I can’t parse that for independent. May be it’s just me. What argument?
How do we know that the number is 50?
If the PIN was dependent, then the ATM would accept anything typed into the console, which would be pretty useless.
Argument refers to the ID argument.
thanks for this… for what it is worth, for the purpose of these philosophical discussions especially, and my reasons outlined to @shekar above, I put both chemical evolution (abiogenesis) in the same category as Darwinian evolution. I of course understand the claim that Darwinian evolution, with its extant mechanism for self-replication, is in a different category… but with my larger core philosophical dilemma, and questioning the impact of methodological naturalism, to me they both revolve around the same question: Can, did, does the complexity demand explanation by an intelligent agent or are natural causes alone sufficient.
One thing i don’t understand is why people who demand methodological naturalism in Darwinism, and claim that we must always and forever seek natural explanations, seem at least more open to the idea that the first chemical evolution was something God did directly. i fear i don’t understand this… it seems a double standard or special pleading. either it is inappropriate to hypothesize intelligent agency or God’s intervention, or it isn’t.
3 Likes
So ID gets tricky when it comes to biology. You don’t say! You’re in good company too: it’s beyond science and rationality.
And what could a PIN be dependent on? (Apart from it must be one of ten thousand 4 digit numerics.). And why would any permutation do if the PIN were dependent in some other way? It must be my age.
The complexity of natural effects is totally explicable by natural causes. It is therefore inappropriate.
Again, who was your professor and what was his significant work?
By sequencing the genomes of parents and offspring and counting the differences, among other ways. In practice it’s a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the gist.
We’re on the same page here regarding “the question” as it relates to both abiogenesis and to evolution. And it looks like we have come to the same conclusion.
For the purpose of clarity, let me tease apart a couple of things. I think there is methodological naturalism, and there is philosophical naturalism. The first is looking for natural laws, the second is asserting that there is nothing but natural laws operating in this universe (this is the atheist position). The assertion that “we must forever seek natural explanations” can be philosophical naturalism. But a third category represents many in the EC camp, that they are not philosophical naturalists, but they do believe the natural laws alone are adequate to produce the complexity we see. Some think that God front-loaded evolutionary results into the Big Bang, like this and consider it all as brilliant as you or I would, but pre-planned. And if they think the natural laws were enough, then they might insist we keep looking even if they’re not a philosophical naturalist.
On abiogenesis, like you I see that some are more deeply familiar with it and have become skeptical that natural laws are adequate for that. But they may still hold that natural laws were enough for evolution.
HTH…
whatever the customer types into the console becomes the PIN, making the PIN dependent on the customer typing
on the other hand, if the PIN is selected before the sequence is typed in, then it is independent
What if they are wrong?
It would be no biggie. It would just mean that they would have remained forever stumped about at least some things even if they had forever to figure things out. But since there will always be stuff stumping us anyway (whether it’s all ‘explainable’ or not), it would remain forever beyond the capacity of science to see its error in this regard.
Now … if people are pinning their very faith on the answer to this question, then I guess that makes it a very serious one indeed. And what if they turn out to be wrong, where does that leave them?
2 Likes
Right. So how does this apply to ID?
How could they be?
It would be no biggie. Their fate is the same as everyone else’s still. And science has made no error. No evidential, disinterested error. God has lied well as in YEC and all other intervention claims outwith incarnation. He obliterates all other traces (apart from maybe a single actual prophecy in the Book of Daniel). He heals and YECs and Floods and Babels and Sodom and Gomorrahs etc, etc as if He didn’t.
Thanks Steve. I was under the mistaken impression that it was based on difference and an assumption that they all arose in the last ~5 million years.
I was doing an on-line search at the same time and found the following which was helpful: Estimating the human mutation rate from autozygous segments reveals population differences in human mutational processes | Nature Communications
This paper suggests a figure of about 80 per generation. If we apply this to human lineage and assume a similar or slightly higher figure in chimps (the generation time is a bit shorter) we would expect more than 2% difference (if we assume a split at 5 million years) and looking at point mutations alone.
Has anyone looked at why the difference is smaller than would be expected using these numbers?
What if someone would like to know, instead of just make an assumption either way?
I guess the whole ID program is one response to that desire. Do you think it’s possible that we may have some desires that may never be fulfilled or satisfied on this side of the grave?
My inclination thus far is that if that particular curiosity is ever to be sated, it will be from scriptural study and the leading of the Spirit. And that (at least on the scriptural side) leaves aside the details of any such answer. But I’m guessing that may be the only satisfaction to be had. I could be wrong. And maybe the Spirit may use science to grab somebody’s attention. Science by itself, though, seems to remain a two-way street with regard to matters of faith. People seem as likely to use its exit ramps from the faith as they are its entrance ramps.
1 Like
Hi, I assume that this is tongue in cheek. After all to err is human LOL
1 Like
I assume that you mean “scientists” and refer to a particular sub-set of scientists
Just for sake of illustration, assume evolution is represented by randomly typing in numbers, and the design specification is the PIN. If someone gains access to the account, we can infer it was design and not evolution, i.e. not typing random numbers but using knowledge of the PIN to type the correct numbers. Much of our modern information and economic infrastructure is built upon the premise the explanatory filter is highly reliable. Why should this principle suddenly become invalid when we look at biological history?