My ID Challenge

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@GJDS

The difference that I see wrt ToE is the other theories were eventually “rescued” by mathematical treatments…

Hello GJDS,

Are you denying the existence of population genetics?

[Argon]

@GJDS

The difference that I see wrt ToE is the other theories were eventually “rescued” by mathematical treatments - this placed the theories on a quantifiable basis and tests could be carried out without appealing to the occult or deities.

Mathematical treatments certainly can help. However, they aren’t the only means of confirming theories.

• Germ theory was demonstrated by careful experiments, not mathematical treatments.
• The stuttered replication of the 5’-to-3’ side of DNA via Okazaki fragments was demonstrated by autoradiographs (pictures on X-ray film).
• Catalytic RNA was first demonstrated via gels, some clever chemical synthesis and mass spectroscopy.
• That bacteria could transfer DNA between each other (bacterial conjugation or bacterial sex) was demonstrated by Lederberg and Tatum by plating cells on different media. This and other, related mechanisms led to the mapping of genes in the E. coli chromosome.
• Later, Joshua and Esther Lederberg developed a technique of replica plating to show that mutations will arise in populations before selection.
• The elucidation of most cellular biochemical pathways was accomplished by tagging a portion of molecules with radioactive isotopes and following the incorporation of those isotopes into subsequent products.

Demonstration of common descent is certainly bolstered by mathematical modelling and statistical analysis but most of the support comes from fossil positions in various strata, comparative biology and genetics.

[GJDS]

There are many impressive achievements in all branches of the sciences, and the bio-sciences are no exception to this - I am inclined to add to your list work on enzymes, especially molecular structure studies, which recently have achieved incredible detail.

I had in mind the historical periods, such as when chemistry began to include atoms and molecules and the quantification of kinetic and thermodynamics chemistry, which freed chemists from outdated theories that look kooky to us nowadays.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@glipsnort

You argued that purely deterministic processes are devoid of purpose. I use purely deterministic processes to accomplish purposes. This fact, which you seem to agree is correct, demonstrates that your claim was wrong. Agreed?

disagreed. Please absorb this carefully: Purpose requires intentional choice. Deterministic processes, by definition, cannot make choices. This is why deterministic processes are devoid of purpose. The purpose comes from you, it is not inherent in the deterministic processes themselves. [quote=“glipsnort, post:593, topic:4944”]
Now you are offering a different argument, which is that purpose behind a process can be detected by examining the product of the process
[/quote]

This thread is approaching 700 posts as I write this. Several arguments and challenges have been introduced along the way. I am committed to addressing every substantive post directed at me.

@glipsnort

There are several gaps in the argument as you’ve presented it here. First, the fact that purpose can often be detected in the results of human action does not imply that it can always be detected (and in fact it can’t always be detected)

I never said that purpose can always be detected. However, the stronger the signature of design or Creation; call it what you wish, the stronger the design inference. When the signature is unique to intelligent agency (such as where advanced data processing and advanced engineering are present), the design inference is very strong. Furthermore, when the signature is one that cannot be explained by natural processes, design is the only reasonable causal candidate

@glipsnort

Second, that fact doesn’t tell us anything about whether nonhuman purpose can be detected, since we don’t know if there’s any analogy between human purpose and the purpose you’re talking about here

Human or non-human is irrelevant. Intelligent agency is the relevant issue.

@glipsnort

Third, even if we could in principle detect nonhuman purpose, you’ve given no reason to think that we have detected in living things.

If the presence of the most advanced data processing system we have ever encountered and the most technologically advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered do not count as reasons to think that we have detected the activity of intelligent agency in living systems, you may have a point.[quote=“glipsnort, post:593, topic:4944”]
Most importantly, though, your argument here seems to have nothing to do with your central claim about the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity
[/quote]

Again, any thread that reaches 700 posts will inevitably examine more than one issue. Forgive me for not ignoring what has been put on the table here.

@glipsnort

Even if we could detect purpose in the existence of living creatures, how would this rule out evolution as the means by which that purpose was achieved?

It would not rule out guided evolution. It would rule out evolution by purely natural processes, which is what I have been saying all along.[quote=“glipsnort, post:593, topic:4944”]
Concerning Miller, I think that even your larger context quote does nothing to bail him out. His phraseology that the “lucky historical contingencies” are not “incompatible with a divine will” sheds light only on his belief in God. It does nothing to mitigate his statement about natural processes

It doesn’t mitigate his previous statements; it contradicts them. He laid out an argument in order to reject it. Quoting that argument as if it were his actual opinion is a no-no
[/quote]

I agree that what follows is a contradiction, but it certainly is not a rejection of what he previously said. he simply adds a disclaimer that allows for faith. If he was laying out the argument in order to reject it, the claim would never have appeared in textbooks.

[Chris_Falter]

@deliberateresult

my embrace of the TOE logically meant my rejection of the Bible.

Actually, it didn’t. Somehow, 684 posts later, you still don’t seem to understand that point. But I have already conceded the quixotic nature of trying to get you to grasp it, so I’m not even sure why I bother to write this sentence.

@deliberateresult

I have noticed that some of your posts to me are very cordial. Others, such as this one, well…not so much.

I plead guilty. This is in fact why I’m bothering to write this post. I apologize for speaking so brashly. I should have expressed the idea more gracefully. If I could restate it, here are the words I would use:

"After a large number of posts where your friends have provided evidence of evolutionary mechanisms to you, somehow you make this puzzling claim:

@deliberateresult

I am willing to bet that you have no evidential argument whatsoever for any other possible candidate [other than intelligent agency, with respect to the emergence of molecular machinery]

“Disputing someone’s evidential argument is one thing; saying they have no evidential argument is altogether different. Anyone who reads this thread (and let’s all pray for him or her to be healed of masochism) will recognize that many, many evidential arguments have already been presented to you. By making such an outrageous claim, you are only undermining your credibility.”

@deliberateresult

I have indeed demonstrated my familiarity with the articles you cited

Actually, you haven’t. Since I’m not interested in continuing a to-and-fro that doesn’t resolve, I will simply point you to my previous analysis of this claim.

May the peace of God that surpasses all comprehension guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus, Joe.

[Nick_Allen (nicolas andulsky allen)]

@deliberateresult

It would not rule out guided evolution. It would rule out evolution by purely natural processes, which is what I have been saying all along.

Oh really? I think it’s great that you’ve finally decided to always have agreed with us on what we have been arguing about for all this time.

@deliberateresult

[Chris_Falter]

@Nick_Allen

deliberateresult: It would not rule out guided evolution. It would rule out evolution by purely natural processes, which is what I have been saying all along.

Nick_Allen: Oh really? I think it’s great that you’ve finally decided to always have agreed with us on what we have been arguing about for all this time.

Extra like!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

It would not rule out guided evolution. It would rule out evolution by purely natural processes, which is what I have been saying all along.

HOLY SMOKES!!! Did Deliberate just say GUIDED EVOLUTION is different from Evolution-by-Natural-Processes ???

Too bad he was incapable of being so articulate a month or two ago …

Next Bulletin?: Rainbows have something to do with rain.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

. . . .then, given the understanding you have just articulated, you made an error in reasoning, and abandoned your faith for no good reason. Which is what everyone here has been telling you.

@Eddie,

So beautifully stated … concise and restrained … and yet, in the far off distance, there is the grumbling sound of cliffs falling and lava hissing as the unstoppable wall of molten rock plunges into the deeps…

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@glipsnort

The TOE teaches that life is the result of purely natural processes;

Close enough: it provides a purely natural explanation for life, since that’s the kind of explanation all scientific theories provide.

There are at least two things about your statement that are very wrong. First, if you are going to limit yourself to purely naturalistic explanations, then you are guaranteed to arrive at the wrong answer anytime you attempt to explain any phenomenon that has a non naturalistic cause.

Second, when we agree that life can be explained by purely natural processes, even when we wish to retain our belief in God, we relegate such belief to a matter of sheer faith, elevating our “science” to a higher position. Can you not see how such thinking has the power to turn believers into atheists?

@glipsnort

that there is no teleological aspect.

That’s the part that you’re adding, and that’s completely wrong. The elements of the evolutionary process don’t possess teleology themselves

You do understand that you have just made my point here, do you not?

@glipsnort

Science, however, has nothing to say about whether there is ultimately a purpose behind the process it describes, since that is not a hypothesis that science can test.

Not by your definition of “science.” Thankfully, sciences such as archaeology and forensic science do not burden themselves with the shackles you insist must be thrust upon all of us! I am curious: do you consider the effects produced by intelligent agents to be the result of purely natural processes or not?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@jpm

Maybe you don’t need any evidence to believe in God. That’s great. My wife never needed evidence. Neither, apparently, did Christy. But there are many young people - particularly those interested in science and details such as evidence - who do.

I can sympathize with that statement, but it highlights the problem of YEC, and to some extent ID, in that it makes faith dependent on the evidence, and thus it is on shaky ground if the evidence changes. Not a good place to be. I think the issue for some of us is more making faith reasonable and consistent with rational thought, even though there may be no physical evidence. It is inconsistencies that bother me most when I look at life and faith.

Faith is not dependent on evidence, yet faith - unless it is blind - is rooted in a confidence of some sort. The entire Christian faith is rooted in evidence ( 1 Corinthians 15) and the Scriptures assure us that we have been given enough evidence to believe (Romans 1). God’s Creation of life is a fundamental truth about Him (do a Strong’s search on the words “created,” “formed,” and “made”). So if I could turn this concern of yours around a little, given that life manifests evidence of intelligent agent causation, why are so many on this forum so steadfast against embracing it or even acknowledging it? Advanced data processing and advanced integrated engineered machines will always manifest intelligent causation.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@deliberateresult

There are at least two things about your statement that are very wrong. First, if you are going to limit yourself to purely naturalistic explanations, then you are guaranteed to arrive at the wrong answer anytime you attempt to explain any phenomenon that has a non naturalistic cause.

What’s false about my statement? You’ve noted an important limitation of science.

@deliberateresult

Second, when we agree that life can be explained by purely natural processes, even when we wish to retain our belief in God, we relegate such belief to a matter of sheer faith, elevating our “science” to a higher position. Can you not see how such thinking has the power to turn believers into atheists?

I’m rather more interested in whether my statement (or any statement) is true than in what effect it has on people’s religious beliefs. If life can be explained by purely natural processes, then I feel it’s appropriate to say so. If it can’t, then it’s appropriate to say that instead.

More fundamentally, though, I really don’t think “explaining things by natural processes” should have any effect on someone’s belief of lack of belief in God. That kind of explanation is always limited: it’s always an explanation of physical behavior in terms of patterns of observed behavior. It never gives a deep explanation for anything. Any conclusion you reach about fundamental reality – theistic, atheistic or pantheistic – is going to be faith-based.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:745, topic:4944”]
You do understand that you have just made my point here, do you not?
[/quote]
If so, your point hardly seems worth making.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:745, topic:4944”]
Not by your definition of “science.” Thankfully, sciences such as archaeology and forensic science do not burden themselves with the shackles you insist must be thrust upon all of us! I am curious: do you consider the effects produced by intelligent agents to be the result of purely natural processes or not?
[/quote]
Of course they’re the result of natural processes. Do you really think archeologists or forensic scientists investigate supernatural phenomena?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Bill_II

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the inference I am getting here is that you believe that, having set things in motion, God no longer actively intervenes at all?

Would it help you if I said God has controlled, is controlling, and will control all natural processes.

not really. A simple “yes” or “no” is what I am looking for. You can feel free to elaborate after that.[quote=“Bill_II, post:604, topic:4944”]
The whole point of ID is that life (among other things) is best explained as having been Created.

And here I was thinking that ID just said life was “designed” with no mention of a creator. The quest was just to prove design and not a creator. At least in the “Big Tent” version of ID.
[/quote]

Again, you retain a fundamental misunderstanding. So called “big tent ID” states that some aspects of the natural world are best explained as having been the result of intelligent agency. Even though the folks at the discovery institute seem allergic to invoking God, another term for “intelligent agent” would be “creator”[quote=“Bill_II, post:604, topic:4944”]
I am not accusing you or anyone else in this forum of atheism.

And yet you refuse to believe that a Christian could accept the TOE which implies that anyone who does is not a Christian.
[/quote]

That is not at all what I have been saying. Like I said in my previous post, what I am saying is that ideas have consequences

@Bill_II

And you have never answered (that I noticed) the question of rolling dice. Does God determine the outcome of a roll of the dice or not?

Ok then. First, I need to point out that answering this question has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Now here’s your answer: He can.

I don’t want to argue against a straw man here, but at that risk, I think I know where you might be going. Therefore, I want to remind you that in Judges, Gideon, upon being called into an unlikely station by the Lord, asked Him for a sign. Leaving a woolen fleece on the ground, He asked that there be dew only on the fleece in the morning and not on the ground. When he awoke to find this confirmation, he asked again, this time requesting that only the fleece be dry. Again, the Lord granted this sign. Now, my question to you is this: do we have good evidence in the case of Gideon’s fleece that God has indeed interfered in the natural order of things to produce a desired result?[quote=“glipsnort, post:611, topic:4944”]
More than one contributor to this forum has offered that the process of life is exactly like the process of rain. This is not true and it encapsulates the error of EC. Life is based on functional, prescriptive information. Life is fundamentally formal, not physical. Life is a physical manifestation of formal information.

Your distinction here does not reflect anything known to science. Yes, you can describe life as a physical manifestation of formal information. You can also describe rain as a physical manifestation of formal information. Neither description provides what you want, which is a guarantee of intelligent design.

deliberateresult:
[/quote]

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@deliberateresult

So if I could turn this concern of yours around a little, given that life manifests evidence of intelligent agent causation, why are so many on this forum so steadfast against embracing it or even acknowledging it?

I appreciate your points, and agree that we want to see evidence, like Thomas, but ultimately belief is not rooted in the evidence, though we feel better about our faith when it can be supported.
Regarding your statement quoted, I think you are in error to state that many here do not enbrace intelligent agent causation, in that I think most agree that evolution is put in place by the creative work of God, but the constant tinkering with it through ID is not something science can study. If you have seen any scientific studies regarding God directed mutations etc., I would be interested in reading them. Everything I have seen is philosophical or statistical musings, but nothing of predictive value, which I think would be impossible anyway, because then you would have to know the mind of God.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@glipsnort

More than one contributor to this forum has offered that the process of life is exactly like the process of rain. This is not true and it encapsulates the error of EC. Life is based on functional, prescriptive information. Life is fundamentally formal, not physical. Life is a physical manifestation of formal information.

Your distinction here does not reflect anything known to science. Yes, you can describe life as a physical manifestation of formal information. You can also describe rain as a physical manifestation of formal information. Neither description provides what you want, which is a guarantee of intelligent design.

First, the distinction reflects Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis. It reflects it directly. Second, it also reflects information science. Finally, I referred to a specific type of formal information: “functional, prescriptive information.” Functional, prescriptive information manifests code, syntax, semantics and instruction. I am happy to defend my claim that based on everything we know and understand to be true about information as well as what we understand to be true about natural processes, an inanimate but life permitting universe will never bring forth life without the direct intervention of intelligent agency, but I must warn you in advance that it is not bumper sticker stuff. In the meantime, if countless repeated observations mean anything to a scientist, the fact that every single time we trace functional prescriptive information to its source, that source is always an intelligent agent, and never natural processes, should have some good value.

@glipsnort

Based on everthing we know and understand to be true about the informational nature of life as well as everything we know and understand to be true about natural processes, an inanimate but life permitting universe will never bring forth life without the direct intervention of intelligent agency.

Again, these are not things known to me as a scientist. I don’t know where one comes by this knowledge, but it is not from a study of biology or physics.

Information is immaterial. Unless one is willing to acknowledge immaterial reality, (s)he will never be able to come by this knowledge.

It is worth pointing out here that physics gets its reliability from formal, immaterial reality in that mathematical models provide very accurate representations of the physical world. Would that biology could offer something as rigorous!

[Bill_II]

@deliberateresult

not really. A simple “yes” or “no” is what I am looking for. You can feel free to elaborate after that.

No.

@deliberateresult

Ok then. First, I need to point out that answering this question has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Now here’s your answer: He can.

Wrong answer. God does. Says so in the Bible. As my mother used to say, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you will.”

It has everyting to do with this topic because if God can determine the outcome of a purely naturalistic process like rolling dice he can determine the outcome of evolution.

As far as Gideon’s fleece goes, given the known process for the formation of dew it appears God did produce the desired result. However, I must qualify that by saying that the story doesn’t provide enough details to allow me to say that there is evidence of this. It is just my interpretation of the story.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@deliberateresult

First, the distinction reflects Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis. It reflects it directly.

Crick had a specific hypothesis about a specific kind of information, the genetic information to make proteins. I don’t recall him making sweeping claims about information in general, or any claims about “formal information”, which is what you’re doing. Could you point out where he did?[quote=“deliberateresult, post:750, topic:4944”]
Second, it also reflects information science.
[/quote]
How?

@deliberateresult

Finally, I referred to a specific type of formal information: “functional, prescriptive information.” Functional, prescriptive information manifests code, syntax, semantics and instruction. I am happy to defend my claim that based on everything we know and understand to be true about information as well as what we understand to be true about natural processes, an inanimate but life permitting universe will never bring forth life without the direct intervention of intelligent agency,

You can defend this claim all you want. My statement was that your claim is not something known to science, i.e. it is not an accepted conclusion in any field of science.

@deliberateresult

I must warn you in advance that it is not bumper sticker stuff.

I’m not accustomed to doing science on bumper stickers.

@deliberateresult

the meantime, if countless repeated observations mean anything to a scientist, the fact that every single time we trace functional prescriptive information to its source, that source is always an intelligent agent, and never natural processes, should have some good value.

Well, it might if it were true.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Bill_II

It has everyting to do with this topic because if God can determine the outcome of a purely naturalistic process like rolling dice he can determine the outcome of evolution.

Exactly. The implicit and explicit denials that He can do so, and instead did some unspecified intelligent design at some unspecified time, greatly diminish God.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

In the meantime, if countless repeated observations mean anything to a scientist, the fact that every single time we trace functional prescriptive information to its source, that source is always an intelligent agent, and never natural processes, should have some good value.

And he continues to make his arguments against the Atheists… instead of acknowledging that many BioLogos supporters are delighted to think God is behind the creation of humanity …