Evangelion
New member
What about the West African Tic-Tac-Toe Frog???
ARCHIVE - The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory-by Casey Luskin
- Thread starter Prisca
- Start date
JGaltJr.
JGaltJr.
Did I mention biology? No. I was making a silly analogy about the everyday use of ID theory. Can’t we have a light-hearted discussion once in a while?
We can get to biology, but what about the concept of ID theory itself? Remember, ID theory states:
So, when the archeologist comes across these…
…he intuitively employs ID theory to surmise that the object is a product of intelligent design and not just an ordinary rock. Can you at least agree to that aspect of the theory?
JGaltJr.
Did I mention biology? No. I was making a silly analogy about the everyday use of ID theory. Can’t we have a light-hearted discussion once in a while?
We can get to biology, but what about the concept of ID theory itself? Remember, ID theory states:
So, when the archeologist comes across these…
Arminian
New member
I'm no novice when it comes to Information Processing theory. In fact, I contrubuted to much of the research on the Generation Effect in the 90's. But my background is in cognitive psychology(learning, memory and cognition).
I have no experience with this "ID" theory, however. Perhaps it came after the Roberta Klatsky years, when I was exposed to IP theory.
Nonetheless, there is some confusion caused by the polyvalent use of terms, and the unscientific application of terms (the lack of operational definitions and instrumentalism). I saw that someone has already mentioned how creation scientists skew theory and then apply it to their desired conclusions. (I'm not against CS, per se, but I do want to be honest.)
I want to say something about the following comment: "we have no instances of specified complex information created through natural processes alone." First of all, objects don't "create information." Objects are "understood" by beings that have the capacity to make associations concerning objects and events, maintain theories, and function as though those theories are true. Is there a "lot of information" in a rock? Sure there is, to a geologist, a physicist or a chemist, but not to me. If, however, I handed a CD of this week's top 40 hits to a caveman (I'm not being sexist. I haven't had much exposure to cavewomen, so I can't predict what they might do.
) , he'd say there isn't much info there, because he wouldn't know that it was more than a shiny disk. In other words, the objects themselves don't have the ability, capacity or the desire to teach us anything.Here's a challenge to those of you who have access to a library. Go get Norwood Russell Hanson's Perception and Discovery. Start reading at chapter 4. It's an easy read, and I'm sure you'll learn a lot about yourself, as an observer. You'll thank me when you are done (or perhaps you'll curse me for bringing to your attention something that you can't stop thinking about!!).
Is there such a thing as a fact? Is a fact a "thing"? Why is it that we say "it is a fact that," such that "that-clauses" are always attached to the facts? The reason is that we are talking about observation, and observation is a theory-laden event. Without theories, people can't observe.
A rock collection has no voice. A waterfall has no voice. Is there a lot of information in a natural process, or the results of that process? It depends on who you are. Is there a lot of information in the output of the "show run" of a Cisco router? It depends on who you are.
I love those routers.
Last edited:
Re: JGaltJr.
Re: JGaltJr.
Your analogy (which was a new take on the old 747 analogy which was a new take on the blind watchmaker analogy) was a compariosn to biological creatures. ID is based on explaining biology. IDers look at biology and say, "Hey this is too complicated for me to comprehend. God muist have done it." When you discuss ID you are discussing biology.
From this alone, he could only surmise that perhaps it was made by a concsious mind. He could not infer that it absolutely was. He must further investigate to know for certain.
Re: JGaltJr.
Your analogy (which was a new take on the old 747 analogy which was a new take on the blind watchmaker analogy) was a compariosn to biological creatures. ID is based on explaining biology. IDers look at biology and say, "Hey this is too complicated for me to comprehend. God muist have done it." When you discuss ID you are discussing biology.
So, when the archeologist comes across these…
…he intuitively employs ID theory to surmise that the object is a product of intelligent design and not just an ordinary rock. Can you at least agree to that aspect of the theory?
From this alone, he could only surmise that perhaps it was made by a concsious mind. He could not infer that it absolutely was. He must further investigate to know for certain.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
they one thing I can not answer, and mind you, I am not a creationist or a b iblical literalist, but the one thing that stumps me is that there is no recorded instance of macro evolution in all of history. Certainly we should be able to observe that?
Peace,
Pilgrim
Peace,
Pilgrim
There's actually quite a bit of evidence for it. Microevoultion leads to macro-evolution.
Here's a good begining on the subject. http://discusorigin.virtualave.net/Pro-Evolution/Macroevolution_frame.html
BTW, macro-evolution does not mean that a cat turns into a dog. A lot of creationists seem to think it does which is what causes the confusion about there being a lack of evidence.
Here's a good begining on the subject. http://discusorigin.virtualave.net/Pro-Evolution/Macroevolution_frame.html
BTW, macro-evolution does not mean that a cat turns into a dog. A lot of creationists seem to think it does which is what causes the confusion about there being a lack of evidence.
ThinkerThinker
New member
The first problem with the argument is making the erroneous supposition; right at the start, that intelligence is not a natural process. That is typical of religious thinking that assumes man to be separate from the natural world so already you are not being scientific. You are saying there is no complex information except when produced by intelligence. That is somewhat like saying there will be no moon circling the earth except it there is gravity. The moon’s movement is a product of gravity just as complex information is a product of intelligence. The fact that only intelligence produces complex information means complex information is a unique product of intelligence not that intelligence is not natural, because otherwise we would have to call gravity unnatural because of the unique effects it creates. The second problem is the whole issue of complexity. There are two kinds of complexity in information content – data quantity and structure. The intelligent mind holds an enormous amount of data bits and its underlying structure is incredibly intricate. But what does this proof? Gravity produces galaxies, stars and planets with enormous amounts of “bits” and incredibly intricate structures. They are not the same “bits” and the same structures and information structures but these just points to their difference in nature not in the one being unnatural because it is different.
Your argument about “complex specified information” falls into the same category because I can apply those exact principles to gravity.
I find this a baffling statement but it summarises the nature of your whole argument. Everything you state here follows the pattern of subdividing what should be continues and integrated into component parts and then using the differences, which appears because you do not accept the unity of the system and therefore do not see the connections, as proof that one thing, in this case intelligence, is not part of the whole and therefore not natural. Your inferences in the quote above, for instance, separates “the pre-existing specified pattern” and “complex information” which leads you to assume the vitality of intelligence rather that merely stating it as a benefit that developed along side the organism.
Nature is not a product of intelligence (it is the other way around) and does not fit into neat and orderly categories. Your statement that irreducibly complex systems are useful in detecting design because they clearly show that some target level of specified complexity was necessary for some base level of functionality to be present assumes that nature never allows systems to develop that are not strictly required or that systems does not develop that later assumes other functions when integrated with different sub-systems. Nature is a master at experimentation and utilising what is available. It also has enough resources and time to make an awful amount of mistakes, especially since it is not required to produce anything at all … but it does though simple statistical probability.
What you fail to observe is this deep-seated, religious notion, that man is somehow separate from nature and this colours all your arguments. You do not need to mention God or religion to argue along religious criteria and believes. This last statement is simply an effort to give a veneer of being scientific and unbiased but this is clearly not the case.
TT
ThinkerThinker
New member
Re: TT
Re: TT
You are absolutely right but I don't try to hide the fact by pretending to be religious. My complaint was that Becky stated that the article was non-religious, based on observation, which was not true because of the assumptions made based on religious tendencies and this creates a false impression.
For many years I was deeply religious and devoted to serving God. Then I was bias and now I am bias on the other side, even though I make an effort to be non-bias. But what I don’t approve off is giving the impression of not being bias when this is not the case. We have to be brutally honest if we want to get to the truth.
TT
Re: TT
You are absolutely right but I don't try to hide the fact by pretending to be religious. My complaint was that Becky stated that the article was non-religious, based on observation, which was not true because of the assumptions made based on religious tendencies and this creates a false impression.
For many years I was deeply religious and devoted to serving God. Then I was bias and now I am bias on the other side, even though I make an effort to be non-bias. But what I don’t approve off is giving the impression of not being bias when this is not the case. We have to be brutally honest if we want to get to the truth.
TT
ThinkerThinker-Well for most of my life I was an atheist and was biased. Now I am a Christian and I agree that I also am biased, however with that in mind it in no way invalidates an observation or a hypothesis. The way I look at them may be biased but the subjects themselves are not.
You said:
In this statement you tried to say that because a person has Christian beliefs they cannot look at a thing in an unbiased way. That is either no more true, or just as true, (depending on your outlook) than it is for the evolutionist atheist. But neither of these things make the point.
The point is “does the hypothesis work in the real world?” Whether it is a Christian or atheist viewing it the data should be able to be seen for what it is
You dismiss the theory simply because it is used by Christians… Becky has shown that everyone uses this theory (perhaps it should be called a law) In everyday life all the time. As do all the sciences.
If you found your computer laying on the sidewalk you would never in a million billion trillion years believe that it grew there from natural processes. And that alone would show that you are using ID Theory in a real sense.
You said:
In this statement you tried to say that because a person has Christian beliefs they cannot look at a thing in an unbiased way. That is either no more true, or just as true, (depending on your outlook) than it is for the evolutionist atheist. But neither of these things make the point.
The point is “does the hypothesis work in the real world?” Whether it is a Christian or atheist viewing it the data should be able to be seen for what it is
You dismiss the theory simply because it is used by Christians… Becky has shown that everyone uses this theory (perhaps it should be called a law) In everyday life all the time. As do all the sciences.
If you found your computer laying on the sidewalk you would never in a million billion trillion years believe that it grew there from natural processes. And that alone would show that you are using ID Theory in a real sense.
Let's try this again, everything that we have an explanation for has a natural process. Everything. There is not a single instance of anything being shown to have a supernatural process. Not one. Now how is it more logical to assume something has a supernatural beginning than a natural beginning when everything else we've discovered the answer for has a natural explanation?
Just because an answer has not been discovered does not mean it must be attributed to the gods.
Why do religionists insist on taking the easy way out and saying, "I don't know the answer therefore God must have done it?" Especially considering that every other time in the past when the answer was discovered it turned out to be a natural process. Superstitious people believed lightning came from the gods. Turns out there's a natural explanation. Superstitious people believed disease came from sin. Turns out it had a natural explanation. Superstitious people today think origins have a supernatural explanation. Only time will tell but the evidence weighs pretty heavily against it. Why sacrifice your intellect for superstitious answers when science is far more fascinating than religious fairy tales?
Just because an answer has not been discovered does not mean it must be attributed to the gods.
Why do religionists insist on taking the easy way out and saying, "I don't know the answer therefore God must have done it?" Especially considering that every other time in the past when the answer was discovered it turned out to be a natural process. Superstitious people believed lightning came from the gods. Turns out there's a natural explanation. Superstitious people believed disease came from sin. Turns out it had a natural explanation. Superstitious people today think origins have a supernatural explanation. Only time will tell but the evidence weighs pretty heavily against it. Why sacrifice your intellect for superstitious answers when science is far more fascinating than religious fairy tales?
Now this is just plain silly!
Becky posts a picture of some arrowheads carved out of stone and she asks...
Furthermore, did you notice how JGalt refuses to call the arrowheads intelligently designed?
Instead he says "perhaps it was made by a concsious mind."! :down:
LOL! What like a dog maybe??? Or maybe a horse carved those arrowheads from stone eh JGalt??
JGalt's worldview has reduced him to a irrelevant pathetic dinosaur unable to offer intelligent rebuttals to simple questions that even a 5 year old could answer.
Becky posts a picture of some arrowheads carved out of stone and she asks...
And then JGalt says...
Are you serious??? Do you see what your worldview has done to you?? I would bet you were smarter when you were 5 years old than you are now. When you were five, you would have correctly been able to deduce without further investigation that the arrowheads were intelligently designed!
Furthermore, did you notice how JGalt refuses to call the arrowheads intelligently designed?
Instead he says "perhaps it was made by a concsious mind."! :down:
LOL! What like a dog maybe??? Or maybe a horse carved those arrowheads from stone eh JGalt??
JGalt's worldview has reduced him to a irrelevant pathetic dinosaur unable to offer intelligent rebuttals to simple questions that even a 5 year old could answer.
Until you say something intelligent.... yes.
Seriously.... why not admit that the arrowheads were obviously created by Intelligent Design and admit that deduction does not take ANY further investigation?
How far would you take your logic? What if you found a hammer? How about a bicycle? Is there some sort of threshold in which you could determine intelligent design without "further investigation"?