Good grief Jon.
You quoted Behe and asked if I agreed with his statement.
My answer is the factual equivalent to Behe’s statement.
But “No, that’s evasive”. You want to know if I agree with it.
You want to know if I agree with the things I say
Doesn’t this kind of inanity get old? You want to know if I agree with my view if someone else says it?
I am thankful I do not have to substantiate my position with this kind of activity.
Why do you keep dancing around instead of just giving a direct answer? Previously you said “In your previous line of reasoning you asked a question in which you already knew the answer was negative”. that would mean you do not agree with what Behe said. Now you are (sort of), saying you do (without actually saying you do).
But let’s go with this for now. You are agreeing that “There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological systems occurred”. Can I ask why? How can you claim ID is vindicated if you can’t even provide a detailed rigorous account of how ID of any biological system occurred? How can you claim ID has been vindicated by semiotics if you can’t even explain how ID is supposed to have happened?
Meanwhile, how many people actually believe that irreducible complexity has been “wholly validated by semiotics”? Has any demonstration of this validation been published in any peer reviewed literature?
1 Like
This is a flat out misrepresentation. Here is the exchange again:
That is hardly ambiguous. You asked me if I agreed with the content of a statement. My stated view is the content of that statement.
This is another patently obvious misrepresentation. Here is what I said:
You must find this kind of incoherent all-over-the-place argumentation to be effective. I find it pointless.
Jon, there is no material observation I point to that is even controversial. Try to let that sink in. I have merely brought the data together from the literature so that it is accessible to interested readers – and I do not make observations that are not substantiated by that literature. That would be a colossal waste of time, as any unsupported observations I make would be pointed out to me in a matter of minutes by reductionists/atheists and their anti-design Christian bedfellows. However, given the spoon-feeding and misrepresentation on display in our exchange today (all of which you deny) it terrifies me to think of trying to get you to focus on critical data in the literature. There is also my personal experience of having meaningful exchanges with several highly-regarded scientists on these matters, and recognizing the vast distinction between that type of dialogue and what I suspect would be entailed with you (given this current exchange). The distinction between someone who is engaged in the evidence for the sake of reasoning (i.e. one who isn’t going to lower themselves by hiding behind rhetorical devices) versus someone who is merely dragging their feet, is profound. There is also the fact that I have already laid out many of the key observations regarding the argument to others on this thread, and you haven’t engaged in any of it. It reminds me to pick my battles and not waste my time. Your question about the literature doesn’t indicate any desire to actually understand the literature or the observations within it. Your question is just another rhetorical ploy, and it’s as transparent as the one you started with. (I have no doubt you’ll make this evident in your response).
Thus, there is a bibliography and a timeline on Biosemiosis.org that contains links to peer-reviewed papers of relevant concepts and discoveries. I have no intention of holding your hand. You can read for yourself. I suggest you pay particular attention to Pattee, Crick, Barbieri, and Koonin, for technical matters, and Polanyi and Pattee for scope. As I said, no material observation in the semiotic argument is even controversial, so grasping the issues is very doable.
If Dennis or someone else wants to explore my argument in earnest, I will be happy to return.
The reason why you look evasive is that you very obviously keep avoiding saying “Yes” or “No”, and instead affirming a statement with distinctively different wording to what I asked. To me, the statement “No one has a detailed account of how intelligent design occurred” is not the same (whether “functionally” or otherwise), as the statement “There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological systems occurred”.
And remember, previously you said “In your previous line of reasoning you asked a question in which you already knew the answer was negative”? That would mean you do not agree with what Behe said. So you’ve represented yourself as agreeing with him, and you’ve also represented himself as disagreeing with him. I don’t care which you finally settle on, as long as you make it clear.
I know that is what you said. Where’s the misrepresentation?The rest of what you posted is clearly a long winded way of saying “No demonstration that the concept of ID has been vindicated by semiotics, has been published in any peer reviewed literature”. Thank you, that’s what I was asking. Do let me know when it has. I also note you haven’t given me a list of all the people who believe the concept of ID has been vindicated by semiotics. Meanwhile, perhaps you’d like to contribute to this thread.
It’s really simple. In your exchange with fmiddel you expressed frustration with his answer to your question about God’s role in the evolutionary process.
[quote=“Eddie, post:182, topic:4930”]
Well, yes, I suppose. It comes down to: I don’t expect that Creation lies…so we should be able to trust scientific investigation. Why? Because God created it!
Your answer is not responsive to what I asked. I’m not asking whether we can learn things about the created world via scientific investigation. Of course we can. I learned that from great Christian scientists such as Newton, Boyle, and Kepler; I don’t need Giberson, Collins or BioLogos to teach me that.
I’m asking what God’s role in the evolutionary process is. A vague “We don’t know how God is involved, but we have faith that somehow he is involved, so we’ll just keep investigating naturalistic mechanisms which make no reference to God at all, but then slap God’s name on top of whatever we find, loaded with lots of praise, to show our piety,” is intellectually vacuous.[/quote]
That’s when I raised an objection. The objection I raised was precisely to do with an exchange I had seen, not an exchange five years ago which I hadn’t seen. So all your ranting about me supposedly making judgments on exchanges years ago which I hadn’t seen, was completely irrelevant.
[quote=“Biosemiosis.org, post:222, topic:4930”] I suggest you pay particular attention to Pattee, Crick, Barbieri, and Koonin, for technical matters
[/quote]
You have to be kidding me - are you really including Eugene Konin’s multiverse hypothesis in your “supporting evidence”? Do you realize that his response to reviewer #1 flat out denies ID by stating “Again, there is absolutely no teleology involved, I could not insist more strongly on this point”.
You truly are either confused or trying way too hard to deflect attention from questions you simply cannot answer or do not like the answer to. I truly praise @Jonathan_Burke for his patience to try to keep you on topic - it’s certainly more than I find the time or interest to do.
2 Likes
Nuno, is misrepresentation all you have?
Koonin’s understanding of the coupled-translation apparatus is the issue at hand. Not his worldview, nor mine. Cannot the members of this blog grasp the distinction between themselves and physical evidence?.
Is it the case that you must misrepresent what is being said in order to deal with it? If not then why did you just misrepresent this?
Use your head Nuno. Do you REALLY think that I would promote Koonin as an ID proponent??
Perhaps that should have been an indicator to stop and look at what you were about to say.
Perhaps you should be more explicit about how you believe Koonin’s work provides any kind of support for ID. Especially since he denies it so strongly.
Let us recap what you wrote:
I did exactly what you recommended. How exactly have I misrepresented anything you said in your paragraph above? You made absolutely no point about Koonin’s paper other than including it in your bibliography so I am at liberty to question any aspect of it that contradicts your claims.
1 Like
No you are not free to suggest that Koonin’s denial of ID diminishes his technical observations regarding the coupled translation apparatus, and therefore my use of his observations reflects confusion on my part. That is an attack on my comment to Jon that has no merit.
And as far as Koonin’s paper goes, guess what else he doesn’t involve in the origin of the coupled translation apparatus?
Perhaps you can gather from the title of his paper?
The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life
Koonin describes the intellectual need for an infinite number of universes, specifically in order to give chance an endless number of opportunities to establish the coupled translation apparatus.
“even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P<10-1018.”
And what again was Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity?
Or you could rely less on rhetoric, and read the paper.
It’s not rhetoric to ask you how you believe Koonin’s paper supports ID. When you cite a paper which you claim supports ID, it’s your responsibility to explain why you believe this. Otherwise I have no incentive to read the paper in the first place.
Again CONSTANT misrepresentation. Its really all you have?
If I am misrepresenting you then please let me know how. You seem to be telling Nuno that Koonin’s work provides support for ID, right here. If Koonin’s paper doesn’t provide support for ID, then what’s the point in me reading it?
Here is what Behe has to say about irreducible complexity:
I never wrote that «there could never be any functional intermediates that natural selection could have selected for on the way to any irreducibly complex system. Those are Pennock’s words. On the contrary, on page 40, I point out that, although irreducible complexity does rule out direct routes, it does not automatically rule out indirect ones.» [in Darwin’s Black Box, Ten year edition, page 285]
In other words, irreducible complexity is not really useful to show anything about intelligent design. If irreducible complexity can emerge by natural processes then it is a dead end for proving that an external designer must exist.
2 Likes
I have to agree with @Jonathan_Burke here as well. What you write is mostly ‘rant’. You elevate intense rhetoric against inconsequential points. Example? Your unsupported statement:
Eddie wrote to Jon: "Also factually incorrect, as my remarks did not constitute a “rant.” ’
(content deleted for attributing negative motivations to other people. Bad George. 
)
2 Likes