|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
My answer above should be sufficient. My view: That the earth has existed for billions of years best fits the available evidence. That does not require any contradiction, nor does it lead to any head explosion.
So I ask you how long do you think the Earth has existed? Billions of years? Less than 10,000 years? Or both simultaneously? I am reminded of the mathematician Paul Erdős who used to say that he was 2 billion years old. His reasoning was that when he was young the world was 2 billion years old, and now it is 4 billion years old. So a simple subtraction gave his age as 2 billion. Erdős was joking, of course. But his joke reminds us that statements about the age of the earth are based on evidence that is present today. And it also reminds us that science is tentative and subject to revision.
You cannot claim a high degree of confidence in the Earth being billions of years old whilst also claiming to be anything but a de facto atheist with regard to the conclusion that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (or less than a wekk old in the case of last Thursdayism).
Sorry, but I still disagree. One is a statement of empirical truth (truth derived from evidence). The other is a statement of metaphysical truth. Those are two complete different systems of truth, so one cannot contradict the other. As I think I have said before, I am agnostic with respect to metaphysical truth. I believe it to be unknowable. We should stick to empirical truth, and not concern ourselves with metaphysical truth. I recognize that some scientists believe that they are discovering metaphysical truths. I believe that they are mistaken. Perhaps you are one of those who believe science uncovers metaphysical truths, and perhaps that is why you keep demanding an answer for what I have already sufficiently answered. I see metaphysics as a foolish enterprise, and will not be pressured into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So I ask you how long do you think the Earth has existed? Billions of years? Less than 10,000 years? Or both simultaneously? My answer above should be sufficient. It isn't. It is avoiding the question. How long do you believe the Earth has actually existed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I don’t accept the implicit premise that intelligent design must be non-naturalistic. Fair enough. I think we need to distinguish between the likelihood of an intelligent designer that is itself the product of mindless natural processes and an intelligent designer that is inherently "supernatural" (whatever exactly that means - which we can come to if necessary). With regard to an advanced complex alien lifeform (for example) that itself evolved (or was otherwise derived from less compex origins and mindless physical processes) and that may have had some role in Earths biological design at the very early stages (abiogenesis sort of stuff)........... Well I am skeptical to be honest. But rationally I think I would say that a greater degree of agnosticism is justified in this case. There is no direct evidence for such a conclusion but there is relatively little against it either (I reserve the right to qualify this as I haven't thought about it that much). However with regard to the possibility of a supernatural designer? Well all the evidence available strongly implies that the entire concept of a supernatural designer is a human invention. And thus I remain deeply skeptical and advocate that this skepticism is evidentially justified
It’s possible to design things while staying fully within the limitations of the laws of physics. Yes if the designer themselves is also subject to such laws. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
nwr writes:
My earlier answer was:
My answer above should be sufficient. nwr writes: My view: That the earth has existed for billions of years best fits the available evidence. Straggler writes:
Well, tough. I don't give in to bullies, and I will thank you to cease and desist from all future intellectual bullying.
It isn't. It is avoiding the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That the earth has existed for billions of years best fits the available evidence. Well if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old based on the empirical evidence you cannot claim to be agnostic about the omphalist claim that the empirical evidence is lying and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old can you? The two are blatantly mutually exclusive.
Well, tough. I don't give in to bullies, and I will thank you to cease and desist from all future intellectual bullying. Oh don't be so damn precious. Pointing out that you are wrong is not "bullying".
Perhaps you are one of those who believe science uncovers metaphysical truths, and perhaps that is why you keep demanding an answer for what I have already sufficiently answered. I see metaphysics as a foolish enterprise, and will not be pressured into it. The point you are missing is that omphalism is not claiming "metaphysical truth" (whatever that means anyway). Omphalism is claiming physical truth. Namely that the Earth\Universe has physically existed for less than 10,000 years. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hey Mod
His argument is against the design arguments that terminate with a more complex entity than was originally raised. Which, he argues, is not the way the evidence indicates things work around here. How are we objectively determining complexity? One of the most common ID arguments is that X is too complex to have arisen naturally. Are we not in danger here of making the mirror image claim that Y is not simple enough to have occurred naturally? How are we objectively assessing complexity/simplicity and the boundary between that which can have arisen on it's own and that which cannot? I intuitively agree with Dawkins argument. But this concerns me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
I have nothing but disdain for religion. You are making science into religion, a kind of fundamentalist scientism. A fundamentalist scientism is every bit as foolish as any other fundamentalist religion. Well if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old based on the empirical evidence you cannot claim to be agnostic about the omphalist claim that the empirical evidence is lying and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old can you? The two are blatantly mutually exclusive. Science is tentative. That the earth is around 4 billion years old is a tentative conclusion. There is no need to make it into any kind of belief. And no, they are not "mutually exclusive" as I have explained several times. You appear to be too blinded by your religion of fundamental scientism to be able to understand that.
Straggler writes:
Well, of course, you never pointed out that I am wrong. The most you could do was point out that you think I am wrong (as if that wasn't already obvious before my first reply to you). Oh don't be so damn precious. Pointing out that you are wrong is not "bullying". My use of the term "bullying" has nothing to do with your pointing out anything. Rather, it was a comment on your repeated insistent demands that I publicly express allegiance to one of the creeds of your fundamentalist scientism.
Straggler writes:
I'll take that as an admission that you are unable to make the distinction, probably because your religion of fundamentalist scientism does not allow it.
The point you are missing is that omphalism is not claiming "metaphysical truth" (whatever that means anyway).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
The recent discussion has been mostly off-topic. For those wishing to exchange shots at 40 paces, please use private messaging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Science is tentative. Absolutely. I could not agree more. And have said so numerous times on multiple occasions. But if you believe the empirical conclusion that the Earth is probably billions of years old you can hardly also conclude that you are utterly agnostic towards the non-empirical omphalistic conclusion that it is less than 10,000 years old. Except in the trivial sense of not having absolute certainty. Which, as I have repeatedly stated, I also do not believe in. Here is Bertrand Russel on that yet again:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality" A fundamentalist scientism is every bit as foolish as any other fundamentalist religion. Absolutely. I could not agree with that more either.
You are making science into religion, a kind of fundamentalist scientism. No. I am talking about your contradictory claims. On one hand you state confidence in the empirically evidenced conclusion whilst on the other you mainitain that you are wholly agnostic about a conclusion based on denying the validity of the empirical evidence. That is ridiculous. However you word it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oh. I have just seen this having already applied to nwr. Sorry.
If he or anyone else wants to discuss omphalism further I will start a new topic. I think it is one of those subjects that gets the normally rational and evidentially sane into a mode of unthinking agnosticism for all the wrong reasons. For that reason it might be a worthwhile topic in it's own right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design? That was the question posed in the OP. The following is my answer.
In every single practical sense evolutionary theory has refuted the Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis. This does not mean that the role of ID in biology has been disproved. It remains a logical and philosophical possibility. But little more. Because the mutually exclusive and highly evidenced wholly naturalistic alternative is so successful in terms of explanation, prediction and evidential foundation that nobody beyond those with a religious agenda and those who choose to spend their time bickering on debate boards gives the philosophically possible role of ID in biology a second thought. Any role that can be claimed for an intelligent designer in the realm of biology has been refuted by Darwinism. No teacher of biology except those with a subjective religious agenda of some sort would consider it necessary to teach anything but that the species on Earth are the product of mindless natural processes. No educator except those with a religious agenda would feel the need to include in their syllabus the philosophical possibility of evolution that includes a bit of intelligent design thrown in here and there along the way. Perhaps more pertinent to this discussion is the fact that no serious biological researcher investigating as yet unexplained areas of biology (i.e. the much lauded gaps) is including the role of a supernatural designer in their hypotheses. Even those biologists working on the fringes of, or slightly outside, the modern Darwinian synthesis do not posit an un-evolved intelligent designer as a meaningful explanation to any as yet unsolved biological question (unless, again, there is an underlying religious agenda of some sort). ID has been all but eliminated by the modern Darwinian synthesis in every way that matters. In every way beyond philosophical musings. To all practical intents and purposes the world of biology is de facto atheist with regard to the role of an intelligent designer having any role in the design of biological systems. And the theory of evolution is indisputably responsible for this. But is this de facto atheism towards ID evidentially justified? Proponents of intelligent design would say NO. They would say that the fact that a wholly naturalistic form of evolution has been promoted at the expense of ID is the result of philosophical bias rather than evidence. They would say that those researchers exploring gaps in our knowledge are unjustified in considering and researching only naturalistic possibilities without also considering intelligent design as a meaningful and evidentially valid alternative. They would (notoriously) claim that teaching only naturalistic evolutionary biology whilst excluding intelligent design as a valid alternative possibility is a form of naturalistic indoctrination. Are they right? Are we evidentially justified in ignoring the possible intelligent design answers to gaps and in effect treating them as irrelevant and unworthy of serious consideration? I say yes. I say that the intelligent design hypothesis has demonstrated itself to be utterly worthless every single time it has been tested or examined. I say that the naturalistic answer has shown itself to be wholly superior at every available opportunity. I say that there is no contest or even debate beyond the philosophical. The success of evolutionary theory has been one of the most significant stepping stones towards the pre-eminence of the wider naturalistic paradigm. But it is far from the only step. The success of naturalism over superstition is founded upon, and evidenced by, the entirety of human history and the uni-directional flow of scientific advancement in the face of supernatural retreat. This forms an impressive and ever progressing wall of evidence against which any proposed intelligent design explanation must be considered. So what is the evidence against Intelligent Design? The evidence against intelligent design is all of the evidence in favour of a wholly naturalistic form of evolution. And that incorporates all of the evidence that supports the modern Darwinian synthesis and all of the evidence that supports the wider naturalistic scientific paradigm. The entirety of, and history of, human evidence based thought and knowledge. How much more evidence do you need?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How are we objectively determining complexity? One of the most common ID arguments is that X is too complex to have arisen naturally. Are we not in danger here of making the mirror image claim that Y is not simple enough to have occurred naturally? How are we objectively assessing complexity/simplicity and the boundary between that which can have arisen on it's own and that which cannot? I intuitively agree with Dawkins argument. But this concerns me.
Biologists only need to go to the level of simplicity provided by basic laws of chemistry and physics. They can then say 'we can explain biology in terms of chemistry and logic. Chemists say we can explain things in terms of physics and logic. Physiscists are the ones struggling with the fundamentals, the 'simplest' bits. Most physicists seem to agree that it just keeps getting simpler (and ironically more difficult to understand). What it means to be 'simple enough' for an ultimate natural explanation - is an open question. One thing is for sure - the Mandelbrot set was created by a rather simple equation - not a painter with a brush of infinite detail. The overall pattern is simple things giving rise to complex things through a sequence of interactions , each simple individiually but because of sheer numbers and other factors - are rather chaotic and 'complex' and it turns out that complexity and simplicity are actually the same thing. But that sounds like a road that needs a mathematician to go down, which I ain't.
One of the most common ID arguments is that X is too complex to have arisen naturally. Are we not in danger here of making the mirror image claim that Y is not simple enough to have occurred naturally? If it helps - I don't think these are mirror images. I think they are synonymous claims. "Not simple enough" and "Too complex" are basically the same, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
One thing is for sure - the Mandelbrot set was created by a rather simple equation - not a painter with a brush of infinite detail. Simplicity can breed complexity. In so far as there is any dispute at all that isn't it.
The overall pattern is simple things giving rise to complex things through a sequence of interactions , each simple individiually but because of sheer numbers and other factors - are rather chaotic and 'complex' and it turns out that complexity and simplicity are actually the same thing. In the context of deriving the "obviously" complex from the "obviously" simple - Yes.
If it helps - I don't think these are mirror images. I think they are synonymous claims. "Not simple enough" and "Too complex" are basically the same, right? But when we are talking about immaterial entities (which I consider to have their own evidential problems) how can we measure complexity or simplicity? How can we meaningfully say that "God" is too complex to have been the first non-caused cause when we don't know what "complexity" is in any objective sense? Dawkins says that simple to complex is an evidenced and one way conclusion. And I agree intuitively. But it troubles me that we cannot objectively define what it is that is that is simple or complex in the context of this argument. Whether you agree or disagree do you see where I am coming from? And if I am being dum I suspect that there are others asking that same questions.... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How can we meaningfully say that "God" is too complex to have been the first non-caused cause when we don't know what "complexity" is in any objective sense? Dawkins says that simple to complex is an evidenced and one way conclusion. And I agree intuitively. But it troubles me that we cannot objectively define what it is that is that is simple or complex in the context of this argument. The people that raise the design argument, when you explore what they are saying - seem to be making a top-down argument rather than a bottom up one and that his point is addressing this. He specifically says that all the characteristics the designer these people are talking about are all the same kinds of characteristics that we started out trying to explain! Intelligence, sentience, forethought, some kind of implementation capability etc.
Whether you agree or disagree do you see where I am coming from? I agree that if you rely on the terms 'simple' and 'complex' to communicate something then you have to at some point explain what you mean by the terms. I suspect that it may end up being circular: A complex thing being defined as being many simple things interacting with one another. And I appreciate that there are potentially ...ahem...complex issues to worry about there...if we're going to do Analytical Philosohpy the subject could keep us occupied for several thousand words and we'd still have only got as far as explaining what we mean by 'define'. Incidentally - I'm perfectly happy to do this subjectively and then go a bit...I dunno, erm heterophenomenological all over it, to wit: The evidence seems to be that things that humans are inclined to identify as complex are actually many interacting things that humans identify as simple, despite humans generally defining those two things as being exclusive properties. And for the purposes of this debate - I think that saves us a lot of time. If we are writing a science paper or a philosophical treatise we might want to go deeper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
He specifically says that all the characteristics the designer these people are talking about are all the same kinds of characteristics that we started out trying to explain! Intelligence, sentience, forethought, some kind of implementation capability etc. Now that, for me, is a much better way of putting it. A designer explains nothing because it requires all of the things it supposedly explains in the first place.
I agree that if you rely on the terms 'simple' and 'complex' to communicate something then you have to at some point explain what you mean by the terms. I suspect that it may end up being circular: A complex thing being defined as being many simple things interacting with one another. And that was my problem. The more I thought about this in terms of simple and complex the more it seemed I was applying circular reasoning.
And for the purposes of this debate - I think that saves us a lot of time. If we are writing a science paper or a philosophical treatise we might want to go deeper. I think you are right that for the purposes of this debate defining simple and complex is unnecessary. Instead we should just think of this in terms of what it is we are trying to explain in the first place. And recognise that invoking the same things we are trying to explain as the explanation is rather pointless. Well it makes more sense to me like that anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024