Skip to comments.Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]
Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
I don't view the finite and the infinite as a basic division of nature, but merely a thought construct. The finite we can handle in our logic. The logic of the infinite seems to involve abstraction, that is, removing all content from the form.
Is this a theory you genuinely espouse, or is it one you fabricated for the sake of argument? If it is the latter, what's your point? Have you somehow demonstrated that the presence of organized matter functioning under predicatable laws cannot be explained by intelligent design?
It makes it non-applicable as science.
You realize there's a term for the claim that science is competent to analyze it's own grounds, or in general is philosophically omni-competent. This is called "scientism". You can endorse this if you wish, but you'll find yourself at odds with virtually all antievolutionists, and most mainstream scientists as well.
Gumlegs, are you laughing yet? I am.
Admittedly it's a beautiful concept, a wonderful faith. I just wish he'd quit trying to call it science and quite bandying around the vernacular "theory" as if he were referring to scientific theory.
What I emphasised was that it would fit any kind of evidence. That's the problem.
You apparently believe some other force is responsible for the presence of organized matter and predicatable laws that govern it. What scientific cause do you propose other than an almighty, intelligent agent?
I don't assume either way
True enough. It's what we disagree on that makes it difficult (and a test of virtue).
As if the theory of intelligent design could not possibly cite a specific intelligent agent! It is actually capable of more specificity than the theory of evolution. It posits a single, almighty, intelligent agent, not vague "forces of nature;" not a concoction of natural selection, random mutations, unguided forces, etc.
It's not a problem at all where the common definition of theory is concerned. Go ahead and cite the definition again, then show me where there are words stating that a theory must be falsifiable or provable, or that there must be evidence available to contradict it.
No, I don't either, especially not before we distinguish among several kinds of infinities. But this pushes us to the long-standing distinction between ens rationis and ens reale
I won't commit the fallacy in any ontological argument which jumps from our concepts to reality. This is the very mistake that scientism and theological dogmatism makes. Their A-is-A chant makes A stands for everything. But epistemology is only one aspect of the universe. Therefore all concepts are adequations.
What's to defend? The sun is hot, and powered by fusion. The nearest galaxies are immensely far away, so that light from them takes hundreds of thousands of years to reach us. Evolution has happened on this planet. I find the evidence for all of these statements to be so compelling that they are facts, as surely as any other fact that I am aware of (barring solipsism). The theory behind them may be debatable, and indeed scientists can be found to debate on the details of all of them, but that doesn't make the facts any more dubious.
Actually, Australians consider that that worked.
I'm not a real scientist but I read them. Evolution (common descent) is a fact acknowledged by people who have examined the evidence, including most ID advocates.
Not everything is known about the genealogy of every living thing, and there are many details to learn about how variation works.
The missing piece for you is that they accept or reject it on merits. It's the other way around: the concensus is reached because of the merits, it does not attain merit purely through concensus. That would be argumentum ad populum.
Both begin with assumptions about the universe that are beyond proof
There's that "proof" word again showing a lack of knowledge of what scientific theory is.
but neither is wholly unreasonable.
Finally, we agree.
If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know.
If I find him I will have him trampled under Her Holy Hooves, that culinary infidel! And you know who you are, PL. Repent!
You can wish all you want, but I don't know why. Post the definition of theory, and then explain to me how it is outside the definition to maintain that the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to an intelligent agent. What is "unnatural" about an intelligent being? I would find it highly unnatural to find organized matter acting according to predictable laws without either intelligence or design as part of the scenario.
Actually "the entire body of knowledge, episteme - philosophy - spiritual and natural - all of it" was not what Paul was refering to in I Timothy 6:20-21
Oooh, replying to a scripture post with post #666.
That aspect has not been lost on me in the least. Both of us are reasonable enough to know that the number of proponents of a theory does not validate the theory. To deduce an intelligent agent from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is not a deduction wholly without merit.
There's that "proof" word again showing a lack of knowledge of what scientific theory is . . .
Read it again. I used the word "proof" in a negative sense, with the understanding that science is, and always will be, speculative in nature.
One thing that may be lost on the evos who've been dealing with me over the years is that I would hardly espouse substituting ID for evolution in the schools. Atheistic science should be welcomed much as any other science, and its proponents treated with respect (although I've done more than my share of initiating disrespectful discourse). I tend to set a bad example in that regard.
I can't link to that due to restrictions. Is it too long to cut and paste?
I can quote scripture for my own purposes
The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.
As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries. In any case, your statement is, in fact, nothing more than, "stuff exists."
At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.
Here we go again. Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science. Your Grand Theory that states "Nothing is comprehensible except for design" is so vague as to be meaningless. I was in the Navy. I can comprehend the ocean. Where's the evidence that it was designed? That it always and everywhere mysteriously goes exactly to the shore and no farther!!?
You again conflate human intelligence, for which we have evidence, with some sort of "other" intelligence, for which there is no evidence and which is beyond our ability to test.
Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
I'm coming to believe there may be something to The Hitchhiker's Guide theory, which is that human thought is considered to be so primitive that it's considered to be infectious disease in much of the universe
The prophesy about Judas Maccabi in Enoch 90 takes the "great horn" (reign) to its end. The end of the Maccabees is in the early reign of King Herod the Great: Antigonus was defeated by Herod with the aid of the Romans, and beheaded at Antioch in 37 B.C. The chapter continues to the Messiah and on to the Messianic Kingdom, end of days and final judgment.
Enoch contains many references to Christ. Throughout Enoch, Jesus Christ is called "the Elect One". Luke 9:35 which was translated "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." actually uses the Greek phrase ho eklelegmenos - IOW, "This is my Son, the Elect One: hear him."
Some scholars believe that Enoch was disfavored by the Jews after the crucifixion because of such references, i.e. they wanted to deny Christ was the Elect One. Later Christian scholars disfavored Enoch because of its discussion of angels and demons. So it fell into obscurity for nearly two millennia. And nowadays, some new agers have picked up Enoch as well as some Jewish mysticism as a basis for their "religion". Jeepers!
As a reminder to Lurkers, the link at post 621 was to a pre-Dead Sea Scroll era translation, 1882. Only one of the five sections did not have fragments found at Qumran. The best translation since (known to me) is in Charlesworth's collection.
As a side point, we cannot say something is random in the system without knowing what the system "is" - which we do not yet know.
Existence exists. God exists. Without that context, we are just blind men trying to describe an elephant.
Science doesn't try to unseat philosophy any more than it tries to unseat mathematics.
But science can change our perception of what is normal, reasonable, intuitive and natural by expanding our ability to observe.
Things that have historically have eluded our ability to assign causes have had causes assigned by science. Some are mundane like volcanos and earthquakes; some a little more difficult, like mental illness.
Our interpretation of these phenomena changes as science advances.
"I would say that anyone who has raised a 2 yr old would agree with me. Disobedience is their natural persuasion and, without the influence of the parents or, as Hillary likes to say, the village, this trait would not be suppressed."
Unless your child is the Bad Seed they also have a natural inclination to try to please their parents too. Children don't know enough to make moral decisions.
Behe denied this. Under oath.
For Lurkers: the word in Greek is gnosis which is interpreted as knowledge in I Cor 13 and 14.
My standard of morlity does not include killing people who disagree with me.
As for the two-year-old, I've raised two kids past that stage. Disobedience is not the natural persuasion, but neither is obedience. The notion of morality and evil is not particularly relevnt when dealing with toddlers.
The book was 'Of Pandas and People'. The major re-editing work was search-n-replace s/God/Designer/g.
My remark at 631 ("all attempts of science to unseat philosophy notwithstanding") speaks to the inclination of many in the science community to suggest that knowledge gained through science is more valuable or certain than knowledge gained through philosophy instead of the other way around.
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In laymans terms, if something is said to be just a theory, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
[this actually matches ID very well]
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
As a belief or logical exercise, maybe even as a hypothesis, it's just fine. I've never said it's illogical to believe or propose ID, just that it is not part of natural science. Or, rather, nobody has been able to present it in a way that is compatible with natural science. Maybe that'll happen, I don't know.
By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.
As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.
Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.
Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.
As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.
Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two?
Of course, Darwin himself asked: "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"
That's his prerogative. He may actually mean what he says, and he may be right. But I'm curious as to the nature of the oath he swore in the first place. Do you have a copy of the oath he took? Maybe we could take a look at it.
Whether one uses the layman's term for theory or the more refined, scientific version, one is still dealing with a body of knowledge that is tentative.
That's OK; I think most folks know who you meant.
("that Prussian astronomer" was a clue.)
Does the IPU have stripper factories or beer volcanoes?
True, but your way lacks any scientific credibility, and therefore should not be taught in a science class. It's only an issue of classification. Teaching it in philosophy or religion class is fine with me.
If you allow ID in the science class, you're paving the way for astrology in an astronomy class, or crystal therapy in med school. If it weren't for the scientific process, we'd all still think polywater and N-rays were real. So if you want people to accept ID as science, allow it to go through the established process rather than redefining the process to match your needs.
That's immoral. Only pagan religions would have that. Although I admit it sounds a lot more fun than running around naked in Her Fields.
Excellent proselytization. Looking for a convert?
You might find this study interesting. How about an ERV found in chimps, gorillas, baboons and macaques but not found in orangutans, siamangs, gibbons or humans? [...] Then consider that the primate-ERV studied is found in Old World Monkeys, not in gibbons or orangutans, and then in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans ...
Sorry, but this is apples-and-oranges.
Virginia-American was speaking of shared ERVs which have the characteristics which show that they are due to a single insertion event (i.e., are monophyletic). If any of these would be found in a pattern (across lineages) which is grossly "out of whack" with other evolutionary indications of phylogeny, in a way that can't be reconciled, this would indeed be a severe problem for evolutionary theory.
The paper you link, however, is about *polyphyletic* patterns (i.e., ones which clearly entered different parts of the primate "tree" at different times during different infection invents) of a specific ERV among primates, and as such is not the kind of potential "killer" for evolutionary theory that a mismatch in a *monophyletic* ERV would be.
As the paper mentions, it does raise some interesting questions which researchers are seeking answers for, but most conceivable answers to those questions will pose no challenge to evolutionary theory (nor require any modification to it).
I consider that to be a non-sequitur of sorts. Qualified, precise language, as well as mild disclaimers, are honest ways of presenting what we know and why we claim to know it. Such things belong in a science class precisely because it is fraught with philosophical and religious underpinnings. To extrapolate from the admittance of ID the admittance of every disjointed notion is to introduce a red herring. There is a measured and mature way for both atheistic and theistic assumptions to be brought to bear if/when necessary.
The debate is overblown in a way, because even though most school textbooks present only the atheistic point of view, they do so only slightly, yet without good reason; they state with confidence things that should be stated with qualification, but they do so within an exceedingly limted framework, little of which is germane to empirical science.
As for astrology in astronomy class, I think that would be a good way to introduce the subject since astronomy stands on the shoulders of those who first observed the stars and tried to make sense of them. That is to say, astrology contains a fair amount of science. And by now you know I grant a wide meaning to the word "science," similar to that of Alamo Girl.
The Messiah is ubiquitous in Jewish prophesy, and it would not be unusual for the author of Enoch to invoke him.
I beg to differ. Or does one have to be paid to observe and comment coherently upon the universe in order to be a "real" scientist?
And I'd agree with them.
Define "right" as you are using it in this sentence. Be specific and precise. If you can clarify the exact nature of your question better, I'll be glad to address it.
If there is a right answer, then there MUST be a standard that makes it so.
What's wrong with the ones I listed?
What makes your definition or standard of morality right and that of the terrorist wrong?
I asked you first -- try answering it. Furthermore, it appears that you have more necessity of answering that question, since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terroists. Mine has far less need to distance itself from that of the terrorist, since mine is based on different foundations entirely.
The "design" part of evolution is the decision of which creature survives, and which does not. That is a very powerful generator of information, as demonstrated by experiments at Caltech's Digital Life Lab.
Besides the validation that evolution theory increases information content, the verification of common descent is very well established by a few thousand ERV virus sequences in common among humans and other primates. We understand how these virus segments get inserted into the genome, and these common sequences are proof that we share common ancestors millions of years ago. Not merely share common ancestry with another species, but that species such as New World Monkeys and humans have a single *individual* we are both descended from. I.E. Great, Great ...... Grandpappy.
That's the facts. If someone wants to explain some other way we share common ancestry with an individual primate millions of years ago, fine. But I have no problem with evolution, and I won't tolerate lying to school children and telling them that evolution is false.