow of a shadow).

So in one sense, there would be great ignorance in the human drama – but also great inner knowing (emotional, intuitive), even if it is largely “pre-conscious” knowing; just as with the pagan who comes across as a Christian avant la lettre. It’s as if one’s “knowing” is not entirely conscious; and, when one seeks words for it – translating the content of one’s unconscious knowing into symbols – something is necessarily lost, but not in a way that is necessarily for nought. It is, rather, in the nature of human limitation.

This “pre-conscious” or (just below the threshold of awareness) kind of knowing reminds me of a film like the Sixth Sense, where the husband communicates to the wife in that elusive state that is neither waking nor sleeping. The human person for whom the departed loved one – in this case – is whispering into her ear, is both aware and not aware of his presence, at the same time. In some ways, it is this very pre-conscious state that allows for greater receptivity – like learning to ride a bike and not knowing you are pedaling by yourself – whereas thinking too consciously about it can actually block the “encounter” (like when you realize you’ve been pedaling by yourself, become self-conscious, and suddenly fall).

I suppose this is old hat, with Christian or non-Christian mystics, who seek to empty the mind and to commune with the source through a kind of pre-conscious intuition. But this idea of not only the religious human beings, but of human beings in general, being both much more aware than they realize – and yet much less aware, than they realize – is compelling to me.

 

[tonyrey]

I was aware of this before you pointed it out. My point has been: It makes no difference!

A fixation is not an argument no matter how many times it is presented.

:thumbsup:The alleged behaviour of certain individuals has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence for Design - which is the topic under discussion. Everything else is irrelevant and simply a ploy to evade the implications of** rational** existence.

 

[tonyrey]

I definitely don’t mean to make it sound as if there would be no love “out there”, and that we would just have to scrounge for truth by ourselves.

I think the closest I can come to conveying my sense about it – as a possibility, at least – would be the kind of feeling a Christian gets when he reads the works of “virtuous” pagans such as Plato or the Stoics. It was almost extraordinary, the clarity with which they put their finger on some of the truths of Christianity; they had so much of it already, without being aware of it as such.

That’s how I sometimes consider the matter, even today – having one’s finger on “so much”, without necessarily being aware of it as such. This could hold true emotionally speaking – in terms of humility, integrity, honesty, love, humor, creativity (in a way that shows great emotional clarity and “knowingness”) and also in terms of ideas.

I suppose that, where the Christian posits original sin, I would posit a kind of original “ignorance.” Grace exists, in spite of original sin, and yet both original sin and free will still exist. There are no safeguards, per se, on original sin or the exercise of free will.

Just so, I have a hard time conceiving – even in the face of revelation – any safeguards against distortion. I conceive of revelation whereby no sooner is it touched by human hands – or filtered through a human mind – than it becomes like looking “through a glass, darkly” (to use Paul’s analogy, in a not dissimilar context). It becomes like translating from one language to another, where some of the sense of the original is lost; or, for that matter, like the metaphor of Plato’s allegory of the cave (the shadows are not illusions, but they are shadows; and thinking about it further, can engender the shadow of a shadow).

So in one sense, there would be great ignorance in the human drama – but also great inner knowing (emotional, intuitive), even if it is largely “pre-conscious” knowing; just as with the pagan who comes across as a Christian avant la lettre. It’s as if one’s “knowing” is not entirely conscious; and, when one seeks words for it – translating the content of one’s unconscious knowing into symbols – something is necessarily lost, but not in a way that is necessarily for nought. It is, rather, in the nature of human limitation.

This “pre-conscious” or (just below the threshold of awareness) kind of knowing reminds me of a film like the Sixth Sense, where the husband communicates to the wife in that elusive state that is neither waking nor sleeping. The human person for whom the departed loved one – in this case – is whispering into her ear, is both aware and not aware of his presence, at the same time. In some ways, it is this very pre-conscious state that allows for greater receptivity – like learning to ride a bike and not knowing you are pedaling by yourself – whereas thinking too consciously about it can actually block the “encounter” (like when you realize you’ve been pedaling by yourself, become self-conscious, and suddenly fall).

I suppose this is old hat, with Christian or non-Christian mystics, who seek to empty the mind and to commune with the source through a kind of pre-conscious intuition. But this idea of not only the religious human beings, but of human beings in general, being both much more aware than they realize – and yet much less aware, than they realize – is compelling to me.

You have provided more conclusive evidence for Design - as opposed to a “positivist” belief in a negative existence.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t disagree with any of this, but you have forgotten a possible role for revelation. You seem to presume that religious truths are a “one way” deal. That God has completely left it up to human beings to find out all there is to know. This presumes a certain “passive” sort of God. Another possibility is that God actively reveals on a “needs to know” basis. Perhaps humility, sincerity, integrity, honesty, purity of heart, simplicity have all been extolled for a reason.

The truth may not be as complicated or inscrutable as might be presumed by a Promethean type of mind that is habituated to use stealth and deception to acquire knowledge.
Perhaps God simply hands it over (like bread) provided we do not tamper with it or attempt “sensible” modifications.

A fine analogy which highlights the fundamental goodness of human beings in spite of their bloodstained history…

 

[Bradski]

I was aware of this before you pointed it out…

So you agree that it’s true?

 

[wanstronian]

ID has been around for a very long time.

Indeed - as has its unmasking as nothing more than made-over creationism. The notional “process” may be slightly different, but the agenda behind it is the same - it’s religiously- rather than scientifically-driven. It’s a push for ignorance, not a quest for knowledge.

In fact, the whole concept is so tired and devoid of content that not many theists bother to push it any more. Its initial disguise as being a form of science has been brutally exposed by the process of simple scrutiny.

I guess that’s why those who do continue to endorse it, do so with such manic fervour and such awful arguments - it takes a peculiar kind of goggle-eyed fanaticism to proselytise such obvious nonsense in the face of all common sense and evidence.

As most people know, the driving force behind the IDC movement over the last few decades was purely to side-step the effect of the First Amendment of the US constitution which forbids teaching creationism in school science classes. The Wedge document unequivocally states that the purpose of the movement is to try and get creationism into schools under the radar, by using a different name and pretending it’s science.

But it isn’t science. It never was, and never will be. If real science followed the methods employed by the IDC pseudo-scientists, we’d still be living in caves and dying before age 35, having “proved” that grumpy mammoths cause earthquakes by stamping.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed - as has its unmasking as nothing more than made-over creationism. The notional “process” may be slightly different, but the agenda behind it is the same - it’s religiously- rather than scientifically-driven. It’s a push for ignorance, not a quest for knowledge.

In fact, the whole concept is so tired and devoid of content that not many theists bother to push it any more. Its initial disguise as being a form of science has been brutally exposed by the process of simple scrutiny.

I guess that’s why those who do continue to endorse it, do so with such manic fervour and such awful arguments - it takes a peculiar kind of goggle-eyed fanaticism to proselytise such obvious nonsense in the face of all common sense and evidence.

As most people know, the driving force behind the IDC movement over the last few decades was purely to side-step the effect of the First Amendment of the US constitution which forbids teaching creationism in school science classes. The Wedge document unequivocally states that the purpose of the movement is to try and get creationism into schools under the radar, by using a different name and pretending it’s science.

But it isn’t science. It never was, and never will be. If real science followed the methods employed by the IDC pseudo-scientists, we’d still be living in caves and dying before age 35, having “proved” that grumpy mammoths cause earthquakes by stamping.

ID the science is a push for knowledge just as any other.

Real science? Are you referring to empirical science, that is observable, repeatable and predictable or storytelling?

What a strawman. You should be aware that the understanding that the universe is intelligible and worthy of study was started by Catholics who by the way have faith in God. Imagine where we would be without those early pioneers?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Indeed - as has its unmasking as nothing more than made-over creationism. The notional “process” may be slightly different, but the agenda behind it is the same - it’s religiously- rather than scientifically-driven. It’s a push for ignorance, not a quest for knowledge…

Bradski, did you sign up your parrot to speak on your behalf?

This is all fine and dandy but there is not a single argument against design here. Just a great load of posturing that would make a peacock blush with envy.

If the defects of the case for design are so easily dealt with, why is everyone so loathe to actually present anything even resembling a rebuttal? Instead what is offered are innuendo and smear tactics.

Present a positive argument against design and stop pretending you are doing the world a public service!

 

[wanstronian]

ID the science is a push for knowledge just as any other.

The documentary evidence is quite clear - it’s a push to justify a presupposed belief. A proper scientific process is conspicuous by its absence.

Real science? Are you referring to empirical science, that is observable, repeatable and predictable or storytelling?

The former. Storytelling is the remit of religion.

What a strawman. You should be aware that the understanding that the universe is intelligible and worthy of study was started by Catholics who by the way have faith in God. Imagine where we would be without those early pioneers?

Who’s straw manning? What irony! The original driver behind “natural philosophy” was to show how great was the glory of God (parallels with IDC here!). The scientific method, as it is understood and utilised to great effect today, was nowhere to be seen. Where would we be without those early pioneers? Probably in largely the same place as we are anyway. It would be ridiculously narrow-minded to imply that only religious people could have started the thought processes that would one day lead to proper scientific endeavour. You’re not implying that…are you?

Really, your argument is nonsense. It’s like saying that

 

[JDaniel]

The documentary evidence is quite clear - it’s a push to justify a presupposed belief. A proper scientific process is conspicuous by its absence.

Who’s straw manning? What irony! The original driver behind “natural philosophy” was to show how great was the glory of God (parallels with IDC here!). The scientific method, as it is understood and utilised to great effect today, was nowhere to be seen. Where would we be without those early pioneers? Probably in largely the same place as we are anyway. It would be ridiculously narrow-minded to imply that only religious people could have started the thought processes that would one day lead to proper scientific endeavour. You’re not implying that…are you?

Wanstonian:

The predominant methodology of science is dialectical induction. The conclusion(s) from (a) dialectical induction is what is testable and, hopefully, repeatable. To consider the methodology of science differently is an example of wishful-thinking.

Now, isn’t it interesting that the same methodology was used by St. Thomas, and others, to conclude that God exists?

God bless,
jd

 

[wanstronian]

Bradski, did you sign up your parrot to speak on your behalf?

What a mature comment. You must be so proud.

This is all fine and dandy but there is not a single argument against design here. Just a great load of posturing that would make a peacock blush with envy.

What argument can there be against a claim that comes without a shred of substance? IDC amounts to, “the universe was designed because there are some really quite complicated things in it.” Dembski takes it one stage further by making up a number and squealing, “Ooh look, some things are more complicated than this arbitrary threshold that I’ve unilaterally invented by multiplying a lot of subjectively-selected factors - ergo Intelligent Design is REAL!!!”

Sorry, but there can be no argument against IDC until IDC starts putting its money where its mouth is. Until then, the VAST majority of scientists agree that IDC is not-science. It’s not even wrong, one might say.

If the defects of the case for design are so easily dealt with, why is everyone so loathe to actually present anything even resembling a rebuttal? Instead what is offered are innuendo and smear tactics.

For the reasons above. The same reasons that nobody bothers to rebut the existence of unicorns. The “science” of IDC is so transparently not there, there’s no real discussion to be had at a scientific level.

Present a positive argument against design and stop pretending you are doing the world a public service!

I cannot present a positive argument against design, because design does not contain any substantive claims. It’s mere speculation. All I really need to do is say, “prove it.” You can’t, so that’s that. I suppose I could point out that IDC has no falsification criteria, suggests no objective experiments, makes no predictions (apart from Dembski, who in 2004 predicted that “molecular Darwinism” would be dead in five years - it isn’t), has no explanatory power; and of course there’s a far more parsimonious explanation for the existence of the world around is, which doesn’t rely on unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

I’m not pretending to do the world a public service - you’re quite the arrogant aren’t you. I’m pointing out that your cherished beliefs are bunk. Which you’d realise yourself if you had the chops to look at things objectively.

 

[buffalo]

The documentary evidence is quite clear - it’s a push to justify a presupposed belief. A proper scientific process is conspicuous by its absence.

The former. Storytelling is the remit of religion.

Who’s straw manning? What irony! The original driver behind “natural philosophy” was to show how great was the glory of God (parallels with IDC here!). The scientific method, as it is understood and utilised to great effect today, was nowhere to be seen. Where would we be without those early pioneers? Probably in largely the same place as we are anyway. It would be ridiculously narrow-minded to imply that only religious people could have started the thought processes that would one day lead to proper scientific endeavour. You’re not implying that…are you?

Really, your argument is nonsense. It’s like saying that

Your claim is evo does not have an a priori basis?

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. **Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ** - Richard Lewontin

Materialism consists of story telling. Do you not read your own literature?

What materialistic societies even studied science? How about Islam?

The west led by Catholics brought science to where it is today.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstonian:

The predominant methodology of science is dialectical induction.

You think science stops after thinking about stuff? A thousand years ago maybe. What about experimentation, observation, prediction, modelling, objectivity, repetition?

Now, isn’t it interesting that the same methodology was used by St. Thomas, and others, to conclude that God exists?

Yes, and he didn’t close the loop. He thought about it, concluded that God exists, and stopped right there. Philosophy never proved anything.

 

[buffalo]

The documentary evidence is quite clear - it’s a push to justify a presupposed belief. A proper scientific process is conspicuous by its absence.

The former. Storytelling is the remit of religion.

Who’s straw manning? What irony! The original driver behind “natural philosophy” was to show how great was the glory of God (parallels with IDC here!). The scientific method, as it is understood and utilised to great effect today, was nowhere to be seen. Where would we be without those early pioneers? Probably in largely the same place as we are anyway. It would be ridiculously narrow-minded to imply that only religious people could have started the thought processes that would one day lead to proper scientific endeavour. You’re not implying that…are you?

Really, your argument is nonsense. It’s like saying that

Would you then agree only empirical science in the science classroom?

 

[buffalo]

What a mature comment. You must be so proud.

What argument can there be against a claim that comes without a shred of substance? IDC amounts to, “the universe was designed because there are some really quite complicated things in it.” Dembski takes it one stage further by making up a number and squealing, “Ooh look, some things are more complicated than this arbitrary threshold that I’ve unilaterally invented by multiplying a lot of subjectively-selected factors - ergo Intelligent Design is REAL!!!”

Sorry, but there can be no argument against IDC until IDC starts putting its money where its mouth is. Until then, the VAST majority of scientists agree that IDC is not-science. It’s not even wrong, one might say.

For the reasons above. The same reasons that nobody bothers to rebut the existence of unicorns. The “science” of IDC is so transparently not there, there’s no real discussion to be had at a scientific level.

I cannot present a positive argument against design, because design does not contain any substantive claims. It’s mere speculation. All I really need to do is say, “prove it.” You can’t, so that’s that. I suppose I could point out that IDC has no falsification criteria, suggests no objective experiments, makes no predictions (apart from Dembski, who in 2004 predicted that “molecular Darwinism” would be dead in five years - it isn’t), has no explanatory power; and of course there’s a far more parsimonious explanation for the existence of the world around is, which doesn’t rely on unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

I’m not pretending to do the world a public service - you’re quite the arrogant aren’t you. I’m pointing out that your cherished beliefs are bunk. Which you’d realise yourself if you had the chops to look at things objectively.

Making up a number? The UPB? Do you know how it is calculated?

Show me your UPB calculation.

 

[buffalo]

Unicorn - check out *** Elasmotherium.*

 

[Peter_Plato]

What argument can there be against a claim that comes without a shred of substance

The order of the nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule has no molecular chemical or physical cause. There is no scientific explanation for why the bases line up in the configuration they do, yet that order is precisely what allows the functionality of the cell, the transcription of code that allows reproduction and production of the functional proteins that are essential to life. If science can offer no explanation, then that does open the field somewhat.

What you would have to do is offer a plausible solution to this issue rather than go on muttering, “It’s not science.” What we have arrived at is precisely a lacuna that a merely materialistic perspective resorting to physical causation cannot overcome.

I have presented this analogy in a previous post and others before you have not supplied a reasonable response other than to sidestep the problem. Why don’t you have a go at it?

Suppose you spend an afternoon observing the behaviour of ants milling about an anthole. After some hours you notice the dark colour and positioning of the ants on the light concrete appears to resemble the letter W. There is in some sense, a complexity in the shape of the letter W that makes it somewhat improbable, however, given the time you have spent observing them and all the random arrangements the ants have produced with their bodies, there is some degree of probability that the W appeared by “chance”, despite the fact that it has a complex shape. No need to infer intelligence.

Now suppose you keep watching the ants at work and after a few minutes their bodies have taken the arrangement of the letters WANSTRONIAN. This becomes more intriguing to you because the shapes of the letters are not merely complex but also specific because, you notice that the letters match precisely and specifically the letters of your name. This specified complexity of the letters, makes it highly improbable that the event happened by chance. Are you justified in inferring some kind of intelligence behind the action of the ants? Is there a better explanation? Do you need to have evidence of the agent before being justified in claiming there is “some kind” of intelligence at play here? Doesn’t the degree of the specified complexity in the letters warrant an inference to an intelligent agent?

What if, as the afternoon continues, you watch the ants continue to build new letters on the sidewalk. As they work you recall that you tried to eradicate this anthill a week before using a pesticide that wasn’t as effective as you had hoped. An hour later the complete message from the ants comes through. It states, “WANSTRONIAN WE WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE AT MIDNIGHT!”

Notice this complete message is not only complex, not only highly specified as it uses many letters from the English alphabet but it has taken on a new quality in that the letters precisely match a functional and intended purpose, i.e, to communicate with you in response to your failed attempt at destroying the anthill.

Would you not agree that any explanation not entailing some kind of intelligence would fail despite the fact that you have no evidence for an “actor” other than the message itself?

Dembski and Meyer would both argue, I think, that this event, having specified and functional complexity to a degree that the probabilistic resources available - time, nature of ant brains and ant behaviour, would make an inference to intelligence “of some kind” behind this event not merely highly probable but definite. You would have to conclude there is some kind of intelligent agent behind the ant event even though you have no idea who or what the agent could actually be.

At this point, science could be appealed to in order to “fill the gaps.” “We don’t understand, but there MUST be some biochemical reason behind this event that we don’t yet understand!” could be used, but is susceptible to the same response that science habitually has delivered to theism: a science of the gaps has been conjured to replace method.

In case you missed it, the nucleotide coding in DNA has no biochemical explanation or cause and the functional complexity present there far exceeds the ant example, that if intelligent origin is reasonable to posit in the case of the ants, it is, likewise reasonable to posit in the case of DNA. Science has to provide a biochemical explanation or back away from its “omniscient” posturing. There is warrant to posit, in the absence of a scientific explanation a possible intelligent one.

ID proponents need not insist on having proved intelligent design, but that a strong philosophical argument exists for including “design” as a possible explanation in the absence of any plausible scientific hypotheses. It is up to science and good deductive logic to establish certainty.

What is required from you, Wanstronian, is either a scientific (molecular or physical) explanation for DNA coding, or a good philosophical reason why intelligence cannot be considered. Merely insisting “It’s not science!” does not meet even minimally acceptable standards because its tantamount to insisting, “I don’t want to talk about it.”

To answer this post, three key questions need to be addressed.

1. If faced with the ant situation, could you reasonably avoid positing intelligence as a probable cause for the appearance of the letters? If so, what is a reasonable and sufficient alternative explanation?
2. Is the coding in the DNA molecule less probable than the ant writing? If you think so, demonstrate how.
3. What is a good scientifically testable explanation for the order of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule?

Please do not attempt to sidestep this post by avoiding these three questions in your response.

 

[Portofino]

You have provided more conclusive evidence for Design - as opposed to a “positivist” belief in a negative existence.

I do see design as compelling, from an intuitive or common sense level. I agree that that the following questions baffle me:

–why does something exist at all, rather than nothing?

–why is there order? Order preceded the process of natural selection (for example, the order within a single atom). Would not the universe be just as “happy” if it existed as a series of random and powerful explosions, repeated ad infinitem . Although it seems that, even for these explosions to exist, there would have to be order (temporal and spatial order, for example, and whatever chemical reactions produced those explosions).

–what came before the beginning?

–why consciousness?

–how could so much (philosophy and the arts, human societies, all of nature, memory and consciousness, intelligence) have come from so little (the densely-packed energy of the Big Bang, from which the universe was hatched like a giant oak out of an acorn) – where did the information, the blue-print, originate?

It is, on a common sense or intuitive level, as if the energy Big Bang “seeded the universe” and already contained information (as an acorn in relation to an oak tree, or the DNA of an embryo).

On some level, I believe in “something” that is more akin to theism than to non-theism, but I grant it is more of an intuition. It tells me more about what I cannot conceive of *not *being true (and it is not fail-safe, by any means – for example, I cannot conceive of the earth moving, either – I don’t feel it moving, and I’ve never experienced dizziness on account of its motion; to the contrary, the earth “stands still”, as far as I’m concerned).

I think one danger with a theistic explanation is that there can (at worst) be a lack of curiosity about the mechanism of how the universe unfolded. It seems quite possible that religions are more accurate as to the ultimate why of things, but that the natural sciences are more accurate as to the how of things, the actual mechanism. Leaving aside the example of human origins, there is the question of the origins of human morality, for example. I think all of these naturalistic explanations may be entirely correct (pragmatism, social contract, morality as “evolutionary”, etc.). Nature becomes the medium whereby certain truths express themselves, so what – in effect – can turn out to be a “transcendent” morality nonetheless has a naturalistic foundation, that does not rely on transcendence, per se (just as the brain, for those who believe in immorality, is nonetheless the “vehicle” for the mind). Transcendence becomes couched in immanence.

I think most scientists can respect that there are certain more philosophical questions (metaphysical) that ultimately remain a mystery (like what came “before the beginning”). They acknowledge there are things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand (things that exceed the horizons of our ability to conceive of them). They may even grant all of those paradoxes – the paradox of the origin of the universe; the paradox of order; of consciousness. It seems they just don’t like “premature” explanations, as they see it, which they believe don’t provide a valid mechanism for understanding the how of things.

 

[Portofino]

Some powerful questions, from my vantage point.

I would hope that the honest scientist does not deny that there certain fundamental axioms to the universe (time and space, gravity, mass and energy) whose existence is axiomatic – that is, we don’t know wherefore they exist, we just know that they do.

Perhaps the concern on the part of the scientist is that the invocation of “intelligence” does not have explanatory power, because then would then need to explain what gave rise to that intelligence.

I could be wrong – I’ve done very little reading on the topic – but I don’t see that Intelligent Design advocates would necessarily consider this a valid question (“if there is an intelligent designer, what is the origin of the intelligence of that designer?”)

So, perhaps, they feel that positing an intelligent designer is not the beginning of an explanation, but the end of one (kind of an “uncaused cause” – buck stops here kind of explanation, whose mechanism cannot even logically be posited.

Indeed, if one posits God, does it make sense to posit a mechanism for God? Is God the end of questioning, or must even God be explained?

Th
Suppose you spend an afternoon observing the behaviour of ants milling about an anthole. After some hours you notice the dark colour and positioning of the ants on the light concrete appears to resemble the letter W. There is in some sense, a complexity in the shape of the letter W that makes it somewhat improbable, however, given the time you have spent observing them and all the random arrangements the ants have produced with their bodies, there is some degree of probability that the W appeared by “chance”, despite the fact that it has a complex shape. No need to infer intelligence…

A nice analogy, from my vantage point. In the literal sense, it seems we would posit some extraordinary intelligence on the part of these ants (or of any animal that behaved similarly). Then again, ants are living creatures, so it wouldn’t be as much of a leap, to posit intelligence.

We then would have to ask – as in our own case – what is the mechanism or origin of this intelligence?

Again, I’m not sure this is a question that is meaningful from an I.D. perspective – or is it? It seems that, per ID, intelligence can only be explained in terms of intelligence; it cannot be explained as having arisen from non-intelligence.

So intelligence becomes axiomatic – just like gravity, or time and space.

The only difference – perhaps – is that time and space are measurable (quantifiable), whereas cosmic intelligence is not (except through contemplation of it).

1. If faced with the ant situation, could you reasonably avoid positing intelligence as a probable cause for the appearance of the letters? If so, what is a reasonable and sufficient alternative explanation?
2. Is the coding in the DNA molecule less probable than the ant writing? If you think so, demonstrate how.
3. What is a good scientifically testable explanation for the order of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule?

Please do not attempt to sidestep this post by avoiding these three questions in your response.

1 ) in the case of the ants, without a doubt (assuming the behavior you outlined)
2) a DNA molecule, unlike an ant, is not a living thing, though the origin of its “order” – or, as I think of it, even the order of a single atom – would be an axiom that itself has not been explained; our very notion of intelligence would be radically turned upside down, because there would be no apparent mechanism for the intelligence (e.g., no nervous system, no brain, cerebral cortex); and then we would have to explain, “if there is intelligence, what gave rise to it?”; it would seem paradoxical for complex intelligence to be the “first cause” of things – not susceptible to further “breaking down” or analyzing of antecedent causes
3) beats me As far as I know, science acknowledges that it has not explained the origin of “time and space”, or the structure of an atom

Perhaps they view intelligence as a problematic explanation, in the same way they would consider it problematic to invoke the physiological structure of homo sapiens (highly complex) to be the antecedent cause of the physiological structure of the amoeba? (comparatively less complex)

A building up from lesser to greater complexity (even though “lesser” is quite complex, in its own right) seems to be a good model for understanding living organisms, at least (one of whose attributes is intelligence itself)