1

The reason you are getting smeared all over the place is that you are acting like a clown. When someone pretends to know something about science and then babbles about it in a way that reveals that his understanding of the subject isn't quite of even grade school quality, do you expect everyone to just nod respectfully and let the errors slide by?

As for the "explanatory filter"...I've looked Dembski's work over. There's nothing there. His filter explains nothing, and he provides no explanation for how to apply it to anything. If you want to pretend that there is anything of substance in it, prepare to be embarrassed further.

As I've already asked, tell me how you would apply this magic formula to a rock, a chair, and an egg. You can't. Dembski can't. All he's got is hot air and handwaving.

2

P.Z.,

The reason you are getting smeared all over the place is that you are acting like a clown. When someone pretends to know something about science and then babbles about it in a way that reveals that his understanding of the subject isn't quite of even grade school quality, do you expect everyone to just nod respectfully and let the errors slide by?

Ahh...I was wondering when you were going to resort to such claims of superiority. Positively Leiter-esque.

As I've already asked, tell me how you would apply this magic formula to a rock, a chair, and an egg. You can't. Dembski can't. All he's got is hot air and handwaving.

Okay, so then please explain how naturalism is able to make the distinction I wrote about.

3

Joe,

I noticed you didn't answer Paul's question though. What is this explanatory filter? How does one test a chair, spring, egg, blarg, or vitzbit, with it?

~DS~

4

D.Z.

I mentioned it in the previous post. Here it is again.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending this version of the explanatory filter. For all I know it could be complete bunk. But at least ID has made an attempt to come up with one. The same can't be said for naturalism (at least so far).

5

Remarkable.

Have you even read that post of Dembski's that you've linked to several times now? There's nothing there. It's amazingly vacuous -- he makes promises, he waves his hands, nothing happens.

Compare it to evolutionary biologists who offer methods of analysis. Look at parsimony analysis, sequence comparisons, assays of allele frequencies...the protocols are all laid out, the data from series of observations are available, the whole point of the thing is to enable others to replicate the work.

Dembski doesn't do any of that. I can't try his analyses for myself, because he doesn't give me the methodology. He doesn't even do any calculations himself!

And I've already explained to you once over at the Panda's Thumb how real biologists answer the question of whether something is designed or not. Why do you insist that we won't answer when we have, and that Dembski has answered when he hasn't?

6

Joe: If this is the case, naturalistic methodology should have no problem differentiating between what is produced by undirected natural causes and that which is produced by intelligent causes.

And it does, check out criminology, SETI, Archaeology for example. Intelligent causes without any knowledge about motive, means, opportunity however fare a worse fate especially when using an eliminative approach like Dembski's which is nothing more than an inference from ignorance.

But even if methodological naturalism cannot distinguish between design or non design, why should this point to an a priori issue? The only apriori issue is that MN cannot address the supra natural, if your argument is that MN cannot address ID, you seem to imply that thus ID is supra natural. Fine... That would clarify a lot. But then you have to show how ID would be better than MN, so far ID has failed to show ANY evidence that it can do equally well or even better.

Why is that one may wonder?

7

Joe said:
---If this is the case, naturalistic methodology should have no problem differentiating between what is produced by undirected natural causes and that which is produced by intelligent causes.

Hm....I have problems with some assumptions here.

Someone else said:

And it does, check out criminology, SETI, Archaeology for example. Intelligent causes without any knowledge about motive, means, opportunity however fare a worse fate ...

I think this is an instructive example about the presuppositions in the ID debate.

Joe says, without any basis, that naturalistic methodology should be able to distinguish undirected natural causes and intelligent causes. The next commenter comes up with examples where humans distinguish between undirected natural causes and human-intelligent causes.

note: he comes up with the fact that humans can distinguish between HUMAN-INTELLIGENT causes and undirected natural ones.

But isn't joe making a much more far-reaching statement? That mere human science, in the pursuit of truth, should be able to distinguish between undirected natural causes and supra-natural-non-human intelligent causes?

Pray tell, how in the world could we do that? I mean, any being that could have caused ID could have buried the fossil record here to confuse us, right?

Does our universe exist, or are we merely a simulation of a universe existing?

We can't answer this question with science without getting outside the universe. Likewise, we can't answer the question of distinguishing natural events from events caused by a cause we don't understand or comprehend.

so, in terms of the human-intelligence stuff, humans observe probabilities of events, and determine that multiple coincidences are unlikely. they use this as their "explanatory filter".

But to distinguish what is designed and only appears to be designed? We can't DO THAT, not unless you can determine the DIFFERENCE between "is" and "appears".

how the heck does ID do it? how can ID tell the diff. between fossils implanted for us to find to confuse us into believing in evolution and fossils existing and confusing us into believing in evolution?

8

You're all wrong!

Quote: Joe says, without any basis, that naturalistic methodology should be able to distinguish undirected natural causes and intelligent causes.

The idea of Naturalistic( meaning empirical I hope) methodology being able to distinguish undirected narutal causes from intelligent one does only a baisc it is logically necessary. Here the first part of the argument. 1.naturalistic methodology is used to find the causes of natural things or things that exist in nature. 2. Design is a cause of things that exist in nature or natural things. 3. Since naturalistic methodology finds the cause of things that exist in nature and design can be a cause, naturalistic methodology can find design.

The Second part: 1. Different kinds of natural things have different kinds of causes. 2. undirected (non-design) causes can cause a natural thing to exist 3. Design can cause a natural thing to exist. 4. Therefore the thing that undirected causes cause to exist cannot the same as the thing that design caused because the the thing would have two contradictory causes which is impossible.

Part Three: 1. part one is true in that we can find design though method and 2. The second part is true in that a design as a cause of a thing can never be at the time same caused by a undirected caused 3. Therefore, When though method, design is found be a cause of a thing then it cannot be also cause by non-design causes. 4. Since this is true, if design as a cause can be detected at all though method then medthod must be able to distinguish between design and undirected cause.

PZ read Dembski's book the Design Inference if you want "the protocols all laid out for everyone to see." The article which was linked is just a summary of the Filter and not the whole arguement for it. Which posts on Panda's Thumb describe the way "real scientists" detect design? I am assuming that you believe that design is something that can empirically tested for, am I correct? By the way your arguments on Panda Thumb are mostly Strawmen and you apparently have a hard time reading what Joe wrote.

Quote:That mere human science, in the pursuit of truth, should be able to distinguish between undirected natural causes and supra-natural-non-human intelligent causes?

Nice Strawman. No ID people are saying that you can detect supra-natural-non-human intelligent causes. The ID people are saying that you can distinguish illtelligent causes (ie design) from undirected causes. The nature of the intelligence (human,nonhuman super natural...etc) cannot be measured nor does is have to be. For example, if I leave some money in a safe and I return to find the lock cut in a precise and exacting mannor and money gone I don't have to know whether one man or one woman or the entire 18th Street gang broke in and cut the lock to know that a this was the result of intelligence at work.

Quote: Does our universe exist, or are we merely a simulation of a universe existing?

Dude, what are you smoking? I have a word for you: Relevance. Look it up.

9

I've read TDI. Have you?

It has no more detail and no more specificity than the excerpt that was linked here. There is no useable protocol given anywhere in the book, nor does he show any useable examples.

If you want to claim that there's any useful substance there, and you've read it, you are lying.

If you haven't read it, then you've been lied to.

This is pretty much par for the course, though. Creationists are among the most dishonest people with whom I've had the unpleasant chore of working. I suspect that one reason fewer scientists are Christians than in the general population is that we tend to see the "lying for Jesus" crowd up close, and damn, but you guys do a disservice to your religion.

10

What was the Theory of ID again and what testable predictions does it make?

Isn't that what started this? Didn't Joe Carter defend Mr Van Dyke from criticism being leveled over Van Dyke's support for the ID movement in a student?

And isn't the primary basic objection that most of us responded with that, "There isn't a scientific theory of ID, so obviously we can't teach what does not exist as being scientifically tenable"?
Why do we keep getting into a discussion about philosophy? I mean, it's almost like you guys don't have ANY science to discuss that supports your extraordinary contention!

This is your nemesis, your Lex Luther of science. You can wave your arms and decry naturalism all you wish. You can smugly assure each other that you know the 'truth'.
[Although I'm somewhat surprised you utilize the products of wicked, amoral, atheistic naturalism, such as the Internet, so freely. Why don't you use the 'superior Supernatural Methodologies' to communicate? Where are the spin off technologies from SM? ]

Until you can present an actual Theory of ID which makes testable predictions, you're blowing smoke. If you're going to discuss a scientific controversy, my advice would be to use scientific data and methods. Otherwise, there's no 'there' there. And you will continue to get hammered daily.

~DS~

11

Amazing how quickly a philosophical debate between intelligent and presumably adult individuals devolves into a school yard argument -- complete with name-calling, taunting, posturing, and rhetoric.

Just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not make them your intellectually inferior nor does it justify an attack on the other person.

So far as I can see, neither side is offering any concrete data for either -- just philosophical rhetoric and intellectual arrogance. Neither naturalistic evolution or intelligent design has offered up a sufficient explanation for the origin of life on this planet, and until one of them does, everyone should keep their egos in check and remember just how incomplete their knowledge about the origin of life (however long ago it was) really is.

If your purpose is to convert people to your particular paradigm, do you really think that the best way to go about doing this is with insults and condescension?

12

--No ID people are saying that you can detect supra-natural-non-human intelligent causes. The ID people are saying that you can distinguish illtelligent causes (ie design) from undirected causes

well, then ID people are cooked. This isn't even REMOTELY reasonable.

For one, I gave you one limited version of a "intelligent cause" and you already dismissed that one as being distinguishable from undirected causes. Then you go on to say that the class of them can be distinguished.

Well, no, logically, you're wrong. I have a proof by contradiction. There is an element in your set that can't be distinguished from the elements in the other set.

Continuing, based on what evidence do they have that they can tell? None. This is already an assumption or circular reasoning, because it requires knowing which things fit into which set. Who can tell you that you got the truth-values right for those two sets in the first place? No one. Therefore, you can't possibly tell that you have distinguished.

13

Da Links, PZ where are the links? Or should I call you a lier? PZ has a hard time reading. I never said that TDI had the "protocols" laid out in it. I said the article linked didn't fully develop the argument.

In response to the claim that intelligent causes are empirically distinguished from undirected causes:

Quote: well, then ID people are cooked. This isn't even REMOTELY reasonable.

Why are the ID people cooked for making this claim. If this claim is "cooked" then Science as a "System of Knowledge" is also "cooked" as it no longer be empirical only because many "empirical" causes would be ruled out from the start.

Quote: Does our universe exist, or are we merely a simulation of a universe existing?

And if it where a simulation of a universe would it be less of a universe? And Dude, do you really think that argument is a good one?

14

If the overall point is that there is no explanatory filter possible in NM, then that means what?

Why are the guest commenters here getting prissy?

15

Hi Joe,
I was enjoying our exchanges of opinion on The Panda’s Thumb and was waiting for your response to my most recent post. I can see you’ve been pretty busy over here though, and probably haven’t had the time to visit again, so I decided to save you the trip.

On your original post starting this thread you state that (paraphrased) NM should have no trouble distinguishing between undirected NC and directed IC, and ask what is the “explanatory filter” used by NM to distinguish between “designed” and “designoid.” You note that ID claims to have a method. I would only observe that, from the after-the-fact perspective of hindsight, random chance can claim the appearance of purpose.

Your framing is deceptive in implying that, concerning living organisms, there is an obvious difference between undirected NC and directed IC; or that what works for inanimate constructions or implements, also applies to living organisms. As has been noted here and elsewhere, it is a relatively simple process to divine the hand of intelligence in a watch or an automobile or a pencil sharpener or a Neolithic hand axe.

“Naturalism’s” (your term, not mine) method/explanatory filter concerning the evolution of living organisms – it obviously has no interest in exploring the evolution of a toaster or a mousetrap – is something called “testability.” I would suggest that it goes something like this:

1.Propose a hypothesis
2.Propose tests for that hypothesis
3.Make predictions based on that hypothesis
4.Conduct tests and publish results of those tests
5.Refine hypothesis based on test results and peer critiques
6.Enjoy peers’ accolades if your hypothesis becomes (scientific) theory
7.Drown sorrows in beer if hypothesis fails miserably

ID proponents (yourself included) have acknowledged that ID is not testable. It therefore obviously fails Step 2 of the Scientific methodology filter and is considered, a posteriori, to be not a Scientific theory.

The reality that ID only proposes irreducible complexity or specified complexity – or whatever-for organisms or organic structures which have not yet been explained by the scientific method tells us something about ID and its claims and methodology. At this date I believe there are published - or soon to be published - papers laying out “natural cause” sequences for blood clotting, the flagellum, and immune systems, all of which were put forward by ID proponents as examples of irreducible complexity and Intelligent Design.