Intelligent Design

[kbachler]

Any evidence that Adam or the early Hebrews believed this?

Given that Adam was in Mesopotamia, it would be the natural assumption, yes. Any evidence that he didn’t?

But yes, and even in the language of the Bible, which still carries over today, indicates a flat Earth with heavens above, rather than a round Earth with heavens around. Most ancient societies had a general belief that the Earth was a disc, covered by the dome of the sky, except for a few “scientists” who thought the Earth round. The Hebrews, Greeks, Babylonians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians believed this (although there were certainly Greeks and Egyptians who knew it was round and even calculated the size fairly accurately.)

There are some Bible verses that convey this:

Dan 4: 10Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. 11’The tree grew large and became strong And its height reached to the sky, And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Deut 13: 6"If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), 8you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him.

Dt 28:64 Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth

I Sam 2:10"Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered; Against them He will thunder in the heavens, The LORD will judge* the ends of the earth*; And He will give strength to His king, And will exalt the horn of His anointed."

Job 28:24 "For He (A)looks to the ends of the earth And sees everything under the heavens.

Isaiah 40:22 * It is He who sits above the circle of the earth*, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (above the circle - i.e. a disc, not above a ball or sphere.)

You might try edwardtbabinski.us/articles/hebrew_heavens.html

 

[vz71]

I had previously pointed you at population genetics. You did not appear to want to study population genetics, so I picked a much simpler example of a die as maybe more suitable. It appears that you do not want to study that either. If you are not prepared to put in the work then it is no wonder that you find it difficult to understand the power of evolution.
rossum

I do not believe this process can predict a given mutation any more then you can predict a given roll of the dice.

So am I to believe that natural selection is not driven by random mutations, but instead on probability?

 

[buffalo]

The argument is very simple and is given in Polyani’s book. (See the 3rd section, on “Order, the first subsection is on Chance and Order”.

Suppose that there are 10,000,000 million ways that pebbles can be arranged in a garden. You come and see an “SOS.” There is only one way that could happen, which seems to confirm that the SOS was designed, since the odds of it happening are 1 in 10,000,000 - very small odds indeed.

But now suppose that the pebbles are scattered about, seemingly with no pattern. How many ways are there for the pebbles to be arranged EXACTLY that way?

Interestingly, it is STILL 1 in 10,000,000! But we would not be ready to say that this random disbursement was “designed”. Why not?

Because in the former case OUR BRAIN saw a pattern and implied it, while in the latter case our brain failed to see a pattern and did not apply it; this even though the chance of either arrangement arising was exactly the same.

This is EXACTLY WHY you can’t just look at something and imply design. The basic premise is one that has been long known to be flawed.

This is also why its important to understand the good knowledge that is already available - so that when the snake oil salesmen come around, you know how to test their bad theory.

Here is the difference - what does SOS mean and to who? Patterns occur in nature, no argument there.

Sure if the chance pattern showed up regardless of the odds, it remains just that a pattern. Now, when a observer sees the pattern and decodes its meaning it is no longer a pattern, but a coded message, which is designed. Languages and coded always contain patterns.

 

[kbachler]

Here is the difference - what does SOS mean and to who? Patterns occur in nature, no argument there.

Sure if the chance pattern showed up regardless of the odds, it remains just that a pattern. Now, when a observer sees the pattern and decodes its meaning it is no longer a pattern, but a coded message, which is designed. Languages and coded always contain patterns.

Sorry, that’s NOT a difference. THAT’S the point. It means something TO YOUR BRAIN. Until you show that it has a meaning outside of that, then that’s THE ONLY valid assumption.

Now, we might, for various reasons CHOOSE to make a broader assumption (perhaps it involved potentially saving a life.)

But from a scientific perspective, you are committing a fallacy of assuming what you are looking for - and then being pleased with yourself when you find it. That’s precisely why your argument - and ID - make no sense, and why “real scientists” have known for at least decades that the approach you espouse doesn’t work.

 

[buffalo]

It was a fact - as evidenced by the maps that further proved what was self-evident.

VZ71, you need to understand what a fact is. You seem to think of knowledge as something that is separately objective. Sorry, but there is no such thing.

The ancients could see by the horizon that there was a curve. Anyone who looked at the shadow on the moon could tell it was curved.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, that’s NOT a difference. THAT’S the point. It means something TO YOUR BRAIN. Until you show that it has a meaning outside of that, then that’s THE ONLY valid assumption.

Now, we might, for various reasons CHOOSE to make a broader assumption (perhaps it involved potentially saving a life.)

But from a scientific perspective, you are committing a fallacy of assuming what you are looking for - and then being pleased with yourself when you find it. That’s precisely why your argument - and ID - make no sense, and why “real scientists” have known for at least decades that the approach you espouse doesn’t work.

Huh? It has meaning outside my brain. SOS has meaning to a sender, a receiver and needs a key. The symbol SOS is designed by a mind.

 

[kbachler]

I do not believe this process can predict a given mutation any more then you can predict a given roll of the dice.

Well, it can’t. But that doesn’t matter, as is previously noted.

So am I to believe that natural selection is not driven by random mutations, but instead on probability?

Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news - so would you do me a favor and try to define what you mean in the above sentence? Because right now, the way the above reads, I’m having a difficult time taking anything else you say seriously.

 

[kbachler]

Huh? It has meaning outside my brain. SOS has meaning to a sender, a receiver and needs a key. The symbol SOS is designed by a mind.

This is EXACTLY the fallacy. Since it has a meaning to your brain, YOU ASSUME there must be a sender, you ASSUME it must be designed.

 

[kbachler]

The ancients could see by the horizon that there was a curve. Anyone who looked at the shadow on the moon could tell it was curved.

This is why they thought the Earth was a disc - not a sphere.

 

[rossum]

I do not believe this process can predict a given mutation any more then you can predict a given roll of the dice.

Firstly, what you believe is irrelevant.

Secondly, I did not predict “a given roll”. I predicted the approximate outcome of six million rolls. If you cannot see the difference between predicting a single roll and predicting six million rolls then you have a big big problem.

So am I to believe that natural selection is not driven by random mutations, but instead on probability?

If you don’t understand the relationship between randomness, probability and statistics then you are going to have some difficulties in this area. A single die roll is not predictable. Six million die rolls are statistically predictable within limits. How do you think casinos make their money?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

This is EXACTLY the fallacy. Since it has a meaning to your brain, YOU ASSUME there must be a sender, you ASSUME it must be designed.

Your claim is you do not know what SOS means?

 

[buffalo]

This is why they thought the Earth was a disc - not a sphere.

So we lived on the edge? :nope:

 

[rossum]

Your claim is you do not know what SOS means?

There are many people who do not. Do you know what this means:/gang zhig kun la mun pa gtan bcom zhing/
/'khor ba’i 'dam las 'gro ba drangs mdzad pa/
/don bzhin ston pa de la phyag 'tsal nas/
/chos mngon mdzod kyi bstan bcos rab/
Meaning is dependent on the knowledge of the person doing the reading. How good is your Classical Tibetan?

What is an objective measure of the meaning in that text that does not rely on the subjective knowledge of the person looking at it?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There are many people who do not. Do you know what this means:/gang zhig kun la mun pa gtan bcom zhing/
/'khor ba’i 'dam las 'gro ba drangs mdzad pa/
/don bzhin ston pa de la phyag 'tsal nas/
/chos mngon mdzod kyi bstan bcos rab/Meaning is dependent on the knowledge of the person doing the reading. How good is your Classical Tibetan?

What is an objective measure of the meaning in that text that does not rely on the subjective knowledge of the person looking at it?

rossum

There is at least two who know. The sender and receiver. Otherwise it is not a message.

 

[tonyrey]

Science makes no assumption about molecules being purposeless or purposeful, although some branches of physics treat everything as information, and in that case, molecules in a sense have purpose.

The hypothesis is quite coherent and is consistent. Many parts of it have already been verified, and in general much of it is verifiable.

I’m not certain why you think otherwise.

I was referring to the combination of abiogenesis with Buddhism.

BTW Fortuitous abiogenesis is incompatible with the belief that God created life.

 

[tonyrey]

Unless I missed something, I thought Intelligent Design was supposed to be a scientific theory and IDvolution, the philosophy attached to it. Isn’t the whole argument here about whether Intelligent Design is truly science and whether it follows the scientific method? If Intelligent Design is instead a “philosophy” based on scientific facts, as you define it, then you consider it a scientific theory.

Theism implies Design. If you don’t believe in Design God becomes redundant! Design cannot be an entirely scientific theory because it has a metaphysical conclusion. (That is why it is capitalised) It is scientific to the extent that it is concerned with empirical facts and exposes the inadequacy of NeoDarwinism, i.e. the theory that all existence - including that of human beings - is due solely to natural causes. There is no reason whatsoever why an explanation shouldn’t proceed from nature to supernature, from scientific facts to metascientific principles and their metaphysical foundation. A theist must find some evidence of God’s handiwork in this world unless he is a fideist who has no rational basis for his belief.

Your second paragraph beginning with “That is putting the cart before the horse” I am not capable of deciphering. Either the statement lacks intelligibility, or it is very profound and I lack the intelligence to interpret it, or both. Yes, science presupposes logic and reason as tools of discovery; however the “faith” aspect of science can be tested whereas the faith aspect of religion, that presupposes Intelligent Design theory, cannot.

Final note: I am not an atheist, but, at the same time, I believe Intelligent Design does not belong as a scientific theory; it is a faith-based philosophy. Evidently, according to what you stated previously, you partially agree with me.

The unsolved problem of induction proves science is ultimately based on faith that the future will always be similar to the past. All scientific theories are provisional whereas our knowledge of our thoughts is the basis of all our knowledge, both rational and empirical. If we reject our power of reason we cannot reach any conclusions whatsoever, scientific or otherwise. Our primary data are not material objects but our interior existence. We infer that things exist but we have direct knowledge of our mental activity - for which we don’t require faith! If our mental activity is an illusion it still presupposes a subject for whom it is an illusion.

 

[tonyrey]

A somewhat more agreeable definition - but then it shouldn’t be expected (nor should its supports expect it to be) treated as a science.

It has scientific implications, e.g. that NeoDarwinism is false. In that sense it is a superior rival to a pseudoscientific theory! The claim that man is a naked ape is often thought to be scientific but in fact it is metaphysical because it amounts to physicalism and exceeds its brief.

 

[edwest2]

Still the obsession with randomness. Chemical processes are not random. Natural selection is not random. They are subject to causal relationships. This is not that difficult to grasp.

As an aspiring chemist at one time, I learned chemical processes are defined. You mix this with that and you get this purple stuff. Chemical reactions under varying temperatures, atmospheric pressures and so on, have one result. That’s it. One. You could send a chemical or mix of chemicals through any number of processes, and the result is the same, like making beer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

There are many people who do not. Do you know what this means:
/gang zhig kun la mun pa gtan bcom zhing/
/'khor ba’i 'dam las 'gro ba drangs mdzad pa/
/don bzhin ston pa de la phyag 'tsal nas/
/chos mngon mdzod kyi bstan bcos rab/

rossum

No, I do not.
But I can recognize the design and the intelligence behind it.

 

[vz71]

If you cannot see the difference between predicting a single roll and predicting six million rolls then you have a big big problem.

I see the difference.
But I also see a big difference between a dice roll and a genome combination.
Apparently you do not.

If you don’t understand the relationship between randomness, probability and statistics then you are going to have some difficulties in this area. A single die roll is not predictable. Six million die rolls are statistically predictable within limits. How do you think casinos make their money?
rossum

Casinos make their money by stacking the odds just slightly in their favor.
It is called house advantage.
Most people, like yourself, fall into the gambler’s fallacy and willingly put there money down on a bet not realizing the odds of the current play are not effected at all by the previous play.

As to the relationship of randomness and probability and statistics, I understand the relationship just fine. And remain baffled why you have brought probability into the question concerning natural selection.