 ![[Header]](../XuShared2/Line3.jpeg)
Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page) A Brief BlipEntry 1684, on 2014-10-29 at 16:19:23 (Rating 2, Philosophy) A while back I listened to a podcast interview with Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom. I have commented on his intriguing ideas regarding the possibility that we are actually living in a computer simulation and not a real universe before (in a post "Not Crazy Enough" on 2012-11-06) and while his latest musings aren't quite as far reaching they are still really interesting.
In this interview he talked about the probable outcome of future advances in artificial intelligence and how that is likely to lead to disaster for humans. The idea that creating a super-intelligence (one significantly beyond human abilities) would be the last invention ever required is an old and well known one in science fiction. Once an intelligence capable of inventing further more advanced intelligences is created the situation rapidly escalates out of control as machine intelligence evolves faster than biology ever could.
But when will artificial intelligence reach this point, if ever? According to Bostrom a survey of experts gave a median answer of 2045 but it should be noted there was a large spread in the answers, so this is far from certain. One major question affecting the answer is: does existing technology scale or do we need something fundamentally different? Many current efforts in AI involve simulating a brain in software on a digital computer. This may not be the right approach and a new type of (analog) thinking machine might be required instead. If that is true then the 2045 timeframe is probably too optimistic - or should that be pessimistic?
But surely the point is not if but when this will happen. At some point, by whatever means (maybe something totally unheard of at this time) a super-human intelligence will be created. So should AI researchers be considering the consequences of their research even now? Should there be safeguards put in place to protect the creators from their creations?
This idea has been examined in science fiction for years, the most well known example being Asimov's laws of robotics. The first (and most relevant) law states: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." This seems fine but what does it really mean? Would a super-intelligence interpret this as meaning that all humans need to be (metaphorically, I hope) wrapped in cotton-wool and be prevented from engaging in any possible dangerous activity? Would an even better solution be to not allow new humans to be born and therefore remove any possible chance of harm? Who knows how a super-intelligence would think.
One objection to these doomsday predictions is that super-intelligences might not be given access to the real world: they might be computers instead of robots. But will this only delay the inevitable? How long would it take a super-intelligent computer to figure out a way to influence the real world?
Presumably it would have some interaction with the real world, through its human operators, or through a network like the internet. And the "next big thing" on the internet will be "the internet of things" where everything will be connected, making influencing the real world even easier. And if that doesn't work there is always spamming, hacking, denial of service attacks, and blackmail as possible methods of influence. So it surely wouldn't be that difficult for something so smart to find a way to "take over the world".
And maybe that's why we don't see signs of intelligence elsewhere in the universe through studies such as SETI. We might represent a tiny transitional period in the evolution of life and intelligence. Maybe a typical time-line is 3 billion years of primitive pre-life and unicellular life, then half a billion years of increasing complex multicellular life, then a hundred thousand years of intelligence but without any real technology, then a few hundred years of more advanced technology, then synthetic life takes over for the rest of time.
Maybe a technological civilisation like ours is just a brief blip on the Universe's vast timeline and the chance of seing that tiny period of evolution between non-technological life and synthetic life is very low. Maybe the next stage happens so quickly after the technology stage begins and is so strange and unlike what we know that we wouldn't even know what to look for.
Or this all could be idle speculation and there might not be anything to worry about. Or maybe the whole universe is just a simulation anyway!
 Comment 1 (4162) by richard on 2014-10-29 at 18:23:15: (view recent only)
Great fun to speculate. Lots of movies have done this huh, the latest being Transcendence which was an interesting blend of AI and physicalism philosophy. I think that movie and the Matrix outline the biggest problems for a super 'AI' taking over, the first of which is 'power' - literally the energy requirement - it will have to find a way to stop us simply 'pulling the plug'. Secondly they both showed that AI alone is not enough - it's really 'A-Life' in that it also requires the ability to self replicate - and that is a much bigger challenge than just making AI 'clever' I think. It must be able to not just build one or even 100, but continue to source all the raw materials required to produce it's 'child' devices ad-infinitum that can also access the viable power source (sort of as the Matrix described rather well).
Regarding the SETI qn, that's fascinating. I am wondering why you didn't automatically presume that the 'synthetic' life that replaced some other ancient intelligent life 'blip' wouldn't similarly 'evolve' the same 'desire' to learn about the universe, (or the same desire to communicate with it and/or even conquer it), as us - the only known life to date in the universe with the intelligence and 'nature' to even ponder about or notice the universe. Hmmm - You aren't inadvertently acknowledging that us humans are in fact something MORE than simply a different form of physical matter in motion and thus no different to any other synthetic life - are you?  Comment 2 (4163) by OJB on 2014-10-30 at 12:59:29:
Yes, as I said in the post, the jump from being a pure thought machine to having control over the real world is the issue that many people object to. But Bostrom seemed to think that could be overcome fairly easily by a sufficiently determined and intelligent entity. I'm not so sure, at least in the early stages of its development.
Self-replicating nano-machines would be a very efficient way to harvest resources, plus they would be difficult to stop since they have no central point of control. I think that type of technology is the future whether developed by humans or whatever comes next.
I did assume that the next dominant life form would be as curious as us but I think it might be difficult to say how that curiosity would manifest itself. They might use technologies we haven't thought of or use energy on a different scale (maybe a lot smaller) than we do. Therefore searches for ETI based on our current technology would be fruitless.
I see no reason to hypothesise that there is any magic involved in human consciousness when all the evidence indicates the contrary. Even the Pope agrees with the Big Bang and evolution theories and thinks that God isn't magic now, and he's Christ's infallible representative on Earth so he should know! Comment 3 (4164) by richard on 2014-10-30 at 16:46:59:
Yeah - good speculation about the very probable fruitlessness of any of our SETI endeavours. Also LOL - I won't get into the details since they would be off topic here, but I too saw that laughable article about the Pope and his bizarre, ambiguous and contradictory notions. With all due respect, you can see why I'm not Catholic! Of course nowhere did I mention there was any 'magic' involved as you have inferred. As we have discussed before in other posts though, it is impossible to scientifically dismiss the hypothesis that consciousness has an immaterial component, rather than an emergent property of incredibly improbably organised matter only (as you claim), simply because matter IS shown to be involved in consciousness as we are able to report it to scientific observers. Simply put: Evidence simply cannot 'indicate the contrary' as you claim.
Back to the post though - yeah I agree - transcendence kinda had the 'right idea' with nano-machines - if they really were able to 'control' human hosts and get them to do the work for them - that would get the job done nicely - stop them from 'wanting' to pull the plug - Yikes!! :)
Comment 4 (4165) by OJB on 2014-10-30 at 20:33:31:
I'm not sure why SETI has failed but this is one possible explanation, and a particularly interesting one, I think. BTW, I reached this conclusion myself, it was nothing to do with any of Bostrom's ideas. Make of that what you will!
So the Pope accepting reality is laughable but creationism should be taken seriously? Interesting perspective you have there...
Basically suggesting there is something involved in human consciousness beyond the accepted physical factors is an appeal to magic, nothing more. Nothing can be completely dismissed scientifically (not even fairies at the bottom of my garden) but there is no reason to suppose anything beyond ordinary accepted physics is required to explain consciousness so why bother?
So yes, back to the post... I know this all sounds kind of crazy and speculative but can you see anything actually stopping it from happening (apart from a Biblical apocalypse, of course, I mean Jesus said he'd be back soon and he's already almost 2000 years overdue, so yeah... could be any day now). Comment 5 (4166) by richard on 2014-10-31 at 14:24:23:
I agree- Your conclusion is certainly reasonable re SETI. I assume you have heard about Brian Cox having to clarify his recent BBC Documentary 'We are alone' comments. I only mention it because The Daily Mail article also includes an interesting (on topic) point which I think has merit about whether we should actually be looking for plant life instead:
Professor Brian Cox says alien life impossible.
Just to clarify what I think we have discussed before: the Pope isn't 'laughable' for believing in the Big Bang OR for believing in evolution. I respect those beliefs, (actually have no issues with the Big Bang at all). I also believe in some kinds of 'evolution'. I also respect your belief in (macro) evolution and your belief in atheism too. What IS more 'odd' though is the Pope believing in God, AND evolution, which by strict definition is a belief which explicitly denies any supernatural influence by God. What exactly does the Pope think God did do then - that isn't 'supernatural' (magic) if you will?
Sitting on the philosophical/intellectual fence like this sadly undermines any credibility, but then that's one of many logic issues I have with Catholicism.
I never said your post sounded crazy - I enjoyed it. I agree that on your world-view - it's a possibility that is hard to refute. I will ignore the '2000 years overdue' as an obvious joke. Reminds me of the other bad old joke about a man saying to God, "You know that a million years is like a second to you and a million dollars is like a cent, right"? God: "Yes - that's all true". Man: "Well, can I have a cent please"? God: "Sure thing - In a second". Not certain the concept of 'soon' is ever actually made, so no overdue claim will stick. Comment 6 (4167) by OJB on 2014-10-31 at 16:35:39:
Interesting. I have heard quite a lot from Brian Cox and I generally respect his opinion, although his celebrity status might lead to him making claims of doubtful credibility in areas he isn't expert in! Of course it may be that the evolution of intelligent life is a lot harder than we suppose and that is also a very reasonable explanation of the Fermi Paradox.
I think a belief that evolution is a process which is occasionally guided by God makes a certain amount of sense, certainly a lot more than denying (macro) evolution completely. I'm guessing that guided evolution is his position. I can't see how that undermines his credibility at all, quite the contrary actually.
Well we all know the famous prediction in Matthew 24:34 don't we? And I've heard all the excuses which have been invented to explain the obvious error, but they're just more retro-fitting the interpretation to create whatever meaning is required. Comment 7 (4168) by richard on 2014-10-31 at 17:55:05:
Off topic alert - Hmm that is very interesting that you think the notion of God guiding evolution makes a certain amount of sense?! Surely you must understand and agree that the only way this 'makes any sense at all' requires a tacit admission that there ARE in fact steps in the macro-evolutionary processes that (to date) simply cannot be accounted for by purely physical processes. This is exactly what the ID crowd suggest. The whole premise of evolution is that it is completely undirected. A process can ONLY be either undirected OR Intelligently Designed (to quote a phrase). If even the slightest amount of 'ID' is required in order for 'success' of the whole enterprise then that's not 'evolution' at all, & we are then just debating about the exact extent of ID, and there is no reason to suppose the remaining 'evolution' isn't just as intelligently designed to function that way. This is exactly how I'd categorize the 'other' forms of (micro)evolution that actually ARE observable by science. If that's where you are actually want to land - I have no problem with that at all. Comment 8 (4169) by OJB on 2014-10-31 at 20:34:13:
Yeah, there's always a religious angle, isn't there? :)
The point I was trying to make is that if you want to have a worldview which includes a god it is more sensible to have him fit in with the facts (evolution) rather than just denying the obvious. The fact is there has never been any incident in the history of evolution which seems to require supernatural intervention but at least it can't be completely discounted.
Evolution is *not* completely undirected. It is directed by natural processes and life is "designed" by these processes. Its just not directed or designed by an intelligence. And if you look at the 99.9% failure rate of evolution and the terrible design of various biological features then if there was an intelligence involved it was a really, really terrible one. If your designer god exists he sure does suck! Comment 9 (4170) by OJB on 2014-10-31 at 20:59:15:
Looks like Elon Musk takes this threat seriously too. He has just read Bostrom's book. Comment 10 (4172) by richard on 2014-11-03 at 14:36:59:
Whoa - hang on - back up the truck - lol. A re-read thru this article will show clearly that I was not ever introducing any 'religious' content - as opposed to philosophical content - the category of this post. ALL religious content on this post has been initiated by you. Comment 7 is not actually 'religious' - except it happens to include the word God in it - it is simply a straightforward analysis of the logic (or more precisely the lack of it) in your previous comment re God and evolution 'making sense'(6). Who introduced God or religion into this post again???
Similarly, your 2nd claim is sadly logically flawed (or at very least completely redundant) about evolution not being completely 'undirected' (at least in the context of this discussion which is precisely to make distinction between intelligence or 'natural processes'). To say natural processes 'direct things' or 'design' things is a clear mis-use of the words according to their standard definitions, particularly 'design' where the very word always implies (i.e. demands) 'purpose' - something is ONLY EVER designed for a particular purpose. Purpose only EVER implies (demands) a mind. You know very well already that natural processes have absolutely zero purpose because it has no mind. One cannot comment on whether any 'design' is good or bad until the purpose is known. So that rebuttal attempt is flawed on all counts. Sorry. Comment 11 (4173) by OJB on 2014-11-03 at 20:55:17:
In comment number one you asked if I thought "us humans are in fact something MORE than simply a different form of physical matter", a clearly religious/superstitious reference. As far as I can see that was the first sign of the commentary straying into this topic. As far as I am concerned so-called philosophical commentary from an admitted religious adherent which contains the word "God" is religious, not truly philosophical, but I admit there is often no obvious distinction between the two.
Design is perhaps a poor word to use, maybe I should have said there was the "appearance of design". As far as "directed" is concerned, I think a process can be directed by natural phenomena. I'm saying the end result of these blind "design" processes is far from what we would expect from an intelligent mind. Sure, we cannot know for sure what an intelligent designer might have had in mind when he executed these designs but surely he could do better than the abysmal results we see. So yeah, you're argument seems a bit weak. Sorry. :) Comment 12 (4175) by richard on 2014-11-04 at 12:01:58:
And I likewise agree that the distinction is sometime difficult, but I still want to try to make that distinction, so that whenever we happen to offer different opinions on philosophical topics, like the question of are we more than purely physical matter (comment 1) the ole 'religious' card isn't played illegitimately in order to simply dismiss the view without responding to it directly. That qn specifically has no 'required' religious context - it is pure philosophy. Of course that doesn't mean there is are not possible religious connotations, but I wasn't heading there - I was directed there later by the responses. :)
Of course a process can be directed by natural phenomena. That's stating the obvious. A river is 'directed' on its course purely by such natural forces. However, clearly that's not the 'direction' that was being discussed was/is it? Again - remember I am not even trying to argue for intelligence in this post. I was/am trying to stick to the topics you raised and questioning just the logic of trying to combine the two completely incompatible notions of design and evolution. God doesn't 'have' to be involved in that discussion is my point. You keep adding Him. However, wrt to your last comment, sorry but I can't help but think it is a little surpising (even sad) to think that anyone would seriously look around at this incredible 'pale blue dot' (to quote you know whose phrase) and the absolutely jaw-droppingly stunning diversity and beauty of life on earth, and consider the very real potential we humans have to live peaceful and productive lives in amongst all that beauty, and consider it 'abysmal'. I do understand you are referencing what are considered design failures, but again - that's a level of detail that is hard to address quickly. Taken as a whole though, calling the end result abysmal does seem a bit harsh I think? Comment 13 (4176) by OJB on 2014-11-04 at 12:58:12:
OK, let's move all the trivial disagreement over definitions aside and get down to the real question: does the evidence we have indicate life is the result of intelligent design or blind trial and error?
I would suggest the fact that over 99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct indicates the latter possibility. If you disagree, imagine the opposite: if every species in existence had been so well designed that it still existed that would disprove evolution and basically prove intelligent design, right? Well if you are prepared to accept that possibility you need to accept the opposite as well.
As far as the beauty of the world is concerned, yeah sure, there's lots of nice stuff out there, but there is a lot more nasty stuff if you bother to look. You can't just pick and choose the bits that suit your ideology! Comment 14 (4177) by richard on 2014-11-05 at 17:10:04:
Lol - with all due respect you are the master at mis-direction. Trivial disagreements over definitions only appear to be necessary in response to your mis-use of these words in your arguments. I'd love not to have to clarify these definitions with you. :-)
Obviously you know that my opinion is that overall the evidence points clearly to intelligence. Of course, that does not deny the existence of some specific forms of evidence that appear to support the alternative view. Every historical 'smoking gun' type evidence based investigation has that possibility. To continue the smoking gun example, every crime investigation will have some evidence that would suggest the real perpetrator is innocent, or conversely that an innocent bystander is the perp', but this does not mean that a reasoned (and accurate discovery of the real killer) cannot in the vast majority of cases be made. I believe this is the case with the question of intelligence.
Of course, I am fully aware that the above notion 'works' both ways depending on your view of the evidence. I mention it now wrt your particular chosen evidence - the 'extinction of 99% of all species that have ever existed'.
Like most arguments of this type, I do understand that this one does indeed appear to make some sense - but only until examined more carefully. The good news is that this is not a scientific argument, it is also a purely philosophical one, and thus we are still somewhat on topic (at least in the right blog category). lol
There are multiple flaws in this argument. They are: 1) The question of whether something is designed or not - is not related to it's extinction. How many now 'extinct' Mac devices do you have in your house? Does their extinction imply in the slightest that they were not designed? Now I anticipate your fair response to this point - something along the lines of: "But Steve Jobs was not God - who apparently can 'anticipate or even control the future" to avoid such extinctions in his designs. That leads nicely to...
Flaw 2) It makes philosophical assumptions about the 'purpose' in mind of both the species and their extinction. Why MUST we assume that the extinction of a particular species was a 'bad' thing, (and by 'bad thing' we must, according to a theistic ideology, mean against 'His will'). There is little basis for this purely humanistic presumption. That would be similar to presuming Steve Jobs would never have embarked on the Apple ][ if he thought it would one day become extinct. WHy should that be the 'logical' assumption?
Flaw 3) Remembering that one of the tenants of evolution is that the term 'species' is actually a purely arbitrary set of lines drawn in what is actually a perfect continuum from single celled organism to humans to... whatever comes after us. So this 99% thing is somewhat meaningless really anyway. A different distinctive say genus or phyla, changes the number.
Why stop at just species? Want a bigger than 99% number? Fine - What your argument actually boils down to in the end is a complaint that because ALL individual organisms DIE (instead of all being somehow 'immortal') they must be therefore declared badly designed, and therefore cannot be designed. The heart of the flaw with that of course is the very same one of philosophical presumption: that the death (whether of individuals or species) is somehow flawed design. That conclusion simply doesn't follow the observations. Comment 15 (4178) by richard on 2014-11-05 at 17:28:50:
My Apologies - I keep forgetting to remove unintentional paragraph characters before hitting 'Add'. - Thanks for removing them for me as I see you have done in the past. I'll try to remember...
I meant to respond to the last point too - re the 'nasty stuff'. Again - I do understand and even sympathize with what you are suggesting, but it's kind of a similar argument really to the extinction one, and so flawed in the same way. What's does 'nasty' mean? In whose context? I do want to agree with you though, and say sure - some of it IS nasty (in our view). I am certainly not ignoring that and 'picking and choosing to suit my ideology'. My ideology just happens to account for nastiness, and much of it far better than any other ideology. Comment 16 (4179) by OJB on 2014-11-05 at 22:27:26:
Well I believe there is a case to support my original statement. Evolution gives the appearance of design and in some ways you could say design has occurred because natural processes have directed the evolution of life. But I wasn't going to waste time debating definitions. But it's nothing to do with misdirection - quite the contrary.
Your opinion is that the evidence points to intelligence. OK. So you're wrong, and clearly so. Every time ID supporters try to show the phenomenon they are shown to be wrong. The bacterial flagellum, the eye, etc. All wrong. Sorry, but the credibility of this idea is not great after so many failures.
Regarding your objections to the species extinction argument. You compare the extinct species to early efforts at making computers but surely god had the best tools to create life all along. Why would he get it wrong so often?
It makes little difference what level of classification we use. The idea of a species is not arbitrary at all. It is supposed to indicate the smallest group which is genetically isolated and therefore will evolve as a unit. I agree that one exact definition doesn't work in every case but it is better than any other system I know of. Criticising the concept of a species is really just a standard creationist tactic to obfuscate the truth.
I wasn't talking about death, I was talking about extinction. It's not quite the same, is it. I think most reasonable people would say that if a species cannot survive then it probably isn't well designed. Sure you could say God intended things to work that way but really we're just getting back to vague, totally arbitrary, untestable ideas again.
And again, consider the opposite: if every species was perfect and none went extinct would that not then support intelligent design and disprove evolution? You can't have it both ways. Oh, wait a minute, yes you can, because your "theory" isn't science and isn't falsifiable!
Finally, how do you explain the poor examples of design in existing species? Humans, for example have a lot of back problems because our backs haven't been fully adapted to bipedalism after being originally "designed" for quadrupedalism. Similar arguments for poor design for the human birth process, the appendix, the prostate, the human brain! The examples just go on and on. As I said, if this is intelligent design then the designer sure does suck! Comment 17 (4180) by OJB on 2014-11-05 at 22:35:19:
What does "nasty" mean? This is just the problem of evil again. We've been here before, remember? And here's my definition: things that any well balanced person would believe are bad. Yes, I know, not precise (maybe even a bit circular) but most of what people believe is right and wrong is quite consistent across time and cultures, with obvious exceptions. Want to know something "nasty" your god is responsible for? OK, Google this: "child cancer". God is great and merciful. Yeah, right. Comment 18 (4181) by richard on 2014-11-06 at 10:49:52:
Yes yes - I already agreed we don't need to quibble over definitions.
I understand the definition of species just fine thanks - I have no problem with that definition, nor its normal use in science at all. I am merely discussing its irrelevance to your complaint about 99% bad design.
As for death and extinction, they are of course undeniably rather closely related. Can a species go extinct without death? You say "most people would say if a species cannot survive then it probably isn't well designed', and I already said I understood that pov so why re-hash it?
Just to clarify though, I am not stating that I do think God 'intended it to work that way' at all. Clearly in theology there are lots of things that happen that are not His will. I am just mentioning we are both in the same boat if notions about what really might be Gods 'will' really are vague and untestable. Then why bring it up as you did?
The question of considering the opposite that you raise is just fairy tale conjecture. There is no deductive value in considering non-existant scenarios to try to make a point. Consider only the scenario we DO experience. Having said that though: Sorry it's not my fault but yes we can actually 'have it both ways' under that fairy tale scenario simply because of good old logic. It simply does not follow of necessity that because no extinction makes a good case for intelligence that lots of extinction MUST make a similarly solid case for no intelligence. So that is a real example of a vague untestable idea. As I said - sorry - but that's not my fault it doesn't do any revealing work for you. ;)
But none of this has anything to do with detecting the likelyhood of intelligence, which is a perfectly scientific process performed in all sorts of scientific disciplines all the time.
As you know - when you refer to examples like flagellum, eye, and countless others the particular phenomena you are referring to in ID is called 'irreducible complexity'. Sorry, but simply stating 'All Wrong' and claiming 'so many failures' does not provide any enlightenment to anyone. YOU must make the sound case WHY that phenomena is wrong as evidence for intelligence. Can you please explain what is the evidence that shows without doubt a clear evolutionary mechanism for how purely random mutations can construct a very complex design where multiple parts are ALL required to interact together in a particular way BEFORE any detectable survival (gene-passing) advantage can occur? Dawkins attempt to explain that (climbing mount improbable) is simply pure story-telling with no real evidence to distinguish the appearance of design from real design. Comment 19 (4182) by OJB on 2014-11-06 at 18:26:55:
1. OK, we agree not to quibble over definitions. So let's move on.
2. So superficial that it's barely worth commenting on. Let's move on.
3. So God created all these species and they died out against his will? Are you a deist, i.e. someone who thinks god created things and then stepped back and let things run?
4. You accuse me of fairy tale conjectures! Well, thats awesome. Well done. The person who believes in fairy tales accuses a person who follows hard science. But moving on, yes the scenario I describe would disprove evolution but not ID, and the completely opposite scenario wouldn't disprove ID either, neither would any other scenario for that matter. I was trying to make the point that ID is not falsifiable which is a good indicator that it isn't real science.
5. The problem (for ID) is that no one has really come up with a way of detecting intelligence in living things. Well Dembski tried but then his maths was found to be faulty. Then there were the examples I mentioned which were thought to be irreducibly complex but in fact weren't. So what's left? Nothing.
6. The designs were thought to be irreducibly complex (that is they couldn't have evolved through a series of small steps) but very credible intermediate steps have been found in the examples the ID supporters gave. This weakens their argument greatly. Your demand for evidence "without a doubt" is misleading. There is always doubt in everything, which you must already know. We need to look at what is most credible. According to 99% of biologists it isn't ID! Comment 20 (4183) by OJB on 2014-11-06 at 18:28:21:
Done that search on child cancer yet? Any thoughts on how your great and loving god intelligently designed that? Comment 21 (4184) by richard on 2014-11-07 at 11:01:29:
1&2: Yes, let's :)
4: I must admit that the humour didn't escape me either :). Classic response though, ignoring an analysis of whether the point made was a fair one or not, and claiming some higher 'I follow science and you don't' ground. A simple 'Fair point' would have sufficed.
But wrt your response linking ID as non falsifiable because it so happens that this particular scenario doesn't work for you is itself wrong. Sorry - that logic also doesn't follow. Other things can falsify ID just fine - just not your chosen scenario.
ID (when correctly/honestly defined) follows all the criteria for good science, and is falsifiable. You are taking 2 facets of all science and confusing that with being non-falsifiable. You even pointed out the first one in p6 - of course I agree with you completely that all science isn't ever 100% certain, though some is much more 'likely' than others, happy to agree that the same goes with ID. You realize of course that uncertainty of a claims truth, also leads to a similar uncertainty of it's non-truth - i.e. its lack of 'falsifiability'. (Is that a word - lol)? So all science suffers from this very same problem to varying degrees.
Secondly, the 'harder to falsify' claims in the supernatural/religious arena that might be inferred FROM ID are NOT actually part of ID's scope. That holds true even if many of its proponents happen to believe in such things. ID however is ONLY interested in applying scientific principles in examining physical artifacts (whether that be clouds that look like faces, space stations or the human body) to determine which ones have a 'scientifically high likelyhood' of intelligent involvement in their 'design'. (Note I am politely using your definition of design to allow for natural 'designs' even though I think it usually adds more confusion that it helps). ID makes NO claims whatsoever as to the source of the intelligence. Absolutely no non-materialistic philosophies have to apply in the slightest to the specific investigations ID performs.
It amuses me that atheist claim that ID is non-science because it is not falsifiable yet spend their lifetimes (making a good living too) writing books and articles apparently very successfully falsifying ID.
5 - It also amuses me you wish to make some distinction between detecting intelligence in 'living things' when it's under your own view, that there should be absolutely no difference between the emperical practice of 'intelligence detection' in the physical makeup of your own body, than the physical makeup of the chair you are sitting on (which no one would deny had an intelligent cause). Of course, that premise is also the ID view, but one which naturalists should be perfectly comfortable with if not moreso. And once again - faulty claims re Dembski's maths but no substance to back the claim up.
6 - Same applies to this. I wasn't demanding evidence without all doubt, I was simply demanding evidence that provides something approaching the certainty I would expect you to be basing your scientific opinion on. With respect, surely it's obvious that this response is more like the first than that.
Yay - no gap this time! Comment 22 (4185) by OJB on 2014-11-07 at 16:19:00:
Right, so there are many points there but I will follow one particular line to try to demonstrate the point I have been trying to make. You say ID, when correctly/honestly defined, is good science. I guess there is/was an idealised version of ID out there which might fit that criterion. Maybe William Dembski's original work might, for example. But on the rare occasions it has been properly done it has been disproved. Since then it has just turned primarily into a political/religious movement, and that is the real ID today. So it is the real ID I am criticising, not the idealised version which probably doesn't even exist.
You then say ID however is ONLY interested in applying scientific principles in examining physical artifacts but again I don't think that's true. Can you show me a recent scientific paper which makes a case for intelligence being responsible for clouds, space stations, or the human body?
Not sure why you find those two things amusing. Weird.
Re Dembski. I thought he had published a paper on this subject but maybe it was only his book I was thinking of. Here's a summary from Wikipedia (you can follow their sources from there if you want to) of his work...
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities. Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.
Also he is a mathematician, philosopher and theologian. People making big statements outside of their area of expertise (he's not a biologist) have a poor record of accuracy.
Also, note this about his early life: "After completing graduate school in 1996, Dembski was unable to secure a university position; from then until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture."
Regarding the Discovery Institute: The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID).
My summary: Dembski's work is motivated by religion, ID is garbage. Potentially it could be a real science but if it was made one it would be quickly disproved. In reality it is a dishonest pseudoscience with the primary purpose of supporting a lie: creationism. Comment 23 (4186) by OJB on 2014-11-07 at 16:51:34:
Maybe it was Behe's paper I was thinking of (another ID fail). From Wikipedia again...
Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. When the issue raised by Behe and Snoke is tested in the modern framework of evolutionary biology, numerous simple pathways to complexity have been shown. In their response, Behe and Snoke assumed that intermediate mutations are always damaging, where modern science allows for neutral or positive mutations. Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to evolution.
Again I would claim that 99% of ID is pseudoscientific, religiously motivated nonsense, the rest has been discredited. Comment 24 (4187) by richard on 2014-11-10 at 11:01:31:
This is a constant problem I find in your posts - the goal posts keep shifting. Remember the claim you made was/is 'ID is not science because it is not falsifiable'. I rebutted that by showing that ID (as specifically proposed by for example the DI) is merely a basic empirical science, not a movement. Just because the actual 'rules' for reliably deducing intelligence can also be open to some scientific debate, doesn't change the fact that it can be done, and we all do it every day. And just because others use that for their non-scientific endeavours doesn't change the point either - you can't simply choose to refer to what you call 'real' ID because that's the version that suits your bias.
Are you seriously suggesting for example, that IN principle, applying some form of empirical science to try to determine whether some physical artifact appears to have arisen purely by natural process or whether there is a possibility or probability that intelligence was involved, is garbage. I just don't get what your problem is with that endeavour, given that view would wipe out many University departments if strictly followed?
Of course no one writes papers about whether intelligence was involved in cloud faces, or space stations etc, because it's obvious no papers are necessary. They are current artifacts, and whether intelligence was involved can be easily deduced with almost 100% certainty. Be serious. ID concerns itself with very ancient historical artifacts - from the the earliest life to the earliest humans, looking for intelligent 'signatures'.
The question of whether you like the conclusions that are proposed by the science, was NOT the topic - that's a different matter entirely, and one I am more than happy to accept people disagree on, as evidenced by wikipedia. So what?
Secondly, do you seriously claim that there is NO basis in which it is reasonable to acknowledge that the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC) exists, and was a 'design' challenge that had to be overcome (however we got here). To me that seems ludicrous, and ignores obvious evidence. IN other words, would you agree the debate is Not about whether IC was a challenge, but about how it was overcome. Is that fair? Comment 25 (4188) by OJB on 2014-11-10 at 20:51:11:
Well that wasn't the exact claim I made but it is certainly a factor. You think the nonsense espoused by the DI is science? On which planet? Please show me the recognised scientific journals they publish in. From Wikipedia: "The Discovery Institute is a U.S. non-profit public policy think tank...". Doesn't sound like a source of real science to me.
I said 99% was religiously motivated nonsense and the rest was disproved science. If there was evidence of intelligent design in the natural world that would soon become apparent through normal scientific investigation without the need for a new field primarily motivated by religious belief.
Exactly, current science quickly identifies where design exists. It has been found in prehistoric tools etc, but not in biological systems. Why? Because your intelligent designer doesn't exist except in your imagination.
I'm suggesting that whenever apparent cases of irreducible complexity are investigated quite reasonable natural mechanism are found so the IC hypothesis is rejected. This includes the cases the ID supporters identified themselves. I can never say that IC doesn't exist, but on the current evidence that is a reasonable interim conclusion. Comment 26 (4189) by richard on 2014-11-12 at 17:13:05:
I had just stated that the ID being discussed is not a movement (i.e. just DI's work) but a line of investigation. As always the question becomes what is the basis for relying on that qupte from Wikipedia in this discussion, when the DI is involved in much more than ID. That is just a small subset of their scope. So being a think-tank in other areas says nothing about their work in ID.
Soon become apparent thru 'normal scientific investigation'. Why would you think that is the case, when current scientific investigation already specifically rejects by definition the possibility of ID (in biological systems).
You say exactly - science quickly identifies where design exists. Great. Can you provide for us all, the clear reproducible scientific principles used to verify that 'design' (and here we obviously mean via intelligence) exists within prehistoric tools etc.
Quite reasonable natural mechanisms are found. Really? Just saying that doesn't make it true. And of course the biggest example of IC is that which was needed for the first living cell, for which evolution (i.e. natural selection acting on genetic modification) has no involvement. But that's another story. I'd just be happy to see a decent example even in all the cases that are 'evolved'. But admittedly - we are getting somewhat off topic. Comment 27 (4190) by OJB on 2014-11-13 at 14:27:27:
You said "ID (as specifically proposed by for example the DI) is merely a basic empirical science". This doesn't appear to be true because: 1. DI is a religious/political think tank, and 2. no ID research is published in real scientific journals.
As far as I am aware there is nothing in science which rejects the possibility of design. The currently accepted theory, evolution, doesn't require it, but theories get changed if they don't fit the facts. If the facts started indicating design was present then the theory would need to be changed or even thrown out completely. But of course that hasn't happened.
We know prehistoric tools were designed because we know a potential designer existed at the time and the way the object was created cannot be explained realistically by natural processes.
In fact evolutionary mechanisms can easily act on entities far simpler than a cell. All that is required is something which reproduces according to a stored structure (DNA, RNA) and a mechanism to create variation (mutation). A cell is not required. Comment 28 (4191) by richard on 2014-11-17 at 11:58:37:
Yes - that's right. I was merely trying to remind everyone of the fact that the DI do NOT progress to trying to evaluate the identity of any intelligence that may or may not be inferred by perform ID methodology. So their description of a religious/political think tank is therefore totally irrelevant to the specific point being discussed. Actually I have already pointed to many specifically life-origin ID related peer-reviewed papers in real scientific journals etc, but obviously you find various ways to dismiss them, usually by attacking the authors background rather than the content of the paper. But that's not even that relevant to this topic. When considering (as we are now) ID as a basic methodology, then ID related research is not restricted to the particular question of life-origin. All papers in fields like archaeology, forensic science, and numerous others, publish papers in real scientific journals using the same techniques.
You state that 'as you are aware there is nothing in science which rejects the possibility of design'. It is extremely telling then that in the next paragraph when answering my qn about what scientific techniques are used to detect design, your very first (obviously prime) criteria is: 'we know a potential designer existed at the time'. Clearly this is the same criteria being used to dismiss life-origin ID by apparently non biased scientists all over the world, because you don't 'know' that a potential designer existed at the time. This is clearly the 'begging the question fallacy' when the very question under debate is whether a potential designer actually exists in the first place! Thanks for the tacit admission of the pre-existing bias - which of course was precisely my point.
Even your second phrase is important and telling - 'the way the object was created cannot be explained by natural processes'. Totally agree in principle, but that's very vague! You are obviously careful NOT to commit to specifying the actual empirical techniques and data used to make that assessment. Why? - Because those same techniques quite reasonably should be able to be applied to living systems in the same way as prehistoric tools. Of course this is precisely the basis for ID, which IS braver than you - and proposes reasonable empirical methods that show that the nature of the object mean that natural processes are unable to account for it. Comment 29 (4192) by OJB on 2014-11-17 at 17:01:24:
The DI is a religious/political think tank dedicated to spreading Christian creationism by whatever means they can. Any claim that they don't have a preferred creator is ridiculous. They aren't a scientific organisation and they have no credibility. You just make your argument look ridiculous by even mentioning them.
I would have to go back and check but your papers did lack credibility. If I remember correctly many didn't even really address the issue at all and most have been totally rejected by the majority of experts.
ID is not an area of research. If you research ID at all there is a good chance you will be looking for intelligence and probably convince yourself you have found it. The correct approach is to use whatever field is relevant (biology, archaeology, etc), research the subject, and if intelligence is indicated then study it.
Surely you agree that if we are going to take the idea of design seriously then we should be able to say who the designer might be. If there is no feasible candidate for a designer then the idea of design is less likely (although not impossible of course).
It's not really possible to say what the signs of natural processes might be in the general case. For a stone tool it might be one thing, for a biological system another. The ID concept of irreducible complexity is a fair one to indicate that evolution would not be a good explanation, but there has never been a good case of IC ever made. Comment 30 (4193) by richard on 2014-11-24 at 17:41:13:
Well, with regard to that first charge, I think it's easier to let them speak for themselves at http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/. Of course I didn't their members might not have a 'preferred creator' just that ID itself does not proceed thru to any particular conclusion. A significant difference.
Looking back at the old blog posts, you generally rejected the papers based on critiquing the authors rather than the paper content, or used the same tactic as above, stating that they are rejected by a majority of experts, which is not actually helpful, though I understand it. But we've been thru that discussion before.
"Convince yourself you have found it"? I don't understand why ID could not equally be undertaken with 'a motivation' to dis-prove intelligent involvement? SO that charge works both ways. Yes, you have stated exactly the correct approach and described ID well.
Stating who the designer might be, is nice, but not absolutely necessary for the particular question of whether design is involved or not. Clearly the identity of a designer for the universe is by definition undetectable by science, but that doesn't cancel out the clear evidence making a case for design one bit.
"It's not really possible to say what the signs of natural processes might be..."??!! Eh? And yet you are confident that there is no evidence for design? How can that be? This is simply trying to confuse by making things more complex than they have to be. Also, the whole point (in your world view) is that there is absolutely no difference between a stone tool and a biological system. Both came about completely thru natural processes. The design exhibited by the tools creator included! Biological systems are just physical systems - in your view, so design evidence or lack of it, is detected the same way.
Again - we'd have to look at each case, but the world of biology is full of examples of IC, and I have never seen a compelling refutation of any of them. The eye is commonly used as such an example of IC - and of refuted IC, but quite frankly, the refutation is very weak - at least Dawkins attempt is. Without prior 'purpose' in 'mind', there is simply no good justification for the natural selection of the independent required 'parts' UNTIL the machinery is complete. Complex fairy stories are constructed using already complex designs observed in nature Comment 31 (4194) by OJB on 2014-11-24 at 21:43:02:
So you let the Discovery Institute speak for itself? OK. let's have the KKK speak for itself too: "We are not Klansmen and Klanswomen because we hate anyone. We belong to The Knights because we dream of a better world for our children – a safe and secure world. It is not hatred but rather the glimmer of hope in the eyes of our children that motivates us." Sounds good, should I join?
Yes, in science a paper which is critiqued by all the experts and is written by a non-specialist, especially one with a religious conviction, is probably not worth spending too much time on. If the paper has any merit it will become apparent over time that the consensus is wrong. But, of course, that isn't what's happening here.
Few people have any motivation to disprove intelligent design. It's just a non-issue because there's just no reason to think it exists in the natural world, unless you want to create a fantasy based on religious bias, of course.
There is no clear evidence for design and I can see no reason why a designer couldn't be studied by science. If this designer created things in the real world then that interaction should be easy to study. But only if it existed outside of the deluded fantasies of people who prefer to believe in myths create by bronze age desert nomads.
We understand processes likely to lead to objects (tools, living things, whatever) being created. If the form those objects take fits with those processes then it is reasonable to think that the were responsible. The processes vary greatly but in every case studied so far very credible natural mechanisms have been identified. We simply have no need for your god!
Maybe you should go and Google material on the evolution of the eye. I'm not sure if Dawkin's explanation is good or not, but I know I have read of many very credible evolutionary paths. But I guess while they are good enough for scientists they might not be up to the same high standards of credibility of the Bible. Yeah right! Comment 32 (4195) by richard on 2014-11-28 at 12:10:06:
Hmm - getting a bit silly there I have to say - is it not fairly easy to test whether the claims 'believed' by KKK members justify their actions. Obviously they do not. On the other hand, with DI, the evidence showing the truth of the claim they state (believe) i.e. that the specific PROCESS of ID being undertaken by DI does not of itself proceed further to specifically naming a potential designer stacks up just fine. They are two separate questions.
Again, you attempt to introduce confusion to this topic by bringing in the bible, God and religion etc which has no relevance to this discussion on 'evidence that produces an inference of design' whatsoever. Red Herring alert - the usual tactic of a struggling argument.
Obviously, whether very credible natural mechanisms have been identified for the forms that even Dawkins acknowledges have the 'appearance of design', is the very debate in question. You have read MANY credible evolutionary paths for the eye?! - wow. Can you point me to your best one please. As always it's not the rhetorical story that contains any real evidence, it's the detail (at the gene level where evolution operates) of how the statistical improbability introduced by the IC has been overcome.
Comment 33 (4196) by OJB on 2014-11-28 at 13:04:00:
My point was that there is little point in reading any description a political/religious organisation gives itself. A better approach is to look at the consensus of experts. DI want to pretend they are doing science so let's look at the scientific consensus on their credibility: that would be that they're a joke.
The vast majority of believers in ID are motivated by religion, including you. Introducing a discussion of the primary motivation for an idea is hardly a red herring!
Look, just Google it OK, there are some excellent movies showing the evolutionary steps in the development of the eye. There are also more technical discussions. It really just isn't an issue to anyone, except those desperately looking for a way to support their superstitious beliefs. And there is no IC that I am aware of. Every potential case which has been presented has been shown to have a viable evolutionary path. Comment 34 (4197) by richard on 2014-12-02 at 13:57:04:
Understand your point, but my obvious point in return is that until we understand the actual reasons that a 'panel' of experts may consider ID to be a joke, then simply stating their view tells us nothing about the truth - it tells us only about the panel of experts and that their opinion may be shown to be the same as yours appears to be - fallacious. The fact that you keep falling back on discrediting the source of the information, (political/religious) instead of the details of the information itself is extremely telling.
It is very easy to determine whether the description that these folk provide is accurate. Remembering that we are NOT at this point even discussing whether ID is true or not, we are only discussing whether the process uses a similar scientific method than many other fields of scientific discovery use to examine the evidence left from the distant past.
You have used that tired ole ad-hominem fallacy before, and I will always respond the same, until you grasp that it is invalid. Claiming world-view motivation is a factor that affects one ability for scientific examination for one side, is fine - as long as you are prepared to apply that rule consistently, which you are not. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the same problem can't exist for the opposing world-view. So that argument is simply a waste of space.
Final answer (or lack of it) is exactly as one would expect if (as I claimed) there is a reluctance to get into the detail, but rather hope that the story as a whole sounds plausible - which of course it does - that's the point - it's a house of cards - it won't fall over until the appropriate pressure of close examination reveals it has no real substance. You won't even link the one you put your faith on the most?! Comment 35 (4198) by richard on 2014-12-02 at 14:30:50:
I have tried to accommodate you, and 'Googled it'. Assuming the Univ' Berkeley should be a pretty good reliable source on good evolutionary theory, I found this link here, which is a PDF worksheet for their evo students on the evolution of the eye:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/eye_evolution.pdf
It includes this link to their 'Understanding Evolution' study pages, this one specifically about Eye evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/1_0_0/eyes_01
Thought this was a nicely written set of pages, with lots of interesting stuff (obviously not new to me). Before going any further, am keen to know - would you consider this a fair representation of the basis for an explanation of the evolution of the eye you talk about above?
Oh yeah, you mentioned movies - I tried googling 'evolution answer for the eye', but the first one in the list was a Dawkins quick summary effort:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSw6vytoLGA
Would appreciate your comments on this one too. Is this the sort of evidence you were referring to? Cheers.
Comment 36 (4199) by OJB on 2014-12-02 at 15:54:17:
Re comment 34. I think I said the DI (Discovery Institute) is a joke, not ID (Intelligent Design), but to answer your question... The experts think the DI is a joke because it is obviously political, it does no science, its ideas have been disproved yet they persist, it has an obvious religious bias, and it is extremely dishonest. There is no information of a scientific nature because it is a religious/political organisation, not a scientific one. This is the point I have been trying to make!
I'm very happy to apply the rule consistently. Let's do that. Question: Does ID explain the variety of life on Earth better than evolution? It's a scientific question. Who has the credibility to study this question? Scientists, not the DI. What do the vast majority of scientists agree? That evolution is true. Case closed. Thank you.
The DI has produced no science so there is nothing to critique. I'm explaining to you why they produce no science: because they are a political/religious organisation, not a scientific one.
Final point, will discuss in next comment. Comment 37 (4200) by OJB on 2014-12-02 at 16:08:36:
Re the Berkeley link: I'm sure I've seen something much better somewhere but I can't find it right now (yeah, I know how that sounds!) but that one isn't bad.
Re the movie: yes, that's a very quick and simple version but it captures the basic ideas very well: that simple incremental steps are possible and that examples of many of these steps are seen in nature. Comment 38 (4201) by OJB on 2014-12-02 at 16:09:46:
Before you comment further, please revise the following philosophical concept: Inference to the Best Explanation. Comment 39 (4202) by richard on 2014-12-03 at 07:59:21:
Have understood the point you are trying to make all along. I'm not even sure what 'obviously political' actually means when referring to its work on ID, but I get that this is just another ad-hominem move. It does no science? That's the question we are discussing isn't it, so just stating is as fact is fruitless (and bad science), as is discussing the credibility of the person who makes a claim, rather than the facts of the claim itself (you said 'who has credibility to study this qn? Scientists not the DI'). Actually the intellectual credentials of many of the members in the DI, is just as good as many of the loudest critics, but again the point I have been trying to make all along, is that this is an illegitimate way to argue - that's faith not science.
Again - stick to one discussion point at a time - we are not discussing whether evolution is true at this point. The DI are only involved in a discussion about whether their claim that the ID they do fits the recognized criteria of 'science'. BTW - if we were discussing whether evolution is true, that does not even have to include ID - just a scientific examination of whether evolution has the capability to produce what we observe. There are a surprising number of non ID scientists who are examining alternatives (not ID) precisely because they are starting to see the weaknesses of the current model (that just happen to have been highlighted by the ID crowd). Evolution may be true, it may be not, but one thing is glaringly obvious to anyone who cares about truth enough to be honest about it - the case is most certainly not closed. Cheers. Comment 40 (4203) by richard on 2014-12-03 at 08:15:08:
RE Berkeley - no problem, I understand it's not easy to find the ideal links.
Re: "Please revise the following philosophical comment: Inference to the Best Explanation". I think I recognize the comment as one of Stephen Meyers well used quotes, but not sure exactly what you are after. Given ALL science is actually based on a philosophical foundation about the nature of reality anyway, I am not sure what you are trying to do by suggesting this particular comment is any more philosophical? I think the phrase captures fairly well, the nature of some scientific investigations, namely those about past events that are non-reproducible in the lab. Obviously some science (for which experiments can be reproduced) does not need to use 'Inference to the best explanation', but the historical category does - as I have said before - fields like CSI, Big Bang Cosmology, Archaeology, Evolution theory and other sciences have only this to resort to. This is not a failing of any of those endeavours, otherwise our court system would not function for example. Is that what you were asking for? Do you have a problem with the concept? Cheers. Comment 41 (4204) by richard on 2014-12-03 at 08:22:37:
This video from Stephen Meyer, I think discusses this current topic well re the "Inference to the best explanation', and whether ID is science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHawDCUyFSg&noredirect=1
Comment 42 (4205) by richard on 2014-12-03 at 08:39:47:
Or this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xRGtJHC1E Comment 43 (4206) by OJB on 2014-12-03 at 10:44:42:
Re comment 39...
The DI does no science. I believe there was one published paper which was then retracted because it was of such poor quality. If they did real science they would be publishing and participating in the scientific community. They're not.
Look at any independent description of the DI, for example Wikipedia. They all describe it as a political and/or religious organisation. Why? because that's what it is. It uses the tactic of fake science to try to push a religious belief on the public, including young people in schools. That's their mission, and it's not very honest.
I agree it is possible to scientifically investigate whether intelligent design exists, but that's not what the DI does. In fact some attempts have been made to do that but they all show negative results. That's why the DI doesn't do science. If it did it would sabotage its own political/religious objective. Comment 44 (4207) by OJB on 2014-12-03 at 10:46:37:
Re comment 40. Yeah, forget about the Inference to the Best Explanation thing. I can see it isn't really going to help here. Comment 45 (4208) by OJB on 2014-12-03 at 10:55:34:
Re comment 41 (and 42?)...
Whether ID is science or not depends on definitions. He's wrong about science not considering ID and he's really just obfuscating the real issues. As I have said on many occasions, if any evidence appeared indicating design rather than natural processes science would quickly have to change its existing theories. But that evidence never appears because there never has been any intelligent design simply because there is no designer (according to current evidence).
Note again that I'm not saying the search for intelligent design can't be science, what I am saying is that how ID research is currently being done, by the DI and others, isn't science. Comment 46 (4209) by richard on 2014-12-04 at 12:26:01:
RE Comment 43: You and Wikipedia can say that stuff all you like - you have yet to provide any evidence to back those claims that doesn't just amount to other people saying the same thing (also without evidence).
Anyone who is honest enough to spend time reading the huge number of articles regarding ID (in particular remember) is welcome to decide if the content (much of which is examining other peer reviewed papers) is science or not. I (like Stephen Meyer) am fine with disagreement re the conclusions but fail to see how it can be disqualified as science - without disqualifying all other analysis of the same peer reviewed papers - that's what peer review is. So as usual we'll just have to disagree.
On the topic of dishonesty, that's simply ridiculous - that they have a belief that the claim that evolution (correctly defined) has the creative ability to account for all diversity of life on earth is bogus - is openly stated, as is their desire to make that widely known. What's dishonest about that. This is simple logic - You can't claim they are trying to push a religious belief onto schools until you have proven that this belief is religious - it has nothing to do with religion. It's a perfectly reasonable scientific debate, and one wonders why the evolution crowd are so scared of allowing students the academic freedom to examine both the strengths AND the weaknesses in the theory. This after all is the very thing that might provide your solution to those weaknesses - IF of course the theory is in fact true. Yep - one really has to wonder... Comment 47 (4210) by richard on 2014-12-04 at 12:31:08:
RE Comment 44 - Yes well, I can see it isn't going to help YOU any here that's all. What were you hoping for with that line of argument I wonder? I will take that as an obvious admission on your part that the 'Inference to the best explanation' is a perfectly reasonable scientific investigative process as the videos suggest, and wonder how you can still claim ID isn't 'science'. It's been a fun debate. Cheers. Comment 48 (4211) by OJB on 2014-12-04 at 15:04:07:
Re comment 46: Well the DI clearly isn't a scientific organisation because it doesn't do science (I can say that for the reasons I have already listed). It seeks to change political rules regarding teaching religion in schools so I guess saying it is a political/religious organisation makes a certain amount of sense.
Well people who actually understand science (scientists and scientific organisations) have done that and decided it isn't science, so fine, that's decided then.
Their dishonesty is that they are using their religious beliefs, thinly disguised as science, to try to influence public policy regarding teaching religion in schools. That is very dishonest and dangerous.
Again, I have no problem with the idea of looking for signs of design in nature. that has been done. none was found so far. So the idea of ID itself isn't necessarily wrong. My problem is with how a half reasonable idea (ID) has been cynically hijacked by a political/religious think tank (the DI and others).
Re comment 47: I thought the idea supported my side actually, but then I saw how a sufficiently motivated person could warp it to fit any side, which is why I thought it had no value here. Comment 49 (4212) by richard on 2014-12-05 at 15:57:18:
Actually you can't say that (again) for reasons you have listed, you haven't listed any legitimate reasons.
Scientists understand their field of study. Deciding on the definition of science is NOT actually science either - it is philosophical - clearly it's impossibly circular to list the experiments (done under the definition of science) that demonstrate the definition of science! So in fact - the definition of science is more the realm of those trained in the philosophy of science than scientists. People like - oh yes Stephen Meyer!
Of course that is not to say that scientists do not also understand science - of course I agree with you on that. Just that you are wrong to suggest they alone set the definition.
But in any case, I agree with Meyer, that it's weak to dismiss an argument by calling it non-science - whatever you call it, what matters more is whether the claims are true.
Dishonesty - no - the following FAQ link explains their mission with regard to education, one which any honest enquirer should applaud: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutScienceEducationPolicy
You may not like this mission (I get that) but don't try to label it dishonest - that won't wash with any thinking person. Comment 50 (4213) by OJB on 2014-12-06 at 12:16:21:
Those reasons are sufficient for any person open to reason and whose mind hasn't been warped by superstition. Practically every expert in the area plus all major information sources recognise that the DI is political. You (a person who belongs to a church which clearly teaches nonsense) disagree. Gee, I wonder who has the greatest credibility?
Can I say yet again that I think the investigation of possible intelligent design in nature can be a scientific pursuit but in the case of the DI and most others who are pursuing this, it isn't. The definition of science is irrelevant. If anyone found empirical evidence for design (whether they labelled it science or not) through a rigorous process then they could publish it and have it taken seriously. But of course, that doesn't happen.
I don't usually follow links to propaganda from political organisations otherwise we just get another statement like the KKK one I presented above. But I did follow this one. Oddly that page is contrary to the opinions of most experts. I'm skeptical. OK, let's just say what I really think: it's all just lies.
In fact anyone who really thinks does see through their dishonesty. It is only people who desperately cling to outdated superstition who find it compelling. Comment 51 (4216) by richard on 2014-12-08 at 11:48:29:
I like most readers I suspect, am happy to put my 'faith' in the opinion of experts, ONLY when they have provided sufficient evidence to back up the claim. This of course applies to all fields of study, but wrt DI and dishonesty, once again I remind you that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that they are being dishonest, i.e. following some 'different mission' to the one they have printed, nor have you cited any.
An when you vigourously wish to advance a claim that ID is 'not science', (again - so...?) and then claim that the definition of science is irrelevant then I'm sorry, but you don't help your case as a purveyor of sound logic. I suppose the definition of dishonesty isn't relevant to your above charge then either?
Likewise, your statement about refusing to following links to 'propganda from political organisations' is equally troubling - when trying to answer the question of whether they are a political organisation?! So we should believe your opinion or even believe you have the capability to reach a sound conclusion on the topic... why exactly?
BTW though - what is this issue with being political anyway?! Of course they are a political organisation - in terms of their stated mission. That's no different to the VERY obvious political mission of those with the opposing view, i.e. Dawkins, Sagan, and now De-Grasse Tyson and Seth MacFarlane with Cosmos, Jerry Coyne, Ann Reid (who took over from Eugenie Scott as the Director of the NCSE). I may disagree completely with their opinions, but am not shallow enough to reject their views using a silly claim that they are a 'political organisation', which of course they all are - directly analogous to the DI.
How do we know the other experts you have clearly put your faith in are behaving any better? I grow weary of this endless name calling. Let me know if you ever want to talk evidence. Cheers. Comment 52 (4217) by OJB on 2014-12-08 at 13:49:43:
OK, let's talk about the Wedge Document, shall we? Comment 53 (4218) by OJB on 2014-12-08 at 13:57:05:
The opening words form the Wedge Document: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
Ad a bit further through: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Remember this is a secret document that was leaked. It's a bit different from their stated mission, wouldn't you say? They're a dishonest political/religious organisation intent on pushing their discredited personal religious beliefs on innocent children. That's pretty disgusting. You might be able to see why I can be a bit insulting to them sometimes. Comment 54 (4219) by richard on 2014-12-10 at 17:39:10:
Thanks for something real to comment on. :)
The opening words whether you 'like' them or not are absolutely true both for theists and atheists alike. I see no issue with that at all. It is a statement of fact. Whether human beings ARE created in the image of God is not in question within that particular truth claim, only that 'the proposition was one of the bedrock principles...' is. So... what?
Second phrase. Again - Reasoned folk will understand the predication of this statement on the belief that Design theory is true. IF it is true, then this straight forward proposition statement, is also perfectly true. Without full context and taking as you have supplied it, a fair reading is that it is a simple statement about Design Theory, (more than the DI) and if Design Theory is true as they believe then there should no problem at all for anyone to understand that the promise statement would be a true one.
Even IF a concession was made in your favour to interpret that as some secret mission statement more like "The DI wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" Again - so what? This is a shock to you?
Any reasoned adult can understand that they are simply saying we'd like to ensure Science matches REALITY (as they interpret REALITY based on the scientific evidence).
If you (or the NCSE) were to pen a similar statement relevant when reflecting on your scientific beliefs, then of course it would be something like: "Evolution theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of Theistic convictions and replace it with a science consonant with materialism".
I don't have an issue with the truth of that statement IF Evolution (in the macro sense) were true. Nor do I even see any sense in complaining that that this is undoubtedly their MISSION - other than of course that imo their belief on the premise re evo and materialsim is mistaken.
In short anyone complaining about this as some kind of conspiracy needs to grow up and get over it. This is like somehow being 'shocked' that Richard Dawkins want to convert theists to atheism as if this isn't obviously the goal. Am I shocked? Not at all - though in that case, the grounding for justifying the endeavour has no sound rational. If he is right - then why bother?! Cheers, Rich. Comment 55 (4220) by OJB on 2014-12-10 at 22:38:43:
OK, so the point I was trying to make is that the Discovery Institute is a religious/political organisation and has done no science. Therefore its opinion on scientific subjects should be treated with extreme skepticism.
You also accused me several times of using an ad hominem attack. You're right I did, and I explained above why. Ad hominem is an informal logical fallacy and there are times when it is perfectly reasonable to use it. This is one of those times.
Note that there is no science supporting ID, and as far as I know no real theology either. It is nothing. The only reason for its existence is the opinions of people like those from the DI. I've shown that their opinion is worthless making DI (in it's current form) also worthless. Comment 56 (4221) by richard on 2014-12-11 at 09:01:16:
Well if there are really any other readers, (I doubt it) we'll just have to leave it for them to decide whether you have truly'shown' that, or rather merely stated it as your opinion several times, in several creative and increasingly desperate ways during this thread. Funny thing is, the 'point you are trying to make' has been clear from the beginning, I am just trying to encourage you to use real science to make that case. The fact that reality is different, means of course that there is no science that can do this. Hence the resorting to other techniques (the word fallacy, does have a clear meaning you know). There is no case when it's reasonable to use it if one is capable of restricting oneself to a single specific truth claim. This is basic stuff. Well, it's been fun. I have as always enjoyed the exchange. Hope you did too. Cheers. Comment 57 (4223) by OJB on 2014-12-11 at 10:02:12:
Sounds like you want to wrap up this particular discussion so I will summarise my points here. I believe these are indisputable by any reasonable person...
1. There is little if any support for intelligent design in the scientific community. Any examples of design (such as claims of irreducible complexity) given in books have been disproved when credible natural processes have been demonstrated.
2. The major driver of ID is the Discovery Institute which is accepted by all neutral sources as a political/religious organisation rather than a scientific one.
3. The Wedge Document clearly shows the hidden agenda of the DI is to push creationism (disguised as ID) into schools and to attempt to discredit evolution.
4. The consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. It is supported by 95% of scientists and 99% of biologists.
5. If signs of intelligent design did exist in biology it would quickly be detected (without the specific need for a discipline of intelligent design) and result in necessary changes to current theories. That hasn't happened.
6. The search for intelligent design is potentially a real scientific activity but it has been hijacked by the religious community and used in an extremely cynical and dishonest way purely to advance their political and religious agenda. Comment 58 (4225) by OJB on 2014-12-11 at 10:21:44:
And regarding the other readers... looking at the logs there have been a lot of views from IP addresses quite different from those you and I use. I guess they could be automated services, etc, but I have most of those mapped out. I have always suspected there are a few readers of this blog who don't like to comment. I doubt whether anyone has bothered reading the whole debate here however!
You can leave comments about this entry using this form. To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
![[Comments]](../XuShared/Comment1B.jpeg) ![[Preview]](../XuShared/Comment6B.jpeg) ![[Blog]](../XuShared/Up2B.jpeg) ![[Blog]](../XuShared/Comment5B.jpeg)
|
![[Contact]](../XuShared2/Line2a.jpeg){kind=small}
![[Server Blog]](../XuShared2/Line2b2.jpeg){kind=small}
![[AntiMS Apple]](../XuShared2/Line2c1.jpeg){kind=small}
![[Served on Mac]](../XuShared2/Line2d.gif){kind=small}