In Whit Stillman’s charmingly quirky comedy Barcelona, there’s a scene where Ted, a stuffy corporate drone working in his corporation's Spain headquarters, has a conversation with his cousin Fred, a dim young Naval officer assigned as an advance man for the 6th Fleet:
FRED: Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and--
TED: Really?
FRED: And one of the things that keeps popping up is this thing about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs--they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
TED: The text.
FRED: OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
Whenever I listen to debates about evolution and Intelligent Design theory I get the same feeling that came over Fred. While everyone in the media and the blogosphere continually talks about the subtext -- ID isn’t science, evolution isn’t testable -- no one talks about the text, the part that is on the surface, completely open and obvious: The question that really matters to most people is whether the human species is the result of completely non-teleological processes or whether an intelligent agent was involved.
If the discussion were truly about whether the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex or if macroevolution can account for speciation, there would be almost no public debate. While people argue over the “subtext”, they are primarily concerned with the implications of the “text”, how the answer affects their worldview. The reason the discussion rarely progresses is that few individuals possess enough data or knowledge to make convincing arguments for either side. Even those who are closest to the data—evolutionary biologists, for example—have to rely on other “experts” (i.e., cosmologists, geneticists) to fill in the gaps of their personal knowledge.
Because expressing a knowledgeable opinion on the issue requires an appeal to outside authority, most people tend to have a fragmented view that is a mix of accepted “fact”, outdated evidence, presuppositional biases, and garden-variety ignorance. If we were to honestly examine our opinion we would generally have to concede that our opinions are based not on personal knowledge but on what we think other people know. How then can we weigh the data in order to make an informed opinion?
The answer, I believe, can be found using a statistical method devised by an 18th-century Presbyterian minister and mathematician: Thomas Bayes.
The evolutionary history of man proceeds from the beginning of the universe (i.e., the Big Bang) to the pinnacle of human development (i.e., the creation of the human mind). Because the progression is linear, we can examine the evidence for each step and use Bayes' theorem to help us update or revise beliefs in light of new evidence. Let’s examine, for instance, our beliefs about the strength of the data for non-teleological evolution. To simplify the process, I’ve reduced the process to five broad steps:
E1. From the Big Bang to chemical evolution of non-living matter
E2. Chemical evolution of non-living matter to single cell organism
E3. Single cell organism to multicellular organism
E4. Multicellular organism to Homo sapiens
E5. Evolution of Homo sapient brain to modern human mind.
Not everyone, of course, will agree that the process involves all five steps. Neo-Darwinists and some ID advocates would argue that all five are required. Most creationists would likely leave out all but the last step, and only keep that one with some modification. For the sake of argument, though, we’ll include all five and assign probabilities based on what we know (or at least what we think other people know) about the relevant data:
10 indicates the evidence is 10 times as likely to have occurred based on the current data
2 is two times as likely to have occurred based on the current data
1 is neutral
0.5 is two times less likely to have occurred based on the current data
0.1 is much less likely have occurred based on the current
Here is an example of how I would apply the probabilities to the five steps:
Big Bang to chemical evolution of non-living matter -- (0.5) There is no evidence that the singularity which created the entire universe was an undirected, uncaused event. Add to that the fact that our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and the evidence against undirected natural processes creating the chemicals necessary for life to appear becomes rather weak. This is one of the reasons the metaphysically-specious multiverse theory has become popular.
Chemical evolution of non-living matter to single cell organism -- (0.1) This one is rather easy: There is not a single shred of evidence that undirected natural processes created life on earth from non-living matter. This lack of support for this step has led many to posit directed panspermia and other “seeding” methods in order to jump start the process of life on this planet.
Single cell organism to multicellular organism -- (10) I’m not sure what data there is to support the ideas that single cell organisms can become, through the process of natural selection, mulitcellular, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume such evidence not only exists but is indisputable.
Multicellular organism to Homo sapiens -- (2) While I don’t think it’s even remotely possible to get from a mulitcellular life to the species homo sapien, I’ll be generous and give this step the benefit of the doubt by saying that it is two times as likely to have occurred as not. Granted, this is not what I really believe, but I want to be as generous whenever possible.
Evolution of Homo sapient brain to modern human -- This one is also easy. As I’ve argued before, if the human brain is created by undirected causes then we have no reason to trust our noetic equipment. In fact, if the brain is completely the result of undirected processes then the functions of the mind are completely explainable using the laws of chemistry and physics. That being the case, we can conclude that qualia (phenomenal aspects of our mental lives, such as the experiences of seeing green, being bored, tasting ice cream) is an illusion. It doesn’t rely exist and the fact that your brain seems to think it does is some weird illusion that you should just ignore.
When I plug these rather generous numbers into the Bayes’ formula* I find that there is a 9% probability that the data supports the claim that human beings are the result of natural undirected causes and a 91% probability that it does not. To be clear, this is not saying that there is only a 9% likelihood that the theory is true, only that based on the data (or at least my interpretation of it) I would be foolish to think it is even remotely plausible that humans could be created by non-teleological processes.
*Although there are a number of calculators that you can use, one of the simplest is found on Steve Urwin’s “Probability of God” calculator. To use if for our purposes, simply ignore the text and plug in the steps (E1 – E5) with 10 being the far left (“Much more likely if God exists”) and 0.1 being the far right (“Much more likely if God does not exist.”). Set E6 and E7 to “God neutral” and the numbers will come out right. (It’s not nearly as complicated as this explanation makes it sound.)
1
If we were to honestly examine our opinion we would generally have to concede that our opinions are based not on personal knowledge but on what we think other people know. How then can we weigh the data in order to make an informed opinion?
Well, actually some of us are capable of reading the peer-reviewed literature, doing experiments, proving theorems and what-not, which means that not simply is it a question of "belief," but there is a chain of reasoning that makes logical sense. But we don't simply pull numbers out of our posteriors to plug into an equation...
Again some of us understand what tail events are...
There is no evidence that the singularity which created the entire universe was an undirected, uncaused event.
Well, actually there are more than one proposal that would allow this to be the case; anybody who reads this, and this could see at least 2 alternative hypotheses that don't need some outside intervening aliens seeding matter or singularities in space-time.
posted on 12.22.2005 5:56 AM2
Very good post cuting through alot of the hype and over-reaction to get to the heart of the matter. To sum it up in short "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
posted on 12.22.2005 7:15 AM3
"...we [!!!] don't simply pull numbers out of our posteriors to plug into an equation..."
Now say these words with an appropriately funereal cadence and some spooky music...
dark energy
Ooooh. Doesn't it just give you chills? Does me. I get the same chills every time I think of those incredible insights that have led our scientists to other equally remarkable discoveries like phlogiston and the ether.
posted on 12.22.2005 7:25 AM4
How much time did you waste on this? Around here, subjectivity is often equated with meaninglessness where morals are concerned. It must be different with math. Your weights for your Bayesian calculations betray your prejudices, as mine would reflect mine.
I have a swell idea: let's weigh the possibilities for virgin birth, resurrection, parting the Red Sea, and some other biblical events. Oh, I forgot. You only play offense.
posted on 12.22.2005 7:28 AM5
Mumon-
Both the wickipedia articles you link to talk about the singularity that Joe mentions -- your repeating what he said, essentially. It's been a few years since I took an astrophysics class but I believe the 'singularity' is a blank wall. It is impossible to tell what happened before something like 10e-43 after the big bang because that's the smallest aount of time it would take any information to cross the smallest particle, a kind of a fundamental frequency of existence. Nothing can happen before this time in any meaningfull sense. I think it's a chord of the planck distance or it is the planck distance.
I don't have any reference books at hand so I am getting close to posterior extraction with this info. I'm sure that if I'm wrong you'll let me know.
6
Rob,
One differance is that all the events you sighted had eye witnesses.
posted on 12.22.2005 7:49 AM7
I don't think anyone ever claimed that the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, parting of Red Sea, etc. were anything other than miracles. Miracles are defined as things that don't usually happen, they are by definition supernatural. People 2K years ago knew that just as well as we do. That is why it occurred to them to write about it.
Science has nothing to say about miracles, either way, because they are not repeatable or experimentally verifiable. If someone says a miracle cannot happen because it doesn't make sense scientifically, they are betraying their underlying assumptions.
8
Joe -- I like the idea, but I must admit that setting the values is something that should not be done flippantly. If you say that you're "not sure what data there is" for something, you shouldn't be setting the value. This could be a constructive argument if you brought in some experts who could help set the values. I'm sure most biochemists would disagree with you about the evidence for E2. I love you, but I'd probably listen to them first (assuming they are intellectually honest).
posted on 12.22.2005 10:24 AM9
Chris,
Joe -- I like the idea, but I must admit that setting the values is something that should not be done flippantly.
I completely agree. That is why the only time I set the values without having a firm grasp of the evidence, I set them to go against what I would normally believe.
I'm sure most biochemists would disagree with you about the evidence for E2. I love you, but I'd probably listen to them first (assuming they are intellectually honest).
Actually, I’m on pretty solid ground on that one. I set the value based, in part, on a review article in the Society for General Microbiology's journal Microbiology (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/148/1/21):
There is an enormous leap from pre-biotic chemistry to the complexity of DNA replication, protein manufacture and biochemical pathways existing at the time of the primary divergence of life. Although progress is being made on the evolution of some structural components and biochemical pathways, there remain numerous unsolved ‘chicken and egg’ problems. Margulis (1996a ) said, ‘To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to that bacterium’, yet accumulated evidence from the physical and biological sciences indicates that advanced life existed at a very early stage of Earth’s development. While derived evolution is clearly more efficient than de novo evolution, why then did it (coupled with symbiosis) take a further 3 gigayears to arrive at plants and animals, when most of the basic, often unique, developments appear to have been established in the first 500 million years or less?One of the reasons I think this formula is useful is that when we “set the values” it causes us to consider what we are basing it on. If we are honest with ourselves we will likely find areas that we need to explore the evidence in more detail for ourselves. I think that most people, for example, have the same assumption you do that biochemists have some solid evidence for E2. In fact, they not only don’t have such evidence but are beginning to propose wild theories (directed panspermia) to account for what is “highly improbable.”
Hence the enigma: an origin of life on Earth appears highly improbable, an origin elsewhere is highly conjectural. While this conundrum has been identified in various forms for several decades, its magnitude has dramatically increased over the last five years as new constraints are placed on the timing of the primary divergence of the domains of life (Shen et al., 2001 ).
The truth is that most people (including scientists) base their belief in the origen of man on an assumption that someone else has actually seen the evidence and is justified in finding it convincing. Once a person begins looking at the evidence themselves, though, they soon find that it is not nearly as clear-cut as our high school science teachers make it sound.
10
Joseph,
Actually Joe, even with your weighting and assumptions a 9% probability is quite high.
Really? If I told you that there was a 91% probability that it would not rain would you still take an umbrella?
It seems to me that given the weight of scientific evidence methodically accumulated over centuries, none of which supports a teleological view of human origins, the burden of proof for it is with the holders of the teleological view themselves.
Actually, I think just the opposite is the case. The people who claim a non-teleological view have the burden of proof because their very position entails teleology at the same time they are claiming it doesn’t exist. For instance, you can’t claim that evolution can create reliable noetic equipment from non-teleological processes.
Negatives cannot be proven, because we cannot know all possible cases. So application of the scientific evidence to the problem cannot disprove a teleological human origin, but it can [and it does] show that there is no particular reason to believe it, based on the evidence.
Sure there is. You believe that our brains are able to discern reality, don’t you? How then do they become reliable if they are created through non-teleological processes?
The assertion that the contrary view is statisticly unlikely is beside the point. And no statistician worth his salt would describe a chance of approximately 1 in 10 as "highly unlikely".
The 9% refers not to the probability that non-teleological evolution has occurred but rather to whether the evidence supports that contention. If you are provided a 91% reason to reject a claim, wouldn’t you be warranted in doing so?
My Buddhist teachers agree with this precisely and state that the real spiritual problem of man is his beliefs to the contrary.
I’m always a bit confused when Buddhists (like Mumon) start defending non-teleological evolution. Unless you believe in materialism (which I can’t imagine any Buddhist could accept) then there is no reason to think accept such a position. Even the Dalai Lama rejects the idea. Admittedly, I'm not well-versed in Buddhist thought but I'm not sure how the two ideas are compatible.
A good starting point is to ask yourself the following question: Where does my "self" end and my body begin?
I don’t the two can be divided. But then I don’t think the body and the “self” are completely material either.
11
"One difference is that all the events you sighted had eye witnesses."
The Big Bang is detected by the measurement of leftover radiation from the original event. So by your standard of evidence, even you can technically be an eyewitness.
12
Mumon Well, actually some of us are capable of reading the peer-reviewed literature, doing experiments, proving theorems and what-not, which means that not simply is it a question of "belief," but there is a chain of reasoning that makes logical sense. But we don't simply pull numbers out of our posteriors to plug into an equation...
Let’s be honest. You and I both know that you did not read the peer-reviewed literature, do the experiments, or prove the theorems in order to come to your conclusion about non-teleological evolution. Your belief, just like mine, is based on testimony of people who claim to have examined the data.
But maybe I’m wrong. If so, then I’d be glad to have you post a list of the peer-reviewed literature that led you to accept the theory. Perhaps I’ll have to change my mind just as you did (assuming, of course, that you had an open mind from the beginning).
Rob Around here, subjectivity is often equated with meaninglessness where morals are concerned. It must be different with math.
No, it’s a different subject. Math applies to science, not to morality.
Your weights for your Bayesian calculations betray your prejudices, as mine would reflect mine.
True. But that is the beauty of the process. Once we realize where our prejudices lie, we can together examine the evidence to see if the reason we interpret it differently is because (a) the data does not exist or (b) we choose to view the data through our own presuppositional lens.
I’m curious, though, to hear what probability you would give it and the reason for your decision.
Oh, I forgot. You only play offense.
There are so many people that do such a good job on “defense” that I don’t often feel the need to play that side of the line. ; )
13
Mumon: Reading your response to Joe reminds me of this quote:
"Robert Wilensky once jocularly remarked 'We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.'"
posted on 12.22.2005 12:24 PM14
Mr. Carter, in another post you wrote:
"This is the sort of hubris I was referring to earlier for you to claim to be able to know more than those who thoroughly familiar with the writings of Paul and James." Yet you feel completely comfortable to continually swim in a scientific sea? This is a rhetorical question merely.
15
DM,
Yet you feel completely comfortable to continually swim in a scientific sea?
Not really, which is why you won’t find me trying to argue specific details about science. My primary interest is in the philosophical aspect and how it shapes the interpretation of the data – often in unwarranted ways.
But as I mentioned in an earlier comment, I’m willing to examine the scientific evidence and factor it into my belief system (just as I have done countless times before). My main sticking points are E2 and E5 so anyone who has evidence that supports them I’d love to examine it.
16
Joe,
I've always been disastisfied with this type of approach to looking at design. As I recently discovered, Bill Dembski also does not like it. To quote:
I’ve argued at length elsewhere that Bayesian methods are inadequate for
drawing design inferences. Among the reasons I’ve given is the need to assess prior
probabilities in employing these methods, the concomitant problem of rationally grounding these
priors, and the lack of empirical grounding in estimating probabilities conditional on design
hypotheses.
While I do think that the choice of confidence interval at even a 95% level is not high enough to be eliminative (I'd argue for a couple more standard deviations), I do think there is value in Bayesian methods for exploratory purposes. Nevertheless, in design detection, I don't think it's enough.
See more in Dembski's Addendum B of his Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence.
posted on 12.22.2005 12:44 PM17
>The Big Bang is detected by the measurement of leftover radiation from the original event. So by your standard of evidence, even you can technically be an eyewitness.
Unfortunately for the naturalistic side of the debate, the Big Bang is quite solidly witnessed in modern science. But a beginning in time opens a huge door for a creator because effects tend to have causes*; this is why so many scientists are trying to find a way around the singularity. Even Hawking admits that his theories have no actual evidence; he, like so many others, is trying to get rid of that "beginning" because, in the words of one cosmologist, it smacks of creationism.
*(Please don't start. The universe obviously had a beginning and is therefore open to discussion about a cause; God is not caused because He is eternal.)
posted on 12.22.2005 12:49 PM18
MWC,
While I do think that the choice of confidence interval at even a 95% level is not high enough to be eliminative (I'd argue for a couple more standard deviations), I do think there is value in Bayesian methods for exploratory purposes. Nevertheless, in design detection, I don't think it's enough.
I agree. And just to be clear, this use of Bayesian method is not for design detection but belief formation based on the evidence. The post was already too long so I didn’t want to go into a lengthy explanation about the purpose. I was hoping it would become clear based on the context, but reading it again I see I didn’t really make it clear enough.
19
Interesting comments so far.
Mumon conflates an unproven hypothesis with evidence.
No wonder he boasts of being so unlike the dim bulbs around here who are incapable of reading peer reviewed literature and undertaking that other well known scientific endeavour; "what not".
I have read quite a bit of peer reviewed literature and find the evidence that the fossil record exists indisputable. I also find the big bang cosmology nearly indisputable.
However I have yet to see a single 'proven theorem' explaining that the processes that have caused these things are natural events necessarily independent of outside causation. In fact within evolutionary biology I have seen zero proven theorems regarding macro biology at all.
All that has been proven is some animals change from dark to light or large to small. Perhaps some materialist here is aware of some experiment unknown to us rubes which has been conducted that proves as fact the theorem that one billion years x a flatworm = human consciousness.
Now, the idea that the theory of natural selection is logical and reasonable is to my mind certainly true, provided one starts with a certain set of assumptions about the universe. It is hardly proven, in fact I believe it to be wrong, but it is not an unreasonable theory given the preliminary assumptions.
Given a different set of assumptions, which the people who hold them feel there is a great deal of reasonable evidence to support, it is also perfectly rational and logical to believe that the universe was created by and is guided by a superior, perhaps supreme, being.
When the holders of the naturalistic viewpoint incessantly tell us to simply believe their conclusions because we are stupid and ignorant, they weaken their argument. If they were more confident of their position they would not resort to those tactics; their argument would stand or fall on its merits.
Why is it so difficult for materialists to say that their opponents are simply wrong? Why must they incessantly characterize us with such flaming passion as a bunch of Jethro's sitting on a stump picking our toes?
Because of course at its essence this isn't a debate about enlightened scientists versus banjo pickers, its about one faith-based world view versus another. And while science at its best is immune to enflamed passions, faith of any stripe isn't.
One last point. Will an intellectually honest believer in materialism please step forward and admit to the utter speciousness of the "panspermia" theory? At some point in the universe the organic had to spring from the inorganic. Pushing this occurence off of the earth and onto some distant world billions of years earlier is to utterly dodge the question and is in fact a logical falacy, logic being something the materialists seem to think they have a monopoly on. Logically speaking it won't shred materialism to admit 'panspermia's' speciousness; it will in fact bolster your position by admitting its an obviously sidestepping argument.
In fact, when you get right down to it, the argument seems to recognize the validity of one of the IDers main points; that there has been insufficient time and conditions on earth for the genesis of life to have taken place. You don't want to grant those crazy fundamentalists that much respect do you?
20
"The truth is that most people (including scientists) base their belief in the origen of man on an assumption that someone else has actually seen the evidence and is justified in finding it convincing."
That certainly isn't how I see it. Although I have to admit, Joe, your "calculations" gave me a good chuckle this morning.
The probability of our existence is exactly 100%, since we are here. The more we look at how we came to be here, the more we bring our intelligence, tools, and collective knowledge to bear on the problem, the closer we can get to an answer.
The problem is that we're looking for something much harder to locate than, say, evidence of the Big Bang. When the first cell divided, nobody took a photo of it happening. It is something we must infer from the evidence we have today.
In my own profession, for example, we have studies in new fields like linguistic archeology that allow us to glean a partial knowledge of man's existence some 10,000 years ago, and even there we're almost at a total loss for data. You're asking questions about something that's several orders of magnitude older. What exactly do you expect science to come up with here? A fossil of the first bacterium?
It's all guesswork. So no, I don't expect that there's some group of brilliant paleo-evolutionists on the cutting edge who have lots of data and evidence and occasionally toss out clever press releases. No, what we have is a multidisciplinary effort that embraces scholars and academics from a broad range of fields. Some of these people are addle-brained religious types who believe in invisible superbeings, and their input should normally be discarded out of hand.
You evangelicals like to scrape up these bizarre writings and forward them as evidence of "scientific controversy" or whatnot, but it's very disingenuous to do so. Do keep in mind that I'm not predisposed to ignore evidence of superbeings per se, but until we have evidence of them better than "some clown 2000 years ago said he saw one," I'm going to stick with empirical science and draw inferences from non-religous thinking when examining philosophical and speculative questions.
posted on 12.22.2005 1:49 PM21
I just had to throw in the following quote I found today from John Derbyshire over at National Review. He was talking about the very different focus that mainstream scientists and ID proponents bring to the debate, and I can't help but notice the same point here, when the ID folks keep talking about world views and presuppositions, while mainstream science types instead keep focusing on evidence and research.
"I am, in any case, coming to believe that ID-ers and working scientists have different types of brain organization. (Incipient speciation, perhaps?) One thing I notice, talking to working scientists, is how deeply, deeply uninterested most of them are in metaphysics--in the topics that fill up ID websites and talk, and the emails I get when I write about ID. If you try to talk metaphysics to the average working scientist, his eyes glaze over at once. ID-ers want to talk about nothing else. Scientists just want to get on with finding out things. It's Guelphs and Ghibellines, Yankees and Mets--some fundamental difference in ways of thinking. A small number of scientists--Sagan, Dawkins, et al.-- make much noise with their opinions on metaphysics (which are usually no more profound than what you or I could come up with) but most couldn't care less.
I recall a conversation I once had with an actual cosmologist (the only such conversation I have ever had, I think). Eons ago (he said) the universe was much hotter and denser than it is now. At earlier periods, it was hotter and denser yet. At the remotest period we can theorize about, it was so hot and dense that our current understandings break down. If we can improve our understanding a bit, we might push back that break-down point a few trillion trillion trillionths of a second. That was his aim. But what (I asked) happened before that? How did the whole thing get started? Where did it come from? What was there before? I could see the guy's eyes glaze over before I finished asking. "How the **** should I know? I'm a physicist." But those metaphysical questions are, of course, the ones everyone wants to talk about."
posted on 12.22.2005 2:04 PM22
If I told you that there was a 91% probability that it would not rain would you still take an umbrella?
Sure. But I cannot count on rain, I can only bet on it. And my bet has absolutely nothing to do with whether it actually rains or not. In the same way, a teleological explanation of things may be true or false, but this truth or falsity is in no way altered by my belief about it.
The people who claim a non-teleological view have the burden of proof because their very position entails teleology at the same time they are claiming it doesn’t exist. For instance, you can’t claim that evolution can create reliable noetic equipment from non-teleological processes.
I may be missing something by not being in prior discussions, but this rather bewilders me. As I tried to say in my first post, science cannot refute teleology, it cannot make a legitimate claim that the teleological explanation is wrong, but I think it can say that nothing in the natural evidence supports it. If you think that this is incorrect, I'd appreciate specifics.
As far as the reasons our sense perceptions are reliable, I see no advantage to a teleological point of view to explain this. The same is the case for "noetic equipment" which I presume means just about the same thing. All a teleological view can tell us is that our perceptions are reliable because it is God's will for this to be so. This does not appear to me to be a substansive answer to the question.
I’m always a bit confused when Buddhists (like Mumon) start defending non-teleological evolution. Unless you believe in materialism (which I can’t imagine any Buddhist could accept) then there is no reason to think accept such a position. Even the Dalai Lama rejects the idea.
I can't speak for all Buddhists, because there are differing views among them concerning the nature of the world. Some, for example, are atomic pluralists, believing the world consists of atoms in space and moments in time. This is quite close to the more naive versions of Materialism in the West.
But my teachers' view and the Dalai Lama's view are quite close, though not quite the same in all details. The question "What is the boundary between your "self" and your body?" is a first step of the radical intellectual critique of the notion of the real existence of Mind.
The same critique can be turned in the opposite direction and used to refute the notion of the real existence of Matter. Both such notions can be shown to be self-contradictory.
When both the notions of Mind and Matter are shown to be spurious, what is left is what you so precisely describe: we can conclude that qualia (phenomenal aspects of our mental lives, such as the experiences of seeing green, being bored, tasting ice cream) is an illusion
This is a little foreshortened, but what Buddhists of my school assert, broadly, is that both the Subject and the Object, do not exist independently.
I don’t the two can be divided. But then I don’t think the body and the “self” are completely material either.
We can carry the critique of Mind a little further by asking a more focused version of this: Is it the material or the immaterial part of you which percieves things? And where is the boundary between these?
23
"Will an intellectually honest believer in materialism please step forward and admit to the utter speciousness of the "panspermia" theory?"
I'll come as close as I can, Brian: I think it makes as much sense as ID. Either way, we merely put the explanation one remove away. ;-).
posted on 12.22.2005 3:18 PM24
Come on Rob,
You can do better than that.
I can say this Baye's theorem thingamabob is completely subjective and arbitrary without resorting to saying Richard Dawkins is also a doofus who bases his science on his atheism.
Just try it once, its liberating.
posted on 12.22.2005 3:35 PM26
Good post Joe.
Even though you have used conservative estimates, the 91% is enough to give the non-theists the willies.
From the science point of view, you may be interested in my creation/evolution year in review.
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/12/creation-and-evolution-years.html
I have to agree with you about needed an outside authority to base an expert opinion. Even if you ARE a scientist who does experiments there is way too much scope to the issue that you could have personal experience with any significant portion of the evidence. It is manifestly impossible, which is why Mumon's bluffing is all the more amusing.
God Bless and Merry Christmas
posted on 12.22.2005 5:12 PM27
Joe,
I was hoping it would become clear based on the context, but reading it again I see I didn’t really make it clear enough.
I see it now.
posted on 12.22.2005 5:39 PM28
"Come on Rob,
You can do better than that."
How about this, Brian: I think the whole panspermia idea is baloney.
Better?
29
I think an interesting point is the theorists who think they have trumped the creationists by asserting the multi-universe hypothesis as true. They admit that even if these exist we could not experience anything about them.
This theory, they think, puts off the need to explain any particular origin, especially of our amazing special case universe.
ID/Creationist/Deists have been criticised for just being superstitious like the pagan believers who explain who supports the world by saying 'it's turtles upon turtles, all the way down'.
Don't the multiverse adherents have exactly that belief and just the same amount of evidence for it?
30
You and I both know that you did not read the peer-reviewed literature, do the experiments, or prove the theorems in order to come to your conclusion about non-teleological evolution. Your belief, just like mine, is based on testimony of people who claim to have examined the data.
Well, actually I've done a bit better than that, as far as my knowledge base is concerned. True, I've read much scientific literature, but my reading has been informed by my own experience and training.
I've no reason to doubt based on what I've read about the Watson-Crick model of DNA.
I've read and seen the numerous abstracts of research on the subject of fruitflies (ah, the days when I had on-line access to the DTIC database).
The ideas of genetic mutations - I've no reason to doubt that.
I know how to construct a branching process.
I know how to create genetic algorithms.
So for me to set up a model whereby macro evolution could process - like Behe did, only without fudging the numbers- isn't such a big deal.
Unless you're willing to deny huge amounts of things that are pretty darn easy to verify for visceral reasons- like the existence of nucleic acids- it's going to be a bit difficult to gain traction here.
And, as I've noted, I have reviewed myself Dembski's writings on my blog. And there's no there there.
But to get to the main point yet again; I am capable of reading pretty much any of the peer reviewed literature in this area. What I have read and done is sufficent for me to infer that it is the creationists that are not behaving in a manner scientists would consider either scientific or ethical.
But one does have to take issue with this "you're ignorant too" argument. For one thing, there hasn't been a case made - other than it offends some folks' religious prejudices- that there is anything seriously wrong enough with evolutionary biology to warrant much attention being paid to it. Contrast this with, say, wondering if my wife's prescriptions for her ongoing cough will adversely interact with each other. You can be absolutely, metaphysically certain that I spent a great deal of time tracking down the side effects of these medications based on peer reviewed studies to ascertain that there wasn't a huge safety issue.
Likewise, it doesn't take much effort from me to shoot holes in Dembski's "arguments" - mainly because it doesn't take much effort from me to show there's no there there, because, based on my training in communications theory and information theory, (start with Claude Shannon - he, with Kolmogorov, who created real information theory, but you can also invoke Neyman and Pearson who did much fundamental work in the theory of statistical hypothesis testing) that Dembski is completely full of nonsense.
Those names probably don't mean squat to you, but they have meaning to people who actually, really, truly know this stuff and use it in their day to day activities.
Read them. Read Rohatgi's intro to Probability and Statistics. Read Van Trees.
And then, after you've demonstrated you've understood that stuff, get back to me about Dembski.
posted on 12.23.2005 4:53 AM31
Joseph Marshall:
Joe Carter wrote:
I’m always a bit confused when Buddhists (like Mumon) start defending non-teleological evolution. Unless you believe in materialism (which I can’t imagine any Buddhist could accept) then there is no reason to think accept such a position. Even the Dalai Lama rejects the idea.
To which you replied:
I can't speak for all Buddhists, because there are differing views among them concerning the nature of the world. Some, for example, are atomic pluralists, believing the world consists of atoms in space and moments in time. This is quite close to the more naive versions of Materialism in the West...
We Zen folks are pretty practice oriented, and while there's a time and a place for deep theories, starting point I think for a discussion in this area, as you go towards is the relationship between self and other, void and emptiness, etc.
It looks perhaps "non-telelogical" to an evangelical Christian... and to his viewpoint indeed may be so. And in terms of its immediate effects- how do I greet my wife in the morning? how do I choose what to eat? how do I deal with the jumble of emotions, perceptions, etc. that I experience constantly- it doesn't really matter.
Thus the Buddha himself wasn't a big propounder of deep theories in this regard. Because it doesn't really matter.
But to those who insist on having "the" answer, of course it does matter. There is a great deal invested in being "right." To a Buddhist such as myself, this is a distraction from where any good can come: it takes the focus off practice, and the perfecton of wisdom, and merely asserts "wisdom has already been perfected and I have it."
And thus a great deal of unsavory behavior - e.g., the apparent perjury in the Dover case, or the advocacy of a legal equation of zygotes with born people- results.
I'll take Socrates any day over the latter day self-appointed spokesman for "Jesus."
posted on 12.23.2005 5:11 AM32
Mumon wrote;
"Likewise, it doesn't take much effort from me to shoot holes in Dembski's "arguments" - mainly because it doesn't take much effort from me to show there's no there there, because, based on my training in communications theory and information theory, (start with Claude Shannon - he, with Kolmogorov, who created real information theory, but you can also invoke Neyman and Pearson who did much fundamental work in the theory of statistical hypothesis testing) that Dembski is completely full of nonsense."
Ive seen this a lot from you. That you've done it somewhere else, some other time in some other place and it doesn't need to be done again, etc.
I think this might be what Joe is talking about. We don't see the evidence you allude to because there isn't any. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Joe wrote;
"But maybe I’m wrong. If so, then I’d be glad to have you post a list of the peer-reviewed literature that led you to accept the theory. Perhaps I’ll have to change my mind just as you did (assuming, of course, that you had an open mind from the beginning)."
But maybe i'm wrong too Mumon.
Let's see the peer-reviewed literature that led you to accept the theory.
Or is there no there there?
posted on 12.23.2005 6:26 AM33
We Zen folks are pretty practice oriented, and while there's a time and a place for deep theories, starting point I think for a discussion in this area, as you go towards is the relationship between self and other, void and emptiness, etc.
I'm a little hazy about the exact point you are trying to make here, Mumon. But I do know, I think, what you mean by "practice" and I suspect that our friends really do not. So, if you'll permit me, I'll enlarge on it.
What Mumon is talking about is a form of quiet sitting meditation where you attempt to keep your attention on one single thing. When you actually do this, you find it is a misnomer to call it "quiet".
For your mind will commonly distract itself with all sorts of automatic and unwilled discursive thinking: your to-do list, whether it will snow tomorrow, the nasty thing someone said to you yesterday, and so on. So your attention constantly drifts away from where you are trying to keep it.
Sometimes, in Zen, the point of concentration is an intellectually insoluable riddle known as the koan. Almost everyone has heard of the most famous one: What is the sound of one hand clapping?
As you sit, you constantly ask the question of yourself over and over and over, trying as hard as you can to penetrate what it is really saying. The point of this is to cut completely through the discursive chatter of your mind, like a sword cutting through a coil of rope, to see the world directly, as it is, which we commonly do not. We commonly see the world overlaid with the chatter of our own opinions about it.
When that chatter is completely cut through and we see the world directly, we see that there really is no one there to "see" anything and the things seen are "void" or "empty" of any independent reality. Zen calls this experience satori or kensho
Another technique of practice which Zen uses to the same end is called "just sitting" where you simply try to hold your awareness absolutely in the present moment, sometimes using the physical experience of your body immediately below your navel, the hara, as an anchor for your concentration.
My Tibetan teachers also teach a form of this "just sitting" meditation. But they apply it in the context of a whole host of other techniques, or "skillful means" to achieve the same goal.
One of these is called "analytical meditation" and it consists of the sort of questions that I have posed to Joe about the "self". The purpose of analytical meditation is to confront some of the most persistent and incorrect opinions we have about ourself and world directly, thus eroding our beliefs that we really know what the world is like.
I suspect that Mumon would be reluctant to call this "practice" at all. And this is the subtext, I think, of his remark above, which points to the differences of view between our two Buddhist schools.
Mumon is right. It really doesn't matter. You can just continue to sit.
But does it really "not matter" yet to Mumon? Of this I am not so sure.
34
Mumon wrote:
"Likewise, it doesn't take much effort from me to shoot holes in Dembski's "arguments" - mainly because it doesn't take much effort from me to show there's no there there, because, based on my training in communications theory and information theory, (start with Claude Shannon - he, with Kolmogorov, who created real information theory, but you can also invoke Neyman and Pearson who did much fundamental work in the theory of statistical hypothesis testing) that Dembski is completely full of nonsense."
And the Britannica article on information theory says:
"Efforts to link information theory to every problem and every area were disturbing enough to Shannon himself that in a 1956 editorial titled The Bandwagon he issued the following warning:
I personally believe that many of the concepts of information theory will prove useful in these other fields and, indeed, some results are already quite promising but the establishing of such applications is not a trivial matter of translating words to a new domain, but rather the slow tedious process of hypothesis and experimental verification."
Which makes me wonder what work Mumon has done to turn information theory into a BS detector.
posted on 12.23.2005 7:58 AM35
Mumon-
Well, I read everything I could find in the Britannica on Shannon, Kolmogrov, and Neyman. I found a Karl Pearson who worked on statistics around the turn of the century -- mostly applied stats -- but since he was heavily involved in the eugenics movement I don't know if he would be a sound resource for analyzing the truth of ideas. Pearson is a common last name -- maybe you meant to indicate a different Pearson?
Nowhere did I find any reference of their work as relating to rhetorical analysis. Indeed, especially with Shannon, I found a reluctance to apply information theory to the concept of 'meaning' as opposed to 'information'.
I'd love to see the analysis you did on Dembski's arguments to determine that they contain no information. Care to share?
posted on 12.23.2005 9:53 AM36
Rob Ryan: Your second response to Brian's challenge to panspermia was a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your honesty.
Mumon: If this controversy is so ho-hum, been-there-done-that to you, why do continue to harrangue everyone about it? If you really have exposed the utter falsity of ID theory, put the cookies on the bottom shelf where the kiddies can get at them. You might be surprised at how many people here are able to read and comprehend peer-review literature. Maybe even some here have contributed to that corpus. "Trust me on this because you're an idiot!" isn't really a good rhetorical tool to persuade anyone.
posted on 12.23.2005 5:34 PM37
Of course the theory of evolution only covers the last two steps. By your calculation, then, diversity of life is more than certain, no?
posted on 12.23.2005 5:46 PM38
Gentlemen, The truth is that science is limited in its scope and will never be able to determine our origin. Our origin will always be left to our personal interpretation of the evidence. That gentlemen is called faith. Evolutionist have faith in evolution based upon thier inference or interpretation of the evidence and the same is true for creationist. A hugh ego, fancy words, and qoutes by your favorite science guru will never change this truth. I personnelly am not impressed with scientific knowledge that leads nowhere when it comes to understanding origins. Jeff.
posted on 12.24.2005 2:09 AM39
"It seems to me that given the weight of scientific evidence methodically accumulated over centuries, none of which supports a teleological view of human origins..."
Science, by definition, looks for the best fit materialistic answer. If God created everything, science cannot tell us about it. The best science can do is inform us as to the most likely materialistic solution. Expecting science to identify God is a little like giving someone a bunch of green color splotches and asking them to find the one closest to red.
posted on 12.24.2005 7:55 AM40
A different Jeff says:
"science is limited in its scope and will never be able to determine our origin"
Yes it is limited. But saying that it will never be able to determine our origin is a bit myopic. Relegating questions of origins soley to faith is wrong. The theory of evolution doesn't address origins, something that's often ignored (or intentionally lied about) much to the detriment of the discussion. It may make implications, but theories of the origin of life are a different critter altogether.
Really Joe, all your equation does is argue from ignorance and attribute claims to evolution that aren't there. "Fine tuned universe" is also a tired creationist talking point (see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html).
posted on 12.24.2005 10:52 AM41
Ed Of course the theory of evolution only covers the last two steps. By your calculation, then, diversity of life is more than certain, no?
I think common observation shows that life on earth is diverse. Whether it can all be attributed to natural selection or another non-teleological process, though, is still open to question.
Gary Science, by definition, looks for the best fit materialistic answer.
Um, no. That may be the most used definition nowadays but it is not the way science has or should be done. Science should look at the evidence and find the most reasonable explanation rather than trying to shoehorn it into a logically flawed metaphyisical framework. (By the way, unless you think that most of our brain functions (i.e., qualia) are illusory, then you have to think that (a) science cannot never tell us anything about the mind or (b) materialism is insufficient to explain natural phenonmena.)
Jeff The theory of evolution doesn't address origins, something that's often ignored (or intentionally lied about) much to the detriment of the discussion. It may make implications, but theories of the origin of life are a different critter altogether.
You’re absolutely right. Neo-Darwinists almost always ignore or intentionally lie about the lack of evidence for abiogenisis. They prefer to talk about the middle rather than focus on the beginning and end which shows that a non-teleological explanation is impossible.
Really Joe, all your equation does is argue from ignorance and attribute claims to evolution that aren't there. "Fine tuned universe" is also a tired creationist talking point (see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html).
You might try reading a claim before you link to it. As usual, the Talk Origins site adds nothing new or relevant to the discussion. They provide a “Response” but not an argument against the anthropic principle. Those who actually understand the data don’t just try to brush it off but attempt to come up with theories to explain the facts (i.e., the mulitverse theory).
42
Science, by definition, looks for the best fit materialistic answer. If God created everything, science cannot tell us about it. The best science can do is inform us as to the most likely materialistic solution. Expecting science to identify God is a little like giving someone a bunch of green color splotches and asking them to find the one closest to red.
Well, Gary, my point was not about what Science says about the evidence, but about the evidence itself. Presumably we are to take the existence of an Intelligent Designer on more than just faith. The controversy would be pointless otherwise, and people like Judge Jones would be perfectly correct: ID is monotheism covered in a false cloak of empiricism.
There should be some reasonable argument to be made from the biological, chemical, and physical information we already possess to support the teleological origin of the Universe, or of Life, or of Human Intelligence.
It is not merely enough to argue, as Joe does, that a non-teleological explanation is improbable. All sorts of improbable things happen. People do draw Royal Flushes, which is far less probable than the odds Joe gives for a non-teleological explanation of human life.
Now I am not deeply read in the ID side of this controversy, and cannot address the technical details presented by its proponents. But, broadly, I think the argument runs that the Universe or Life or Human Intelligence is too complicated to be anything but the product of an Intelligent Designer, and this is really the only argument drawn directly from the same empirical evidence as ID's opponents.
As far as I can see, this argument requires logical premises that are hidden under the ID proponent's coat and not shared with the rest of us.
For example, how complicated is too complicated? Is galaxy formation too complicated? Is 92 natural elements in the universe too complicated? Are planets with large amounts of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen too complicated? Are one-celled organisms too complicated? Warm-blooded animals with mammary glands? Primates whom we are pretty sure now can communicate with us in American Sign if we teach it to them? Walking upright with opposable thumbs, vocal speech, and communal living? Living beings of this ilk who finally stop flaking flint and start casting bronze? Where do we draw the line? And, more importantly, just why do we draw it there? This is not self-evident.
It seems to me that this is a question which really ought to have a relatively simple answer, not cloaked in complicated theoretical gobbeldygook, to be convincing. If there is one out there, I have not seen it.
Why have I not seen it? Very simply because this is well-trodden ground in the discipline of Philosopy [from whence the Argument from Design came in the first place] and a simple answer would have to confront David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature and Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason which taken together refute quite thorougly the notion that we can argue for teleology from the physical world through the use of reason.
This is a very solid wall which even so emminent a theologian as Pope Benedict [writing as Cardinal Ratzinger] has not found easy to penetrate or climb over. Hence the gobbeldygook.
The controversy really cannot be settled while the premises behind the ID view remain hidden and their application to the vast accumulation of empirical evidence remains occult.
posted on 12.24.2005 1:29 PM43
Am I missing something or has Joe allowed that as many as 9 of 100 Earth-like planets in the universe could have evolved intelligent life. Given the the vast number of planets that probably exist, that means a Star Trekian array of ETs may well be out there!
posted on 12.24.2005 1:41 PM44
2 problems here:
1.how do we interpret the "evidences"?
"the Hindu, the Christian and the logical positivist have similar sense experiences (not identical, to be sure, because every individual’s perceptions differ); the essential difference between them occurs not in what they see, hear, smell or taste, but in what they think about reality. The positivist thinks that sense data alone can relate us to the real world; the Hindu thinks that sense data are illusory and lead away from the real world; the Christian thinks that the phenomenal world is a real creation that witnesses to its Creator” (Henry, p.248 Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation and Authority Volume I God Who Speaks and Shows).
2. the role of empirical methods:
“Because theological and ethical statements cannot be verified by empirical methods does not mean, as the positivists erroneously and arbitrarily conclude, that they are beyond verification. Such a judgment stems purely from the metaphysical theory that only empirical experience supplies evidence about reality” (Henry, p.247).
I think it all comes back to our presupositions. it seems to me that at the root of the problem is not the "evidences" or lack of evidences is the episemological question: how do we know that we know.
posted on 12.24.2005 4:44 PM45
Such a judgment stems purely from the metaphysical theory that only empirical experience supplies evidence about reality.
This is precisely what I mean by keeping premises under one's coat. Does Mr. Henry have any alternative sources of evidence about reality that he wishes to bring to the table? If so, he should let us know.
Empirical experience does supply evidence, and it is evidence about which we can come to some agreement concerning what it means.
It may be incorrect to assert [as Positivism does] that no other source is possible, but in the absence of some positive alternative to empirical experience, to be examined to see if we can agree on it, there is simply no reason to take the mere possibility of other sources seriously.
Monotheistic religions [Christianity, Islam, Judaism] assert God's existence and His involvement in our world dogmaticly. They also each assert slightly different dogmas about His nature and His attitude toward the world.
Any of these may be true. And science cannot demonstrate that they are false. In that sense science has very little to say about any "reality" beyond empirical experience and science does not lead to "certainty" about anything.
What it does do, however, is organize empirical experience into a system which allows us an approximately correct view of that experience as a whole without reference to anybody's dogma.
It still does not give us absolute certainty even about this. The most we can expect is more precise approximations in the future than we have had in the past. For some 500 years or so, science has fulfilled that expectation with spectacular success.
So do we really need absolute certainty? I think it perfectly plain that approximate correctness about our empirical world is something that most of us can live with and agree upon, independently of our religious attitudes toward it.
It is also perfectly plain that science has totally transformed the world inhabited by all these various dogmas, without in the least having to address whether any of them may or may not be true.
The problem with ID is that it is an attempt to shoehorn the a priori conclusions of dogma into an empirical system that was perfectly fine without it.
posted on 12.24.2005 6:07 PM46
Talk about all over the map here. First we have Joe endorsing Dembski's filter and now he is endorsing Bayesian inference. Want to have your cake and eat it too as well Joe? Sheesh. Get your story straight please.
posted on 12.24.2005 11:57 PM47
Needless to say few people are as intellectually dishonest as Joe when it comes to talking about science. This is disappointing because Joe seems like a rather honest and nice guy. It nicely illustrates the problem with another one of his attempts to disprove evolution with cheap word games. That argument is his estimation that it is 'improbable' that 'chance' would evolve a brain capable of formulating true beliefs. Joe is a shining example of the limitations of the human brain. It is also a nice example of how intelligent people can hold untrue beliefs. It is amazing how the only true beliefs the human brain seems really good at forming are those that are good for survivial...which is what evolutionary theory would predict. The crazy guy on the street will prattle on all day that he is superman. Ask him to step in front of traffic and he will probably decline. Even crazy people seem to have some basic ability to not get themselves killed.
Needless to say we all know lots of people who are perfectly capable of holding down a good job. doing a great job living their every day lives but they hold some belief that is totally bizaar. Maybe they are convinced the British gov't killed Princess Di. Perhaps they believe the US never landed a man on the moon. Perhaps they are convinced the world is ruled by a Jewish conspiracy. The lesson is brought home over and over again outside of survival the human brain comes upon 'true beliefs' only by hard work and is quite easy to fall into false beliefs.
Now one of Joe's problems is materialism. He seems to think that matter is somehow seperate from God. This is a bizaar position for a Christian to take. After all, standard Christian theology is that God created the universe and all the matter in it. In Joe's world, though, God is actually subservant to matter. He can be trapped by looking at atoms under the microscope and by constructing probablity games.
But take his little calculation. Take step 1:
E1. From the Big Bang to chemical evolution of non-living matter
Let's imagine God caused the Big Bang to happen. What would happen after that? Why matter would form stars & planets & earth and life. A scientist studying the universe circa 14-15 billion years post Big Bang would find life forming from matter as part of nature.
But in Joe's world God is much smaller and much more of a fool. He can't create a universe that forms life. He has to constantly tweak the universe. He can't get the atoms to go together to make a single celled organism by natural law...he has to cheat and intervene over and over again to get things just right. Joe's God doesn't look like a brillant and elegantly powerful creator. He looks like one of Microsoft's less skilled programmers constantly putting out bad beta versions that require endless 'patches'.
Advance along Joe's timeline & the same problem emerges. Joe's God emerges as messy, inelegant and rather silly. Now let me turn the tables on Joe and use his sword against him. Let's calculate:
JC1 : There is a God powerful enough to bring about a universe of the size and scope of our own
JC2 : This God desires a universe to contain living things & has planned this from the beginning.
JC3 : This God would have the non-living universe fall into shape by natural laws but NOT have living matter form by natural laws.
JC4 : This God would not have living things form humans by their natural behavior but again apply special intervention.
JC1 100% I'll give Joe this for the sake of the argument.
JC2 100% Since the standard view of God is one of infinite knowledge I think its fair to assume he knew where he was going when he made the universe.
JC3 10% As far as we can tell living things are made from non-living matter. There's nothing we've been able to find in living things that isn't on the periodic table. Why would a beign so knowledgeable who could make matter with just the right laws so as to produce a confortable environment for life (such as a nice shiny sun with a planet around it) not use laws rather than ad hoc intervention to create life?
JC4 5% Once God created life why would he not have it go by its own nature to where he wanted it to go? Consider that nearly all the matter/energy of the universe that is not living behaves according to its own laws. Even if we assume every star has several Earth like planets around it the fact is a huge percentage of the matter in the universe is still non-living matter that behaves according to its own laws. Why would a God so fond of creating things with natures of their own suddenly shift gears so dramatically when it comes to living things? Especially when it is clear he choose those living things to be made out of nothng but non-living matter (this, BTW, is Biblical as well as scientific, the Bible clearly states flesh is made of 'dust' (i.e. non-living matter)).
I get a 5% probability for such an inconsistent God.
posted on 12.25.2005 1:57 AM48
When I plug these rather generous numbers into the Bayes’ formula* I find that there is a 9% probability that the data supports the claim that human beings are the result of natural undirected causes and a 91% probability that it does not. To be clear, this is not saying that there is only a 9% likelihood that the theory is true, only that based on the data (or at least my interpretation of it) I would be foolish to think it is even remotely plausible that humans could be created by non-teleological processes.
Joe's problem, of course, is that evolution does not assume a non-telogical universe (teleological meaning 'with a purpose or design'). Joe cannot get past the fact that 'blind chance' cannot mean the same thing to humans as it does to a God who is suppose to be infinite.
Here's a simple example I've used before.
Joe's sister wins the lottery and her first words are "Thank God".
1. Assume God exists. Is Joe's sister correct in thanking God?
2. Assume God exists. Is a student in a math class being correctly taught that lottery winning is a function of probability?
How can both be true? How can the lottery winner give God credit for winning and for the math student to be correct that the lottery winner is determined by 'blind chance'? No creationist here would dare try to argue the old pagan notion of the results of chance games being determined by some type of 'luck god'. No one here would argue that the lottery was fixed...that it wasn't a fair 'random' result.
The resolution is simple. God, by standard definition, has infinite knowledge. Probabilities by definition apply to situations with limited knowledge. 'Blind chance' exists for humans who are piecing together a story of atoms after the fact. By definition a God with infinite knowledge would know where all the atoms would turn out 14 billion years, 3 months, 3 days, 4 hours and sixteen seconds after the Big Bang would be. And he would know seventeen seconds, eighteeen and so on.
Here's another simple example. At any given moment there's a chance a large astroid will hit the earth. Correct? So the only reason humanity was not wiped out on Jan 15, 2002 was 'blind chance'. Right? Hold on, astroids orbit the sun per Newton's laws of motion. If you knew the orbit of every rock in the solar system you would be able to compute that there was no chance of one hitting on that day. The probability exists only for imperfect information, not for perfect information.
The conclusion is that there is no tension between a belief in God & evolution as a theory nor the other theories that relate to origins before evolution (such as stellar evolution or the Big Bang). By definition if God created the universe it would be ruled by 'blind chance' from humans' perspective but from his will by his perspective. God knew from the beginning that Joe's sister would win the lottery but the math student is 100% correct when he models the lottery using probability.
posted on 12.25.2005 2:13 AM49
Well, I'll just pile on with Boonton.
Another problem with Joe's analysis are all of his probability assessments. We are talking about an omnipotent God who can do amazing things. So it should naturally follow that the probabilities for E1 - E5 are all identical. That is,
P(E1) = P(E2) = P(E3) = P(E4) = P(E5) = 1.
Of course, once we do that then it becomes trivial that we'll end up accepting the "God Hypothesis". To see this, note that via Bayes Theorem we get,
P(G|A) proportional to P(A|G)P(G).
Similarly for the non-existence of God we have,
P(~G|A) proportional to P(A|~G)P(~G).
Now, if we are using a non-informative prior (as is Steve Unwin's default) then we can allos drop P(G) and P(~G) as they are equal. Now, given God is omnipotent it is logical that,
P(A|G) = 1.
With naturalism, P(A|~G)
posted on 12.25.2005 3:27 PM50
Dammit! The inequalities messed up my post. Go here to see all the serious problems with Joe's post. Basically, its a complete train wreck. Bad theology on top of bad statistics.
posted on 12.25.2005 3:30 PM51
Boonton Joe's problem, of course, is that evolution does not assume a non-telogical universe (teleological meaning 'with a purpose or design').
Um, yeah, it does. Unless, of course, you are theistic evolutionists. Design requires a designer. Purpose requires an agent to imbue purpose. Perhaps you need to do a little more reasearch into what the neo-Darwinists claim. They whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that biology is a teleological process.
The conclusion is that there is no tension between a belief in God & evolution as a theory nor the other theories that relate to origins before evolution (such as stellar evolution or the Big Bang).
I agree. But I also think that the evidence is clear that natural selection is completely inadequate for explaining the data.
Steve Basically, its a complete train wreck. Bad theology on top of bad statistics.
And your post is based on bad reading comprehension. There is almost nothing in your rebuttal that has anything to do with what I actually wrote.
posted on 12.26.2005 3:26 AM52
Joe,
Considering you don't even understand the difference between classical/frequentist and conditional/Bayesian inference you'll have to forgive me for once again saying you are being incoherent.
For example, you have previously used Dembski's filter in other posts. That implies a certain "statistical philosophical" outlook for you. Now, you jettison all than and go with an incompatible statistical philosophical outlook for this post. Which is it? Do you believe in conditioning on the data observed or don't you? You clearly want to have your cake and eat it too.
Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about then get Dale Poirier's text on statistics and econometrics and read it. That will give you a side-by-side comparison of the Bayesian vs. Classical methods.
As for the existence of God, here is where you very strongly imply that:
When I plug these rather generous numbers into the Bayes’ formula* I find that there is a 9% probability that the data supports the claim that human beings are the result of natural undirected causes and a 91% probability that it does not.
Here is the reasoning.
1. You have a very high probability that the data implies design that is not natural--i.e. the design is apparent to us, not hidden in a way that appears as a natural process.
2. You clearly think the designer is God. Please don't insult me or your other readers with any tap dancing about aliens or time traveling cell biologists.
3. 1 & 2 imply that your 91% is also a probability for the existence of God.
Hence your protestations that it isn't about the existence of God just doesn't work for me. Further, if your actual probability that God exists is 1 (100%) then as I noted E1 - E5 should all be equal and set to 1 (100%). That is God can do it all, unless of course you are saying there are things God can't do. That is God is limited, constrained, and not all knowing and all wise.
Further, there is the work of Ikeda and Jeffery's on things like the anthropic principle (your E1). Their work is completely and totally correct in terms of their proof. They also use the Bayesian method and yet, you reject that. Again, more evidence of you incoherence, statistically speaking.
This post, when taken with your others, are incoherent. You have mixed not simply apples and oranges, but have tossed in the kitchen sink to boot. My advice is stop trying to defend this post and junk it. That is what Dembski has done. He doesn't accept the Bayesian framework and has gone with the Frequentist framework (although he calls it the Fisherian). Frankly, I think he is wrong since the Frequentist method has other problems...problems that, IMO, Dembski is exploiting to his adavantage.
posted on 12.26.2005 12:27 PM53
Steve,
When someone offers you the opportunity to correct an obvious error, its generally a good idea to use that to fix the problem rather than doubling down and embarrassing yourself. Instead of rereading the post and responding to what I wrote, you once again set up strawmen to knock down. Obviously that is the best you can do as a response so let me correct your errors once again.
Considering you don't even understand the difference between classical/frequentist and conditional/Bayesian inference you'll have to forgive me for once again saying you are being incoherent.
So I assume your basis for making this claim is that I think that both classical/frequentist and conditional/Bayesian inference are valid statistical methods. Are you really going to claim something so inane?
For example, you have previously used Dembski's filter in other posts.
No, actually, I haven’t. Again, you might have tried to do a bit of homework before you make yourself look foolish.
That implies a certain "statistical philosophical" outlook for you.
If I didn’t already know you were being serious I’d think you were pulling my leg. A certain "statistical philosophical" outlook? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Now, you jettison all than and go with an incompatible statistical philosophical outlook for this post. Which is it? Do you believe in conditioning on the data observed or don't you? You clearly want to have your cake and eat it too.
Because there is a divide between the objective and subjective, there is no single framework for interpreting probabilities with complete accuracy. Therefore it is reasonable to use methods that are applicable to the particular problem. For example, frequentist methods are useful for determining probabilities of events or attributes in a finite reference class (i.e., the occurrence of heads or tails on a two-sided coin). Bayesian methods, though, are more useful for other more subjective applications, such as belief-formation based on interpretation of data.
Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about then get Dale Poirier's text on statistics and econometrics and read it. That will give you a side-by-side comparison of the Bayesian vs. Classical methods.
Perhaps if you had read more than that textbook you’d have a better grasp of what you are talking about.
1. You have a very high probability that the data implies design that is not natural--i.e. the design is apparent to us, not hidden in a way that appears as a natural process.
Good grief, Steve. My post is about non-teleological processes, not non-natural processes. The fact that you conflate the two says more about your own presuppositions than it does about my post. For the record, I think the process is both teleological and natural.
2. You clearly think the designer is God. Please don't insult me or your other readers with any tap dancing about aliens or time traveling cell biologists.
Yes, I think that God designed all of creation, including all of the natural laws that are relevant to biology, chemistry, and physics. So what? What does that have to do with the post? The identity of the creator is a metaphysical claim that has no bearing on the determination of this particular evidentiary-based belief.
3. 1 & 2 imply that your 91% is also a probability for the existence of God.
No, it doesn’t. It implies that there is a 91% probability that the evidence does not support a non-teleological process as the primary explanation for the origin of man. That is exactly what I wrote and if you had read the post more carefully you might have noticed that fact.
Further, if your actual probability that God exists is 1 (100%) then as I noted E1 - E5 should all be equal and set to 1 (100%). That is God can do it all, unless of course you are saying there are things God can't do. That is God is limited, constrained, and not all knowing and all wise.
Trying to untangle this mess is giving me a headache. Yes, while it isn’t relevant to this post, I think the probability that God exists is 100%. I also think it is possible that God could have created man in this way. But the fact remains that whether we attribute it to God or some other agent, the evidence doesn’t support a non-teleological process.
Further, there is the work of Ikeda and Jeffery's on things like the anthropic principle (your E1). Their work is completely and totally correct in terms of their proof. They also use the Bayesian method and yet, you reject that. Again, more evidence of you incoherence, statistically speaking.
Where did I reject the anthropic principle? You’re just making stuff up now, aren’t you?
This post, when taken with your others, are incoherent.
Steve, I suspect that anyone who has read my post and has read your rebuttal is scratching their heads and wondering what it is you think you are responding to. My post may be full of errors and be completely incoherent. But if so, it is not for the loopy reasons you seem to think.
54
Um, yeah, it does. Unless, of course, you are theistic evolutionists. Design requires a designer. Purpose requires an agent to imbue purpose. Perhaps you need to do a little more reasearch into what the neo-Darwinists claim. They whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that biology is a teleological process.
what's more undesigned than a lottery winner? Yet would you call your sister foolish if she thanks God for winning the lottery? Once again you completly miss the point. Thanking God for winning the lottery implies that the lucky winner won for a purpose....i.e. because God wanted her/him to win. Yet all rational people would agree the best model to describe how a fair lottery works is probability which is as much 'blind chance' as you will find in any theory.
The question is whether it is possible to tell objectively that Joe's sister won the lottery because God wanted her too or because of simple blind chance. God, by definition having infinite knowledge, does not have to intervene in the universe's natural laws to cause Joe's sister's numbers to come up. By definition he would have known last night's winner when the universe was created and from his perspective he can be responsible for Joe's sister winning without intervening supernaturally. From the human perspective, though, empiracle evidence would only be able to reveal his sister's luck as a result of the blind chance of probability and nothing more.
An 'Intelligent Design' approach would try to look at the lottery winners and tell us they cannot result from chance but from design. Perhaps, they would say, the odds of Joe's sister winning are so low that it is more 'probable' that a designer would have caused her to win because she's really generous and would give Joe some money to promote his blog. The human mind has an affinity for finding patterns (almost a flaw in many cases as people seek to detect patterns that aren't really there). No doubt studying lists of lottery winners enough would lead some people to 'detect a pattern'.
Keep pushing it and one starts to see how arrogant and prideful ID really is. It would presume to know God's will by telling us not only that he caused certain people to win the lottery but also why (so she can give Joe money to promote his blog, etc.). It improperly elevates the ability of the human mind while degenerating God by turning him into a deity of eternal tinkering. In this hypothetical constantly knocking about lottery balls to get his favorites to win.
It seems more sensible from a common sense perspective to see an infinite God simply knowing ahead of time how the lottery balls will turn out and tolerating the result from there rather than a tinkering God. The tinkering God set natural laws but failed to get it right on the first try and needs to keep tinkering to get things to work the way he wants them to! Common sense and indeed logic tell us if God exists it is hard to see him as this sort of tinkering type, which is why most mature Christians DO NOT see much theological value in the ID.v.Evolution debate.
I agree. But I also think that the evidence is clear that natural selection is completely inadequate for explaining the data.
Too bad you don't bother to explain this and go silent when people on your comment sections actually get their hands dirty and look at the evidence piece by piece. In fact you began this post basically saying 'most people' don't want to explore the actual evidence about bacterium and other things and you made it clear you'd rather conduct the debate from the intellectual masturbation perspective with word games and bogus 'probability calculations' than to actually explore the evidence.
posted on 12.26.2005 3:53 PM55
Joe Carter:
You’re absolutely right. Neo-Darwinists almost always ignore or intentionally lie about the lack of evidence for abiogenisis. They prefer to talk about the middle rather than focus on the beginning and end which shows that a non-teleological explanation is impossible.
I rest my case. Joe has no interest in understanding what the theory of evolution actually says, preferring to stick to dogma, canards, and a conflation evolution and abiogenesis.
I said:
Really Joe, all your equation does is argue from ignorance and attribute claims to evolution that aren't there. "Fine tuned universe" is also a tired creationist talking point (see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html).
to which Joe responded:
You might try reading a claim before you link to it. As usual, the Talk Origins site adds nothing new or relevant to the discussion. They provide a “Response” but not an argument against the anthropic principle. Those who actually understand the data don’t just try to brush it off but attempt to come up with theories to explain the facts (i.e., the mulitverse theory).
The dogma is strong with this one. I guess a summary of the problems with the weak anthropic principle, and a number of references with more in-depth treatment of those problems, isn't enough? What exactly are you asking for Joe?
posted on 12.26.2005 5:43 PM56
Okay Joe, lets try something slightly differnt.
You say you think the probability that God exists is 1. Now, what limitations are there on God? There has to be limitations on God otherwise all the probabilities in E1 - E5 would be 1 as well. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?
By the way regarding the anthropic principle,
Where did I reject the anthropic principle? You’re just making stuff up now, aren’t you?
I was writing that you reject Ikeda and Jeffery's results, not the anthropic principle. And since Ikeda adn Jeffery's results use the Bayesian method, it calls into question your understanding of the philosophical issues on this topic.
posted on 12.26.2005 6:15 PM57
Boonton,
I think your post is the best example of setting up a straw man and knocking it down ive ever come across.
Kudos.
posted on 12.27.2005 5:04 PM58
Really? How so? It seems a recurring objection to various scientific theories by Joe and others here is that they rely on 'blind chance'. What better example of blind chance than a lottery?
The mantra seems to be that believing that blind chance can shape anything important means that God must be excluded. So it's tolerable, it would appear, to exclude God from the results of coin tosses and other examples from a typical probability text but not for 'something important' like the origin of the earth or the formation of life on it or the formation of human life on it.
But this is really a false choice. If God can't live in blind chance then you either must believe there is no such thing as chance or you must reject God. Joe just confuses the issue by saying blind chance is ok for Vegas but not evolution. The resolution, though, is to understand that chance can exist for humans but not God at the same time.
posted on 12.27.2005 9:07 PM59
Well, I see Joe has bailed on the "debate"....so much for that assertion of his.
I agree with Boonton. On the one hand we have Joe rejecting blind chance--i.e. randomness. On the other he endorses randomness to perform his Bayesian analysis. Bayesian analysis, as I've tried to point out, is different from Classical statistics in that what is being estimated is considered to also be random.
Saying randomness is okay for Vegas, but not for God is a form of special pleading and a logical fallacy. Funny, there seems to be quite a bit of that going around in this post.
For example, Joe claims that people don't base their views on what they know, but on what they think other people know. Okay, fair enough I guess. But he then goes on to argue that we can get out of this mess via Bayes theorem. Again, pretty much true. The problem is that the prior probabilities should be well defined. Further, you want to be somewhat careful in picking them. Joe doesn't do this.
For example Joe goes on to assign various relative probabilites. Strictly speaking, prior probabilities should be determined by experts in those fields. Is Joe and expert on organic chemistry, astrophysics, and biology? I know I'm not, and hence I'd to select priors that are suitable "vague".
Further, another aspect of Bayesian analysis is to look at how your results change with slightly different priors. This is called a sensitivity analysis and is used to see how robust your results are. As with Steve Unwin's probability calculator, the results are not robust in the slightest. For example, if we change E2 from 0.1 to 0.13 the probability of natural process is at works increases by a whopping 26%. In short the results are not robust. Nevermind actually going from 0.1 to 0.5.
Boonton was absolutely correct to call this post intellectual masturbation.
posted on 12.27.2005 10:57 PM60
Joseph Marshall:
By "practice" I mean not simply sitting in zazen, but also actively "being" in all activities.
So when you say:
When that chatter is completely cut through and we see the world directly, we see that there really is no one there to "see" anything and the things seen are "void" or "empty" of any independent reality. Zen calls this experience satori or kensho.
this can come at any time. Even during analytical meditation.
But does it really "not matter" yet to Mumon? Of this I am not so sure.
Right now, "having a cold and flu practice" is my practice. ;-) A bit of snark remains, coughed up with the phlegm. But also, I'd say, as I get older and practice more, I can understand why Hakuin was very critical of the teachers of his day.
But to return to the subject of the post, much of the responses here by the fundamentalists/literalists/etc. are indicative of what can only honestly be called an ignorance of science. Anybody here can go to the numerous sites and data on talkorigins.org, and see as much or as little detail needed from the biological end of things, and from the information theoretic end of things, the references I've provided (go to Amazon.com and put in a search for the names listed, esp. Rohatgi and Van Trees), effectively refute Dembski, though they were written in one case about 40 years ago.
posted on 12.28.2005 10:57 PM61
What did they used to say? Garbage in, garbage out?
"There is no evidence that the singularity which created the entire universe was an undirected, uncaused event." Nor is there any evidence that it wasn't. Nor is there any evidence that the next three of Joe's assumptions weren't possible.
But when we get to that unique deal, the human brain, Joe's homo-centric color really shines.
"...if the brain is completely the result of undirected processes then the functions of the mind are completely explainable using the laws of chemistry and physics."
If one assumes that the sapien brain had no basis(no training, no gene-trail) in the H. erectus brain, and that no basis in the australopithicine brain, and that no basis in some chimpanzee-like ancestor, then, yes, it would appear that the human brain came out of nowhere in some sort of cosmic magic. We humans sometimes forget that dogs think, cats think, even fish think, but they definitely don't think like we do. Our brains are the culmination, some might say the apex, of millions of years of evolution. My mind is able to leap across millions of years and see the connection, the root, the primitive brain we still possess at the base of this massive growth atop it. It's more than just chemistry and physics. And it's not an undirected process, it was a process directed by evolution; a light sensing cell eventually becoming a Brandenburg concerto-composing mind. Hard to grasp I know, spans eons, I know, but I have faith.
I have faith, faith the size of a mustard seed, that this is what happened. But it didn't happen overnight. And it could have happened purely in 4 billion years of natural selection.
Jerry