W
Wesrock
Guest
This is something I pointed out earlier. Some IDers do this, but not all (though again I think ID is a weak argument and has other issues).fhansen:
It just assumes an initially complex entity.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
A being with sufficient knowledge-let alone an omniscient being-could predict precisely the formation of such an underground stream based on the forces and elements and laws said being created-and could even plan on using the stream for their purposes, whatever those may be. We often toss the term “natural” around as if that somehow exempts the matter in question from needing an explanation. We know there needs to be an explanation for the design of doghouses but not for the optical nerve of a dead dog on the side of the road because it’s “natural”; it’s just “there”. The truth is that it’s so unfathomably complex that we don’t know how to begin to conceive of its existence. It just evolved, “naturally”, as if that really answers the question.fhansen:
Which goes to show that ID has no explanation for the origin of complexity. It just assumes an initially complex entity. It is very easy to answer a question if you assume your answer. Science requires more than just an assumption.
Everything? The route of an underground stream cutting a cave in rock is not designed, it is caused by natural forces. A dog can make its home in the cave formed by the stream. Your “everything” here is an obvious overstatement.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
ID is weak because it overtly refuses to identify the Designer (it has, because it has to get passed the so-called Edwards v. Aguillard lemon test), and it really has no theoretical mechanism to even define complexity, let alone identify it.
F
fhansen
Guest
Wow! Spontaneous generation witnessed first-hand.fhansen:
Wait for it: Boy emerges from doghouse.
https://www.videoblocks.com/video/1...-ball-dog-walks-around-boy-swmqzxonkfjeoqk3tf
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s weak because it relies on so-called improbability, which means it cannot ever be conclusive. And, like you say, it’s approach to levels of complexity is arbitrary. And I really don’t like its overly mechanical approach.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Agreed. ID is fundamentally an attempt at a legal end-run round Edwards v Aguillard.
It has proposed a couple of definitions, Dembski’s CSI and Behe’s IC. CSI mostly fails due to its inability to differentiate between a true specification and a false specification, what Dembski calls a ‘fabrication’.
IC fails because IC systems can evolve by indirect routes. Behe was correct that IC systems cannot evolve by direct routes, but they have been observed to evolve by indirect routes.
B
Bradskii
Guest
But that, answering two posts in one, is patently and demonstrably wrong. And unless you want to deny evoution then you’re going to have a hard time backing up the claim that intelligence needs to be the first cab off the rank.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Eh, it isn’t if one isn’t a philosophical materialist.fhansen:
But that, answering two posts in one, is patently and demonstrably wrong. And unless you want to deny evoution then you’re going to have a hard time backing up the claim that intelligence needs to be the first cab off the rank.
O
o_mlly
Guest
ID as a hypothesis may and is applied to explain phenomena beyond the existence of complex systems. Indeed, ID is employed as an alternate hypothesis to the theory of evolution to explain the existence of any biological system, simple or complex.
Both hypotheses appeal to the "causes in operation" principle: No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena.
True causes are causes known to exist, causes now in operation, as opposed to imagined ones. Sufficient causes are the number required to explain the observed data. The Sufficiency rule also restricts the number of causes eliminating superfluous explanations.
Darwin plead “causes in operation” when he used animal migration behaviors to explain common descent. Darwin, of course, assumed that the “now operational” variations observed in animal breeding could likewise explain macro-evolutionary changes. Darwin did not know DNA.
A cornerstone claim in the ID hypothesis is that we routinely observe intelligent agents as “causes now in operation” that generate the same type of specified information as we find in DNA. Think humans and computers – data bases and executable programs.
The simultaneous presence of this biological information, digital code (DNA) and specified processing information (mRNA) are necessarily present for replication before the first cell can become two. DNA is not enough and mRNA is not enough. Which hypothesis better explains the possibility of the simultaneous existence of both, that is an adequate explanation for the origin of biological information – evolution or a conscious (intelligent) agent?
The principle of sufficient reason underpins all scientific inquiry. Science that is meaningful has predictive value. Predictive value depends upon examining the effects and understanding their causes.
One of Catholicism better theologians relied on PSR not only as a premise but as his 2nd argument for the existence of God.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Can you define the difference between designed and natural? If not, there is no point in any discussion.rossum:
A being with sufficient knowledge-let alone an omniscient being-could predict precisely the formation of such an underground stream based on the forces and elements and laws said being created-and could even plan on using the stream for their purposes, whatever those may be. We often toss the term “natural” around as if that somehow exempts the matter in question from needing an explanation. We know there needs to be an explanation for the design of doghouses but not for the optical nerve of a dead dog on the side of the road because it’s “natural”; it’s just “there”. The truth is that it’s so unfathomably complex that we don’t know how to begin to conceive of its existence. It just evolved, “naturally”, as if that really answers the question.fhansen:
Which goes to show that ID has no explanation for the origin of complexity. It just assumes an initially complex entity. It is very easy to answer a question if you assume your answer. Science requires more than just an assumption.
Everything? The route of an underground stream cutting a cave in rock is not designed, it is caused by natural forces. A dog can make its home in the cave formed by the stream. Your “everything” here is an obvious overstatement.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or critiquing. The PSR is not “everything has a cause.”Wesrock:
The principle of sufficient reason underpins all scientific inquiry. Science that is meaningful has predictive value. Predictive value depends upon examining the effects and understanding their causes.
One of Catholicism better theologians relied on PSR not only as a premise but as his 2nd argument for the existence of God.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Neither could I.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Even if one is, one still has that problem. Materialism doesn’t deny that intelligence can emerge. We are still ‘bags of chemicals’. Nothing more. But no dualism thanks.Bradskii:
Eh, it isn’t if one isn’t a philosophical materialist.fhansen:
But that, answering two posts in one, is patently and demonstrably wrong. And unless you want to deny evoution then you’re going to have a hard time backing up the claim that intelligence needs to be the first cab off the rank.
The whole is not the sum of the parts.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
It’s turtles special pleading all the way down.
W
Wesrock
Guest
If you believe that you’re not a philosophical materialist.
Materialism isn’t necessarily dualism. It’s the belief in only the quantifiable and the denial of anything qualitative. In a materialist view, a thing is only the sum of its parts and can be nothing more.
L
LionHeart
Guest
That is incorrect. Materialism is the denial of non-physical, yet physically active “entities”. Concepts exist, but they are not composed of particles. Distance exists, but it is not composed of particles. Heavy and light objects exist, but “heaviness” and “lightness” are not composed of matter.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I keep getting told that I’m a materialist. ‘Bags of chemicals’ etc. So therefore nothing matters. It seems to be presented as an either/or situation. One believes in God or we’re simply random particles.Bradskii:
If you believe that you’re not a philosophical materialist.
Materialism isn’t necessarily dualism. It’s the belief in only the quantifiable and the denial of anything qualitative. In a materialist view, a thing is only the sum of its parts and can be nothing more.
M
mhmtas63
Guest
Intelligence is not conclusion of energy or any combination of atoms. Computer run with energy but has no intelligence. Intelligence is function of soul just like life. If soul get out of body nothing can animate body any more. Many young bodies die so who can give them the life once more?
Ofcourse complex structure of body needs an intelligent design. And that designer is not natural laws or random chances. Indeed there is no a intelligent material law in universe. Gravity is not material and energy is not and other forces are not and non of them has intelligence. Entity has two forms: energy and matter. But we(alives) are more than just energy and matter.
God has no any cause to exist so we cannot argue or comprehend essence of God. A meta-designer not need another designer. At least we cannot suppose or think such thing because we are material and cannot comprehend unmaterial.
Ofcourse complex structure of body needs an intelligent design. And that designer is not natural laws or random chances. Indeed there is no a intelligent material law in universe. Gravity is not material and energy is not and other forces are not and non of them has intelligence. Entity has two forms: energy and matter. But we(alives) are more than just energy and matter.
God has no any cause to exist so we cannot argue or comprehend essence of God. A meta-designer not need another designer. At least we cannot suppose or think such thing because we are material and cannot comprehend unmaterial.
B
buffalo
Guest
@rossum argument, if correct, means the designer cannot be inside the universe. (nicely done) It would have to be a transcendent creator. Dawkins’ needs to read this. 
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
The process is not random.
- Status