Intelligent Design

[rossum]

Throw out mathematics and you have neither chemistry nor biology.

False. Chemistry and biology are both empirical sciences, they are based in the real world. Mathematics is an axiomatic system, or a set of axiomatic systems, and is completely independent of the real world.

Some mathematics is indeed useful, but being useful is not the point of mathematics.

rossum

 

[kbachler]

Find some.
Post the pictures.

I am curious to see what you find.

Remember, you set up the parameters for these letters.
In sand, outlines of the letters, and spelling out SOS.

Rossum tried and failed.
Perhaps you will have better luck.

kbachler:

Do you really want to waste time on this trivial example?

Why not?
Surely this would be the most decisive way to show that the ID that I believe is present in the message can be a naturally occurring phenomena.

Pebbles, on a beach, that spell out SOS.
As was the issue before, we are looking for the letter outlines, not a crater.

A poster tried to pass off a sidewinder crawling down the beach as an S and an impact crater as the O. But I am sure you can agree with me that, while creative, fails the conditions.

I’ll go one better.

Provide me any clear picture of numerous pebbles on a beach, in a parking lot, anywhere at all. The picture must be clear, and sufficiently large for me to see at least 4x6 would be nice.

Provide this picture, and I will point out the pebbles to you that spell out SOS.

 

[rossum]

Haldane’s Dilemma puts the number of mutations at 1600 or so over the last 10 million years of human ancestry.

You are being misinformed by your sources. Haldane’s Dilemma estimates the number of fixed mutations at 1600 or so over the last 10 million years of human ancestry.

Haldane made an early estimate of the rate of fixation of mutations. His figures say nothing about the raw mutation rate. You are confusing two different things here.

rossum

 

[kbachler]

False. Chemistry and biology are both empirical sciences, they are based in the real world. Mathematics is an axiomatic system, or a set of axiomatic systems, and is completely independent of the real world.

Some mathematics is indeed useful, but being useful is not the point of mathematics.

rossum

Well, completely independent may well be an overstatement.

We evolve brains, the brains evolve to think a certain way, we introduce symbolism to strengthen and formalize the logic, etc. etc.

But I get your drift.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

False. Chemistry and biology are both empirical sciences, they are based in the real world. Mathematics is an axiomatic system, or a set of axiomatic systems, and is completely independent of the real world.

Ah, yes. You can have mathematics without people?

 

[kbachler]

rossum

False. Chemistry and biology are both empirical sciences, they are based in the real world. Mathematics is an axiomatic system, or a set of axiomatic systems, and is completely independent of the real world.

Ah, yes. You can have mathematics without people?

Yes, you can. Chimps do math, dogs do math. Even birds have been shown to do simple arithmetic.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, you can. Chimps do math, dogs do math. Even birds have been shown to do simple arithmetic.

This post is meant to address the idea of animals doing math in reply to a post. It comes from actual research regarding the comparison of mathematics ability between college students as I recall and a type of monkeys. If someone wants the citation, please PM me since I will have to look for it in my crazy system of bookmarks or perhaps find the original post in which it appeared.

Having read the research methods and examined the materials exhibit, my observation is that the conclusion did not warrant the media hype regarding mathematical intelligence in both humans and non-human animals.

Blessings,
granny

 

[kbachler]

This post is meant to address the idea of animals doing math in reply to a post. It comes from actual research regarding the comparison of mathematics ability between college students as I recall and a type of monkeys. If someone wants the citation, please PM me since I will have to look for it in my crazy system of bookmarks or perhaps find the original post in which it appeared. Having read the research methods and examined the materials exhibit, my observation is that the conclusion did not warrant the media hype regarding mathematical intelligence in both humans and non-human animals.

Blessings,
granny

Depends a little on the “amount” of mathematical intelligence. There’s a lot of indication that animals understand relative quantity, and can do at least simple counting to a point. (For example, cats can “count” to 4.)

We’re not asking them to do algebra! I agree with that.

 

[buffalo]

There was no design in the SOS. You were duped.

Yes, they do demand proof that the Sun exists. Just as they demand proof that anything exists. In some cases, existence is easy to establish. In other cases, it is not.

We have all been duped, except one individual.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

**Chimps do math, dogs do math. Even birds have been shown to do simple arithmetic. **

Before there were living organisms, who was doing the math?

Or the chemistry, or the biology?

 

[rossum]

Before there were living organisms, who was doing the math?

Or the chemistry, or the biology?

Atoms and molecules were doing the chemistry. Do you know what the “bio-” part of biology means?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since intelligent design exists in humans, is it implausible that it was intelligently designed to exist in humans?

Before life first appeared on this planet, inorganic matter had no way of knowing that when life did come, the very first life form would contain within itself a seed for developing, down the line, its own capacity for intelligent design. Not only would life evolve into a creature capable of the most sophisticated kinds of intelligent design; life would also begin to see itself, and everything around itself, as intelligently designed.

Until along came the atheists, who couldn’t stand the thought of an intelligent designer smarter than themselves.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Atoms and molecules were doing the chemistry.

No, they were not doing the chemistry. Chemistry is an abstract science in the head, not a collection of atoms and molecules.

 

[tonyrey]

Natural process.

We know God created a universe that includes chance. I don’t see the need to add back an unproven deterministic approach.

value, beauty and complexity of life to chance? Or entirely to a natural process? If so God becomes redundant…

 

[levinas12]

That was Behe’s response. My quote was taken form the abstract of his own paper, Behe and Snooke (2004) which I referenced. The 20,000 year figure for 10^8 generations is taken from Behe’s own testimony at the Dover trial, where this paper was discussed. IIRC it was on day twelve.

The whole paper is available at the link in my post.

rossum

What I meant to say … I wonder how Behe would respond to your posting (606) … given that quote, it would seem that Behe should be pulling back … you yourself cited it as a indication of the failure of the ID hypothesis … but I don’t think Behe has given up … so I’m curious why not …

 

[rossum]

rossum

Atoms and molecules were doing the chemistry.

No, they were not doing the chemistry. Chemistry is an abstract science in the head, not a collection of atoms and molecules.

We disagree. Chemistry is not abstract. Chemistry can smell and chemistry can kill people.

Mathematics is abstract; chemistry isn’t.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What I meant to say … I wonder how Behe would respond to your posting (606) … given that quote, it would seem that Behe should be pulling back … you yourself cited it as a indication of the failure of the ID hypothesis … but I don’t think Behe has given up … so I’m curious why not …

It is not a failure of the ID hypothesis, it is a failure of the IC hypothesis, both versions. IC systems can evolve and can do so reasonably quickly.

The ID hypothesis is currently untestable; nobody has yet described anything that could not have been designed. Indeed, I have used that lack to design a design detector. See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

ID would like to be science, but unfortunately it is not currently science. It lacks evidence, it lacks experimental support and it lacks falsifiability.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

ID would like to be science, but unfortunately it is not currently science. It lacks evidence, it lacks experimental support and it lacks falsifiability.

We see intelligent designs all around us in our daily life. That intelligent design exists is evidence in the sentences you wrote above. Are you going to deny that you can intelligently design a sentence?

 

[grannymh]

It is not a failure of the ID hypothesis, it is a failure of the IC hypothesis, both versions. IC systems can evolve and can do so reasonably quickly.

The ID hypothesis is currently untestable; nobody has yet described anything that could not have been designed. Indeed, I have used that lack to design a design detector. See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

ID would like to be science, but unfortunately it is not currently science. It lacks evidence, it lacks experimental support and it lacks falsifiability.

rossum

I would like to add some observations about science and ID. The work of scientists like Dr. Behe is valid in that it is legitimate to offer a counter to any type of theory. In that sense the Intelligent Design Community does have science.

The question is – Does a particular research project in the biochemical area also serve as scientific evidence of an intelligent designer?
If yes, what is the nature of the designer?

One answer is found in an interesting article by William Dembski on the Uncommondescent website.
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/
titled “Does ID presuppose a mechanistic view of nature?” The very last paragraph interests me. It begins “P.S. ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer.”
Rather than take sentences out of context, it is best to read the entire paragraph.

In my humble opinion, it is extremely difficult to transfer research which debates theories within the scientific realm to an entirely different realm such as the spiritual. Yes, evidence used in research can also reflect information about a Divine Creator, but I don’t see the demonstration of a Divine Creator’s existence as the purpose of “counter” research in gene duplications.

Blessings,
granny

All persons are sacred because each is an unique creation by a loving Creator.

 

[vz71]

There was no design in the SOS. You were duped.

I’m still waiting for those promised examples of an SOS written on the beach that has no ID behind it.

Where are they?