On 23/02/2025 11:43, MarkE wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.

ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times it seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with education.
From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and Evolution News
promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.

In principle Intelligent Design could have been a legitimate scientific research program, albeit one that I would not expect to be productive.
In practice it's a religiously motivated political movement.

ID's studied agnosticism (when not addressing a friendly audience) about
the identity and nature of the designer or designers is what makes it
clear that it's not a scientific research program. A scientific research program would asking be who, what, why, when, where and how, or at the
least how to investigate who, what, why, when, where and how.

The aim of science is to explain (if you're a philosophical realist) or
model (if you're a philosophical anti-realist) the world. By eschewing questions of who, what, when, why, where and how, what ID does is
explain away observations, not explain them.

Personally, I have a degree of ambivalence toward ID. For example, I
think the 'information problem' claimed by ID is real, but I'm a bit surprised that people like William Dembski have not been able to
progress it further after several decades (I've briefly but fruitfully corresponded with him regarding this in the past). More recently, on the topic of junk DNA, I get the impression that Casey Luskin and the Long
Story Short episode on this may have oversimplified and/or overstated arguments against junk DNA (I've made a corrective comment on LSS's
YouTube channel in relation to this).

ID itself is a broad-ish church, for example with a range of views on
common descent and the extent of evolution (e.g. from micro to macro).

So, given all this, why would I speak in support of ID and claim it has gained and sustained traction [2]? My comments here are somewhat
subjective, but with supporting references where applicable. To be
clear, this is intended as a more a personal reflection and not a
rigorous treatise (in contrast to other TO posts where I believe I
attempt to argue consistently and from evidence).

First, the question of origins - either life on earth or the universe
itself - is all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted,
complicated, etc. One would expect strengths and weakness with opposing arguments and interpretation of evidence, as fallible humans grapple
with these ultimate questions. So the shortcomings of ID are not in and
of themselves unexpected or disqualifying.

At its best, I think that ID correctly and non-deceptively infers a non- specific intelligent agent from an interpretation of scientific evidence (while acknowledging many ID proponents are Christians). This aligns
with my own position and I suspect a growing number of Christians who
sit somewhere between YEC and theistic evolution.

The traction that ID has I think partly flows from this genuinely
"agnostic" stance when it comes to comes to inferring a designer. This enables it to focus on the science alone.

Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between
the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each
applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to
identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins. Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e.
on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.

One misunderstanding of this logical asymmetry is demonstrated by the supposed counter-argument, which says that positing God merely shifts
the question to 'Who made God?', which is declared to have no
explanatory power, and therefore can be discounted. Dawkins is fond of
this approach. Sorry Richard, but you can't make God vanish in a puff of pseudo-logic and disingenuous wishful-thinking.

If you have the choice between an uncaused universe or an uncaused god,
or between an eternal universe and an eternal god, plumping for the god
doesn't in itself add any explanatory power, and would be provisionally
shaved using Occam's Razor.

In any case, ID has endured now its modern form for about three decades,
and of the various creationism streams is, as far as I'm aware, by far
the most credibly and substantially engaged with current science. The DI claims a research program and over 250+ peer-reviewed papers published
in mainstream journals [3]. Of course, the validity of these may be
disputed - as are most perspectives and papers in contentious areas
(e.g. string theory).

While ID has not delivered a knock-out punch (obviously), it does seem
to continue to track progress in science and develop its arguments accordingly. Examples include:

1. OOL. Although I've mentioned some specific criticisms of the Long
Story Short video series, overall the fact that they can be made today
is revealing. The series critiquing naturalistic abiogenesis [4]
(claimed to made by five "PhD scientists") directly challenges OOL on
the basis of current science, and exaggerated claims of progress (IMO).
Along with this are books like The Stairway to Life [5], and many
others. And James Tour has waded in to this issue, as an ID sympathiser
at least, and despite his shouty and sometimes dismissive manner, I
think his work very much reinforces what ID is saying [6]. YMMV.

2. Stephen Meyer on most things. He is now the public face of ID, and
its most prominent intellectual spokesperson, debater, and book author.
His guest appearance on Joe Rogan confirm his popular positioning. His genteel conversations with skeptic Michael Shermer I think point to the substantive arguments ID presents. And Meyer's books have deserved
infleunce and impact across topics like first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

4. The whole complexity thing. Yes, I understand (for example) PZ Myers' frustration with ID veering toward "complexity therefore design".
However, the complexity problem is real and growing. Science is
discovering more and more complexity in living cells and living things.
This correspondingly increases the challenge to OOL and macroevolution,
and ID knows this and is rightly pressing the point.

4. Behe's IC, and more recently his waiting time problem analysis. Your mileage well vary on this one.

5. The information issue. Biology is as much about information storage, processing and maintenance as it is about physics and chemistry.
Naturalism has not come to grips with this IMO, and I think ID is on the right track with the focus it has on this.

6. ID taking on first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

That's an incomplete and uneven summary. As I hope I've made clear,
YMMV; I acknowledge that. This post is not an opportunity to dive down
the hundred rabbit holes that this overview touches on. That is
something I've been demonstrably (laboriously) willing to do in many
other threads. Rather, this is an invitation for conversation about your
own journey, perspective, doubts, convictions etc. I'm happy to consider correction and criticism, within the framework described.

If you are convinced that ID (or creation in general) is not something
that can be meaningfully discussed with reference to science, this is probably not the thread for you.

If I haven't been able to convince you in some of my previous posts that
my own faith is definitively not dependent on ID being correct, so be
it, but that's not my interest here.

Thank you for reading this far if you've managed that. As always, I
welcome open-ended, open-minded civil dialogue.

_______

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[2] From a recent TO post of mine titled "To sum up":
"And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt Improbable higher and higher. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc."

[3] Discovery Institute - ID research and responses to criticisms: https://www.discovery.org/id/research/
https://www.discovery.org/f/10141
https://www.discovery.org/id/responses/

[4] Long Story Short - YouTube playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9

[5] The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check https://www.amazon.com.au/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705

[6] James Tour cf. William Bains https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RwhAxtqls4A/m/eQFJbd-5AgAJ

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited >recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.

ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times it >seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with education.
From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and Evolution News
promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.

Personally, I have a degree of ambivalence toward ID. For example, I
think the 'information problem' claimed by ID is real, but I'm a bit >surprised that people like William Dembski have not been able to
progress it further after several decades (I've briefly but fruitfully >corresponded with him regarding this in the past). More recently, on the >topic of junk DNA, I get the impression that Casey Luskin and the Long
Story Short episode on this may have oversimplified and/or overstated >arguments against junk DNA (I've made a corrective comment on LSS's
YouTube channel in relation to this).

There is only one way to understand ID, and that is to understand your
own Self. Because your Self contains all knowledge that exist,
indcluding knowledge about design in nature. And that knowledge cannot
be found anywhere outside of your Mind.

It is that knowledge that all science is built upon. Science is based
on observations through the senses, and the subjective interpretation
of these observations. Knowledge is not something you "import" from
outside by reading books etc., as commonly believed. You could not
understand anything in any book, unless you already new it - i.e. had
the ability to understand



This ability for interpretation can not be imported from outside, for
logical reasons.


It must be there before you can begin interpreting any information
from outside.

That is just information. There must be an inner ability to
interprete the information coming from outside in the first place, an
inner logic by which things can be understood.








And that knowledge is not complex, but rather simple.
Complexity is just simple elements combined in different ways.
Everything in the physical world can be reduced to simple particles,
and anythig complex are just these particles conbimed and arranged

Not information, for that is what you preceive from outside, via the
senses, and the senses are decitful

ID itself is a broad-ish church, for example with a range of views on
common descent and the extent of evolution (e.g. from micro to macro).

So, given all this, why would I speak in support of ID and claim it has >gained and sustained traction [2]? My comments here are somewhat
subjective, but with supporting references where applicable. To be
clear, this is intended as a more a personal reflection and not a
rigorous treatise (in contrast to other TO posts where I believe I
attempt to argue consistently and from evidence).

First, the question of origins - either life on earth or the universe
itself - is all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted,
complicated, etc. One would expect strengths and weakness with opposing >arguments and interpretation of evidence, as fallible humans grapple
with these ultimate questions. So the shortcomings of ID are not in and
of themselves unexpected or disqualifying.

At its best, I think that ID correctly and non-deceptively infers a >non-specific intelligent agent from an interpretation of scientific
evidence (while acknowledging many ID proponents are Christians). This
aligns with my own position and I suspect a growing number of Christians
who sit somewhere between YEC and theistic evolution.

The traction that ID has I think partly flows from this genuinely
"agnostic" stance when it comes to comes to inferring a designer. This >enables it to focus on the science alone.

Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between
the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each
applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to
identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins. >Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e.
on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic >explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.

One misunderstanding of this logical asymmetry is demonstrated by the >supposed counter-argument, which says that positing God merely shifts
the question to 'Who made God?', which is declared to have no
explanatory power, and therefore can be discounted. Dawkins is fond of
this approach. Sorry Richard, but you can't make God vanish in a puff of >pseudo-logic and disingenuous wishful-thinking.

In any case, ID has endured now its modern form for about three decades,
and of the various creationism streams is, as far as I'm aware, by far
the most credibly and substantially engaged with current science. The DI >claims a research program and over 250+ peer-reviewed papers published
in mainstream journals [3]. Of course, the validity of these may be
disputed - as are most perspectives and papers in contentious areas
(e.g. string theory).

While ID has not delivered a knock-out punch (obviously), it does seem
to continue to track progress in science and develop its arguments >accordingly. Examples include:

1. OOL. Although I've mentioned some specific criticisms of the Long
Story Short video series, overall the fact that they can be made today
is revealing. The series critiquing naturalistic abiogenesis [4]
(claimed to made by five "PhD scientists") directly challenges OOL on
the basis of current science, and exaggerated claims of progress (IMO).
Along with this are books like The Stairway to Life [5], and many
others. And James Tour has waded in to this issue, as an ID sympathiser
at least, and despite his shouty and sometimes dismissive manner, I
think his work very much reinforces what ID is saying [6]. YMMV.

2. Stephen Meyer on most things. He is now the public face of ID, and
its most prominent intellectual spokesperson, debater, and book author.
His guest appearance on Joe Rogan confirm his popular positioning. His >genteel conversations with skeptic Michael Shermer I think point to the >substantive arguments ID presents. And Meyer's books have deserved
infleunce and impact across topics like first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, >complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

4. The whole complexity thing. Yes, I understand (for example) PZ Myers' >frustration with ID veering toward "complexity therefore design".
However, the complexity problem is real and growing. Science is
discovering more and more complexity in living cells and living things.
This correspondingly increases the challenge to OOL and macroevolution,
and ID knows this and is rightly pressing the point.

4. Behe's IC, and more recently his waiting time problem analysis. Your >mileage well vary on this one.

5. The information issue. Biology is as much about information storage, >processing and maintenance as it is about physics and chemistry.
Naturalism has not come to grips with this IMO, and I think ID is on the >right track with the focus it has on this.

6. ID taking on first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, >Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

That's an incomplete and uneven summary. As I hope I've made clear,
YMMV; I acknowledge that. This post is not an opportunity to dive down
the hundred rabbit holes that this overview touches on. That is
something I've been demonstrably (laboriously) willing to do in many
other threads. Rather, this is an invitation for conversation about your
own journey, perspective, doubts, convictions etc. I'm happy to consider >correction and criticism, within the framework described.

If you are convinced that ID (or creation in general) is not something
that can be meaningfully discussed with reference to science, this is >probably not the thread for you.

If I haven't been able to convince you in some of my previous posts that
my own faith is definitively not dependent on ID being correct, so be
it, but that's not my interest here.

Thank you for reading this far if you've managed that. As always, I
welcome open-ended, open-minded civil dialogue.

_______

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[2] From a recent TO post of mine titled "To sum up":
"And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive >discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt >Improbable higher and higher. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to >first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc."

[3] Discovery Institute - ID research and responses to criticisms: >https://www.discovery.org/id/research/
https://www.discovery.org/f/10141
https://www.discovery.org/id/responses/

[4] Long Story Short - YouTube playlist >https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9

[5] The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check >https://www.amazon.com.au/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705

[6] James Tour cf. William Bains >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RwhAxtqls4A/m/eQFJbd-5AgAJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred
rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is >>_the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think
humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve
any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/23/2025 4:43 AM, MarkE wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.

ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times it seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with education.
From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and Evolution News
promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.

Personally, I have a degree of ambivalence toward ID. For example, I
think the 'information problem' claimed by ID is real, but I'm a bit surprised that people like William Dembski have not been able to
progress it further after several decades (I've briefly but fruitfully corresponded with him regarding this in the past). More recently, on the topic of junk DNA, I get the impression that Casey Luskin and the Long
Story Short episode on this may have oversimplified and/or overstated arguments against junk DNA (I've made a corrective comment on LSS's
YouTube channel in relation to this).

ID itself is a broad-ish church, for example with a range of views on
common descent and the extent of evolution (e.g. from micro to macro).

So, given all this, why would I speak in support of ID and claim it has gained and sustained traction [2]? My comments here are somewhat
subjective, but with supporting references where applicable. To be
clear, this is intended as a more a personal reflection and not a
rigorous treatise (in contrast to other TO posts where I believe I
attempt to argue consistently and from evidence).

First, the question of origins - either life on earth or the universe
itself - is all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted,
complicated, etc. One would expect strengths and weakness with opposing arguments and interpretation of evidence, as fallible humans grapple
with these ultimate questions. So the shortcomings of ID are not in and
of themselves unexpected or disqualifying.

At its best, I think that ID correctly and non-deceptively infers a non- specific intelligent agent from an interpretation of scientific evidence (while acknowledging many ID proponents are Christians). This aligns
with my own position and I suspect a growing number of Christians who
sit somewhere between YEC and theistic evolution.

The traction that ID has I think partly flows from this genuinely
"agnostic" stance when it comes to comes to inferring a designer. This enables it to focus on the science alone.

Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between
the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each
applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to
identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins. Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e.
on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.

One misunderstanding of this logical asymmetry is demonstrated by the supposed counter-argument, which says that positing God merely shifts
the question to 'Who made God?', which is declared to have no
explanatory power, and therefore can be discounted. Dawkins is fond of
this approach. Sorry Richard, but you can't make God vanish in a puff of pseudo-logic and disingenuous wishful-thinking.

In any case, ID has endured now its modern form for about three decades,
and of the various creationism streams is, as far as I'm aware, by far
the most credibly and substantially engaged with current science. The DI claims a research program and over 250+ peer-reviewed papers published
in mainstream journals [3]. Of course, the validity of these may be
disputed - as are most perspectives and papers in contentious areas
(e.g. string theory).

While ID has not delivered a knock-out punch (obviously), it does seem
to continue to track progress in science and develop its arguments accordingly. Examples include:

1. OOL. Although I've mentioned some specific criticisms of the Long
Story Short video series, overall the fact that they can be made today
is revealing. The series critiquing naturalistic abiogenesis [4]
(claimed to made by five "PhD scientists") directly challenges OOL on
the basis of current science, and exaggerated claims of progress (IMO).
Along with this are books like The Stairway to Life [5], and many
others. And James Tour has waded in to this issue, as an ID sympathiser
at least, and despite his shouty and sometimes dismissive manner, I
think his work very much reinforces what ID is saying [6]. YMMV.

2. Stephen Meyer on most things. He is now the public face of ID, and
its most prominent intellectual spokesperson, debater, and book author.
His guest appearance on Joe Rogan confirm his popular positioning. His genteel conversations with skeptic Michael Shermer I think point to the substantive arguments ID presents. And Meyer's books have deserved
infleunce and impact across topics like first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

4. The whole complexity thing. Yes, I understand (for example) PZ Myers' frustration with ID veering toward "complexity therefore design".
However, the complexity problem is real and growing. Science is
discovering more and more complexity in living cells and living things.
This correspondingly increases the challenge to OOL and macroevolution,
and ID knows this and is rightly pressing the point.

4. Behe's IC, and more recently his waiting time problem analysis. Your mileage well vary on this one.

5. The information issue. Biology is as much about information storage, processing and maintenance as it is about physics and chemistry.
Naturalism has not come to grips with this IMO, and I think ID is on the right track with the focus it has on this.

6. ID taking on first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.

That's an incomplete and uneven summary. As I hope I've made clear,
YMMV; I acknowledge that. This post is not an opportunity to dive down
the hundred rabbit holes that this overview touches on. That is
something I've been demonstrably (laboriously) willing to do in many
other threads. Rather, this is an invitation for conversation about your
own journey, perspective, doubts, convictions etc. I'm happy to consider correction and criticism, within the framework described.

If you are convinced that ID (or creation in general) is not something
that can be meaningfully discussed with reference to science, this is probably not the thread for you.

If I haven't been able to convince you in some of my previous posts that
my own faith is definitively not dependent on ID being correct, so be
it, but that's not my interest here.

Thank you for reading this far if you've managed that. As always, I
welcome open-ended, open-minded civil dialogue.

_______

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[2] From a recent TO post of mine titled "To sum up":
"And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt Improbable higher and higher. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc."

[3] Discovery Institute - ID research and responses to criticisms: https://www.discovery.org/id/research/
https://www.discovery.org/f/10141
https://www.discovery.org/id/responses/

[4] Long Story Short - YouTube playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9

[5] The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check https://www.amazon.com.au/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705

[6] James Tour cf. William Bains https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RwhAxtqls4A/m/eQFJbd-5AgAJ

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea that
someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their own intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know it. Hence
the denial.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> writes:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea
that someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their
own intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know
it. Hence the denial.

Can you explain why designing something proves everything is designed?

Do you regard "trial and error" as intelligent, or design?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richmond wrote:

Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> writes:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea
that someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their
own intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know
it. Hence the denial.

Can you explain why designing something proves everything is designed?

Do you regard "trial and error" as intelligent, or design?

Yes.

Wait, what was the middle one again?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:34:41 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea that
someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their own
intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know it. Hence
the denial.

ISTM to compare oneself to an entity capable of designing a universe
is the height of hubris.

It's ok, there is no evidence for said "entity"...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

IDentity wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

There is only one way to understand ID, and that is to understand your
own Self. Because your Self contains all knowledge that exist,
indcluding knowledge about design in nature. And that knowledge cannot
be found anywhere outside of your Mind.

It is that knowledge that all science is built upon. Science is based
on observations through the senses, and the subjective interpretation
of these observations. Knowledge is not something you "import" from
outside by reading books etc., as commonly believed. You could not
understand anything in any book, unless you already new it - i.e. had
the ability to understand

Wow. So, I already know calculus, how to do a hip
replacement, or speak ancient Egyptian?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Kalkidas wrote:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea that someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their own intelligence can operate.

Someone else? Not, someTHING else? Was it Billy in the
mail room? Or, the FSM?

I could meet someone who designs things. Unlike...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:37:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:

IDentity wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

There is only one way to understand ID, and that is to understand your
own Self. Because your Self contains all knowledge that exist,
indcluding knowledge about design in nature. And that knowledge cannot
be found anywhere outside of your Mind.

It is that knowledge that all science is built upon. Science is based
on observations through the senses, and the subjective interpretation
of these observations. Knowledge is not something you "import" from
outside by reading books etc., as commonly believed. You could not
understand anything in any book, unless you already new it - i.e. had
the ability to understand

Wow. So, I already know calculus, how to do a hip
replacement, or speak ancient Egyptian?

Apparently. The conflation of "know" with "able to
understand" is simple and breathtaking. "Simple", of course,
used in the other classic sense...

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/02/2025 21:52, MarkE wrote:

On 24/02/2025 6:10 am, Ernest Major wrote:

On 23/02/2025 11:43, MarkE wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has
limited recognition within mainstream science. The general public's
awareness and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.

ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times
it seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with
education.  From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and
Evolution News promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.

In principle Intelligent Design could have been a legitimate
scientific research program, albeit one that I would not expect to be
productive. In practice it's a religiously motivated political movement.

ID's studied agnosticism (when not addressing a friendly audience)
about the identity and nature of the designer or designers is what
makes it clear that it's not a scientific research program. A
scientific research program would asking be who, what, why, when,
where and how, or at the least how to investigate who, what, why,
when, where and how.

The aim of science is to explain (if you're a philosophical realist)
or model (if you're a philosophical anti-realist) the world. By
eschewing questions of who, what, when, why, where and how, what ID
does is explain away observations, not explain them.

Noooooooooooo. You're ignoring the asymmetry I describe below. With
respect to a scientifically inferred designer, questions of who, what,
when, why, where and how are the province of theology, philosophy,
experience etc. In this context, science functions as a prompt and
pointer to other epistemological domains.

The Intelligent Design Movement didn't have to eschew questions about
the identity and properties of the design; that was a deliberate choice
made for political reasons.

Arguably they've slipped up on occasion, and let their unstated
assumptions leak into their arguments. They can't disprove evolution by
the absence of junk DNA anymore than they can disprove evolution by its presence. I'm not old enough to remember the change, but as I understand
the history the existence of DNA was rather a surprise; it had been
naively assumed that natural selection would eliminate it. There remains
a widespread reluctance to accept its existence among biologists; few
would still defend an absolute panadaptationism, but panfunctionalism
doesn't seem to have received the same critical scrutiny.

This leads me to suspect that the ID movements beliefs about the nature
of the designer have led to their rejection of junk DNA, accidentally
making a testable prediction in the process. By rejecting junk DNA they
are implicitly assuming a designer that has the knowledge, capability
and intent to produce organisms that lack wasteful features (at least
this one). They may also be implicitly assuming recent design of
organisms; otherwise what has prevented junk DNA accumulating since the organisms were created?

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/26/25 3:24 AM, MarkE wrote:

[...]
It's important to distinguish between:

1. Personal incredulity, i.e. "I can't imagine how this could have
happened by natural processes alone"

2. A probability so small that an explanation that relies on it is
deemed to be virtually an appeal to miracle or magic (e.g. < 10^-50 or 10^-150, noting that there are an estimated 10^80 fundamental particles
in the known universe)

3. An impossibility, e.g. claimed paradoxes such as Eigen’s Paradox, IC, etc. If demonstrated, these would reveal a logical impossibility, i.e. a probability of zero.

Legitimate ID seeks to identify and demonstrate instances of 2 and 3.

One important point that you are implicitly agreeing with is that
"legitimate" ID's purpose is to support a preconceived conclusion. A conclusion, it must be noted, that was originally formulated with no
evidence to support it, and which still has none.

The more immediate problem is that nobody (ID included) has any way to calculate the probabilities or impossibilities relevant to what ID
wants. Efforts to date have either been hand-waving (e.g., everything
you have posted on abiogenesis) or based on laughable fallacies (e.g.
the ID work of Behe and Dembski).

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/28/2025 7:53 AM, Richmond wrote:

Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> writes:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea
that someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their
own intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know
it. Hence the denial.

Can you explain why designing something proves everything is designed?

Do you regard "trial and error" as intelligent, or design?

Who said anything proved anything?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:02:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub>:

On 2/28/2025 7:53 AM, Richmond wrote:

Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> writes:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea
that someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their
own intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know
it. Hence the denial.

Can you explain why designing something proves everything is designed?

Do you regard "trial and error" as intelligent, or design?

Who said anything proved anything?

Your "hilarity"regarding the alternative implied it. Else
why comment at all?

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:30:02 -0700, Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 07:34:41 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

There's really nothing as hilarious as watching people -- who spend
their own lives intelligently designing things -- dismiss the idea that >>>> someone else intelligently designed the universe in which their own
intelligence can operate.

The envy is obvious -- they have been outsmarted and they know it. Hence >>>> the denial.

ISTM to compare oneself to an entity capable of designing a universe
is the height of hubris.

It's ok, there is no evidence for said "entity"...

That's an entirely different problem.

Quite a bit of overlap, Venn-ly speaking

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred
rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is >>> _the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think
humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve
any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

Here it is:

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred
rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is >>>> _the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think
humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve
any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

Here it is:

Yeah, that was my take, too:

1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 04:39:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> [...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred >>>>>> rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is >>>>>> _the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think >>>>> humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve >>>>> any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

Here it is:

Yeah, that was my take, too:

1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

To give the devil his due, MarkE clarified that the "increased
traction" to which he referred is not among scientists or science but
instead is among the general population in the U.S.

OK; thanks. I missed that, although why he thinks that's
significant escapes me.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:56:27 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> [...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred >>>>>> rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is >>>>>> _the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think >>>>> humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve >>>>> any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

Here it is:

Yeah, that was my take, too:

1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

He kinda tried to move away from that (without actually retracting it)
by starting a new thread "Observe the trend. It's happening. Give it
time."

In that new thread, however, he basically just regurgitated previous
claims and a couple of new references [1] about the shortfalls in
current scientific knowledge. He didn't give anything that supports an >increase in support for ID.

I did see that waffling, but jillery says he "clarified" his
original claim by restricting it to refer to the general
population.

-------------------------

[1] New to him; most of them are quite old.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:57:35 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:11:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:56:27 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> [...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred >>>>>>>> rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is
_the_ evolution debate.

Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the >>>>>>> ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think >>>>>>> humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve >>>>>>> any rabbit holes.

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.

(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

Here it is:

Yeah, that was my take, too:

1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

He kinda tried to move away from that (without actually retracting it)
by starting a new thread "Observe the trend. It's happening. Give it >>>time."

In that new thread, however, he basically just regurgitated previous >>>claims and a couple of new references [1] about the shortfalls in
current scientific knowledge. He didn't give anything that supports an >>>increase in support for ID.

I did see that waffling, but jillery says he "clarified" his
original claim by restricting it to refer to the general
population.

*******************************************
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited >>recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained. >*********************************************

Thanks for the repost; as I said, I missed it.

If he intended that to be evidence for his claim of
"increased traction" for ID, IMHO it failed miserably.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)