Here are some examples of his latest comments, none of which he supported with arguments or documentation:
For what reason should any sane person believe that Jesus Christ even existed? Give me a good reason not the lies I've heard all my life....
Methodological naturalism is a principle NOT a philosophy. Leave it to a Bible believer to distort the language and redefine words away from their actual meaning to make their case....
No scientists like Victor Stenger and the ones who made Michael Behe admit he hadn’t done any research on the evolution of the immune system. Or the scientists who work with Behe who have disowned him or the ones who made him cry like a little girl on the witness stand....
There is no evidence for anything supernatural in the universe. That’s why no one in their right mind studies it. If something supernatural should appear or occur who is better qualified to study it and repost their findings than scientists. Theologians? Theology isn’t even a subject. Theology is the study of nothing like Thomas Paine said....
Give an example of what area scientific research is not applicable. We all know Bible believers don’t like I when their paper idol is subjected to a scientific criticism. Is that what you’re talking about? Hahaha...
ID isn’t science because science doesn’t begin with preconceived notions that can never be challenged or changed. And again, science has to produce results and advance knowledge. The major tenet of ID magic is thou shall not think. ID will never produce anything but delusions buddy....
I can’t remember reading a more retarded post that yours in the last few months. You base all your arguments on bogus assumptions and falsehoods so it’s no wonder your post was so easy to refute....
Intelligent Design is a Christian hoax. It doesn’t matter if some senile idiot like Anthony Flip-Flop Flew has fallen for it. The ID promoters are all Christian creationists....
How come every private Christian college and university teaches that teaches science teaches evolution and common descent and not one teaches Intelligent Design magic? This little fact is something the ID hoaxers don’t want the general public to find out. It’s easy to fool creationists because 90 percent of them have never set foot on a college campus.
Hmmm. I see nothing wrong with the gist of his comments whatsoever...Indeed, he seems to be asking some uncomfortable questions; even though one could argue that his language is far from politic, his points stand.
ReplyDelete"Uncomfortable" questions have been handled numerous times by Triablogue. The fact is that Boris had a habit of posting tendentious, inflammatory statements without any sort of argumentation to back them up. Further, he rarely followed up on replies to his posts, and when he did, they were irrelevant to what was said to him.
ReplyDeleteIn short, he was a troll and not a very good one at that.
Ach so. I suppose I'll take your words for that and be done with it. :)
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, however, I think that despite the inflammatory language I find it difficult to imagine a valid refutation to most of his statements, since they are, stripped of fighting words, thoroughly unconroversial.
If you can't imagine a valid refutation, that means you've only been reading one side of the argument. What intelligent design theorists have you read?
ReplyDeleteLet's be real here: intelligent design "theory" fits in a thimble. But, as a biologist and astrophysicist, I tend to read quite a bit of them: Behe (fingers-in-my ears-I-can't-hear-your-refutations), Dembski (pseudo-mathematics), Meyer (let's twist some history into a pretzel), Berlinski (listen to the sound of hot-air escaping), all spring to mind. The idiocy of "Icons of Evolution". A general daily laugh-fest that is Discovery Institute.
ReplyDeleteThese are not ad hominem attacks; they are simply characterizations of their preferred method of discourse. Needless to say, I consider time spent reading them to not be quite wasted: they are entertaining (and Behe is an excellent writer, one I even had some respect for after Black Box and before The Edge was published), and of course one has to read opposing viewpoints. I read Habermas, Plantinga and Craig for the same reason. But please don't mention Sarfati, Ham, or Gish: those only deserve our unabashed laughter and merriment at their silly antics.
Of course, I find the assumption that "only if you would read them closely, you wuld agree with them" to be quite silly.
I didn't say you'd agree with them. I was responding to your claim that you can't "imagine valid refutations" to the canned objections raised by Boris. And, thus far, you've just treated us to to some rhetorical finery.
ReplyDeleteJorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
Needless to say, however, I think that despite the inflammatory language I find it difficult to imagine a valid refutation to most of his statements, since they are, stripped of fighting words, thoroughly unconroversial.
---
Then you haven't been paying any attention at all.
For instance, Boris demanded: "Give an example of what area scientific research is not applicable." Yet this demand came AFTER I had already given him such examples: "How does the scientific method come up with ethics? (Answer: it doesn't.)"
Furthermore, Boris has habitually embarrassed himself with his ignorance in philosophy (e.g., "Methodological naturalism is a principle NOT a philosophy"--now anyone with any education at all ought to immediately see that you cannot have any principles whatsoever without philosophy. You cannot assert "reality is X" without assuming a metaphysical position, nor can you assert "we know it" without asserting an epistemology, nor can you assert "we ought to do x" without asserting an ethic. Given that these things are Philosophy 101, and that even secular writers know that the scientific method is governed by control philosophies, Boris's objections are downright pathetic.
Further, Boris makes the tedious claim "There is no evidence for anything supernatural in the universe." Yet this ignores the evidence of Scripture (whether your believe it or not, it is eyewitness evidence; and while the issue of whether it is sufficient to warrant belief can be addressed, it is NOT like it doesn't exist).
Furthermore, it is quite likely that Boris would say any evidence for anything at all automatically is natural, not supernatural--in which case, he has a definition of "natural" that is unfalsifiable, tautological, and therefore worthless.
I could go on, but it ought to be obvious that Boris not only was impolitic, but had roughly a junior high education in the philosophy of science. He's better off trolling a WoW board.
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
Let's be real here: intelligent design "theory" fits in a thimble.
---
Then it ought not be that difficult for you to summarize it.
Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to accurately portray it.
He-he. Right after you summarize the basic principles of evolutionary theory.
ReplyDeleteOh, and while you're at it, the evidence in its support is quite massive. In fact, if you are familiar with the history of biology at all, you'll remember that the Origin of Species was argued about for some time and then virtually disappeared from academic consciousness. Other, competing theories (orthogenesis, anyone?) were in vogue for a while, and only with the advent of modern synthesis and the gathering amount of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection, as well as the strengthening of its philosophical underpinnings that it became a favoured explanation again.
BTW, Jorgon, if you would like to see a secular scientist who agrees that science has a control philosophy, then consider one who you (as a claimed biologist) should recognize: Richard Lewontin:
ReplyDelete---
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
(Italics in original; bold mine)
---
You can read the whole thing here.
Oh, and on Boris: it appears to me (and I cannot test the appearances since the original posts have been removed! :) that you are quibbling between metaphysics and epistemology: while methodological naturalism is indeed a principle in the latter sense, it is not metaphysical at all. In fact, many of my acquaintances have no problem pursuing methodological naturalism in their work (laudable!) while holding all sorts of wacky metaphysical beliefs outside of it (pointless, but often quite lovable).
ReplyDeleteJorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
Right after you summarize the basic principles of evolutionary theory.
---
I must have missed the part where I said "Evolutionary 'theory' fits in a thimble."
But since you apparently agree that there is just as much to ID as there is to evolution....
Indeed. But the problem with intelligent design is that all of its basic principles (appearance of desing, irreducible complexity, specified complexity) are artifacts of observation and knowledge about the system and are not inherent to the system (despite Dembski's attempts to formalize them, a mathematical in-joke by now). Hnece, no specific claims are made beyond "It looks like it has been designed, from our current vantage point; and we cannot imagine how in Hell it has been designed (again, with our current knowledge)". ID claims of having a good quantitative measure fail since they ahve not been able to present it in any sense at all, and any claims made by them aboutspecific systems have been shown not to hold.
ReplyDeleteOf course, evolutionary biologists are in a privileged position, in a sense: we do not have to show that a specific system evolved in a specific way, we only have to present a plausible pathway in which evolution acted upon by natural selection (and, perhaps other inputs of unintelligent nature, but the above two suffice to provide an algorithmic increase in complexity) can do the job. Since ID theorists claim, that in some instance, there is no possible evolutionary pathway, their claims are logically disproven by demonstration of one such. (Usually they retreat into "implausibility" and "improbability" conveniently forgetting that their initial claim was about "impossibility").
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
...while methodological naturalism is indeed a principle in the latter sense, it is not metaphysical at all.
---
In that case, you ought to agree with me rather than Boris. If methodological naturalism isn't metaphysical at all, as you claim here, then all you've done is admit that science lacks metaphysics and therefore, one requires requires [ahem] a control philosophy to govern science.
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
Hnece, no specific claims are made beyond "It looks like it has been designed, from our current vantage point; ...
---
But wait. Isn't that true of ALL science? Newton looked right from a 17th century viewpoint--for that matter, from a 19th century viewpoint too. Would you say that Newtonian physics wasn't science?
But I skipped your first quote because you inadvertently gave away the farm.
You said:
---
But the problem with intelligent design is that all of its basic principles (appearance of desing, irreducible complexity, specified complexity) are artifacts of observation and knowledge about the system and are not inherent to the system
---
But what is the scientific method? Is it not hypothesis followed by experimentation followed by OBSERVATION, followed by drawing conclusions based on those observations? How is it that you can say that evolution is somehow divorced from observation of "the system" and yet still claim it to be science?
You further destroy good science by saying that all that is needed for science is to provide a PLAUSIBLE way for something to have happened. That's utter BS. Scientists aren't interested in the plausible, they're interested in the ACTUAL.
The simple fact of the matter is that evolution is a historical, not scientific, claim, and the way you test it is the way you test other historical claims. You do not test for evolution in the same way that you test what elements compose a chemical compound. You don't even test for evolution the same way that you examine biology (which is to get out your microscope and LOOK at the organism).
I applaud your honesty in admitting (even though you didn't realize you did so) that evolution is not like other sciences. I'm quite sure string theorists would love to be able to claim their position is privileged. Kinda makes it nice and simple when you don't have to prove it.
Of course evolutionary biology is a historical science (together with large parts of astronomy and certainly cosmology). However, it is testable by the predictions it makes. The emergence of specific features at specific times in geological record, for example. Or--a major prediction of evolutionary theory--the presence of exapted traits, as well as in general the evidence of blind tinkering (the construction of mammalian eye? giraffe's laryngeal nerve?). So indeed, a plausible pathway is a starting point, since as I have said, it is sufficient to disprove a claim of impossibility. Further evidence strengthens the case. Meanwhile, ID theorists are in a position similar to naive aerodynamicists of the early XXth century, who, as the myth goes, claimed that bumblebee was unable to fly (alas! it is only a myth, but such an apposite one!). Of course, later work showed precisely how the bumblebee flies.
ReplyDeleteNow it seems to me that ID comes with even more metaphysical and episemic baggage than evolutionary theory does: you in essence claim that we know all there is to be known about a particular system, and hence can make definite statements about its possibility coming about "by chance" (forgive me for using a creationist canard here).
Now I will not quibble overmuch about your definition of the scientific method (except to point out that there is no general agreement about what that is, and it is accepted that physical ("hard") sciences follow a different method than historical ones), but a question then arises: what is the predictive value of ID? Are there specific features that you can predict will be observed under specific circumstances? Yet modern evolutionary theory does just that, in spades. Of course any specific prediction you may make will depend on your conception of who the designer really was. And the fact that all life may have been designed is not under question here. Everyone recognizes such a possibility. In fact, even if life we observed it exhibited no (even apparent) design features, it would still be a possibility. Even insanely constructed, utterly illogical life could be a product of an insane, illogical designer (Azathoth, anyone?). And yet life exhibits just such a balance of apparently (but only apparently!) designed features together with a huge amount of tinkered-together, "poorly engineered" as has been said, features that a blindly algorithmic process would produce.
And as someone with more than a cursory knowledge of string theory, I must note that the majority of string theorists recognizes that their paradigm may not be the correct one (I fall on the loop quantum side myself, just because I like the mathematics of it). That does not preclude us from treating it as a plausible inference and going from there. The inference explains a lot, and solves several outstanding problems. And again, what is the ID score on that? Zero: no predictions made, no research program (at least none that is not married to a specific conception of a designer), nothing interesting whatsoever. A few popular pseudo-scientific texts do not make a good science.
Jorgon Gorgon said...
ReplyDelete“Indeed. But the problem with intelligent design is that all of its basic principles (appearance of desing, irreducible complexity, specified complexity) are artifacts of observation and knowledge about the system and are not inherent to the system (despite Dembski's attempts to formalize them, a mathematical in-joke by now). Hnece, no specific claims are made beyond ‘It looks like it has been designed, from our current vantage point; and we cannot imagine how in Hell it has been designed (again, with our current knowledge)’.”
All scientific theories are theories of appearances. Theories based on how things appear to our senses. You can never get beyond the perception of the observer to the raw datum as it exists apart from our perception. The scientist is, himself, a percipient. At most, science can uncover deeper layers of phenomena. Higher and lower scales of magnification. Chemical analysis. Correlations between one event and another. But that will always come down to how the evidence appears to the sensory-processing system of the outside observer. There is always a gap between the distal stimulus and the proximal stimulus.
“Of course, evolutionary biologists are in a privileged position, in a sense: we do not have to show that a specific system evolved in a specific way, we only have to present a plausible pathway in which evolution acted upon by natural selection.”
Of course, that’s viciously circular. Unless you already know that evolution is true, then you can’t take for granted that there is an evolutionary pathway in the first place. If you can’t show it, then you don’t know. Your theory should only be as specific as the level of your evidence.
“The emergence of specific features at specific times in geological record, for example.”
i) You’d need to have a continuous series of fossils to draw that conclusion. The fact (assuming it is a fact) that you can discover a datable fossil remnant with specific features hardly means said feature emerged at around the time that organism happened to be fossilized. Even if you can date an isolated fossil, this doesn’t tell you at what point the specific trait emerged (assuming it did); rather, it just tells you that, as of that date, that organism had said trait.
ii) Moreover, the emergence of specific features doesn’t begin to prove macroevolution or common descent. You’re equivocating.
“Or--a major prediction of evolutionary theory--the presence of exapted traits, as well as in general the evidence of blind tinkering (the construction of mammalian eye? giraffe's laryngeal nerve?).”
If you think that’s a design flaw, give us a working model of a superior design. And test it in a real world setting. Show us how your new and improved design confers a survival advantage on the organism in its natural environment.
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Oh, and on Boris: it appears to me (and I cannot test the appearances since the original posts have been removed! :) that you are quibbling between metaphysics and epistemology: while methodological naturalism is indeed a principle in the latter sense, it is not metaphysical at all. In fact, many of my acquaintances have no problem pursuing methodological naturalism in their work (laudable!) while holding all sorts of wacky metaphysical beliefs outside of it (pointless, but often quite lovable)."
There is no presumption in favor of methodological naturalism unless you presume metaphysical naturalism. Unless reality is like what metaphysical naturalism postulates, there's no prior reason to apply the interpretive grid of methodological naturalism to our scientific or historical investigations. The only reason to limit ourselves to this restrictive methodology is in case we already expect reality to be purely naturalistic in its causes and effects.
Therefore, methodological naturalism is a disguised version of metaphysical naturalism. It's a question-begging filter which screens out any and all supernatural explanations in advance of the evidence.
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete"Of course evolutionary biology is a historical science (together with large parts of astronomy and certainly cosmology). However, it is testable by the predictions it makes. The emergence of specific features at specific times in geological record, for example."
But of course the interpretation of the geological record itself is historical reconstruction. The so-called "predictions" that evolutionary theory makes are dependent upon an evolutionary view of history.
"So indeed, a plausible pathway is a starting point, since as I have said, it is sufficient to disprove a claim of impossibility."
So plausibility is a justification for a privileged position? How is that good science? So the retort from evolutionists is "we don't have to prove anything, we only have to claim plausibility!" Let's apply that standard to creationism. Since it is plausibile that God created the universe in 6 days, we don't have to prove it, therefore it should enjoy a privileged position. How do you like them apples?
It seems to me when you have one camp claiming something is plausible and the other is disputing that, you are going to have to bring on some stronger stuff than historical reconstructions and claims of plausibility if you want to maintain your privileged position. You are going to have to actually present some indisputable evidence. But the problem with origins is that it is difficult to see how indisputable evidence can be demonstrated. Of course there is also political power, but then that's not a "scientific" solution either.
"Now it seems to me that ID comes with even more metaphysical and episemic baggage than evolutionary theory does: you in essence claim that we know all there is to be known about a particular system, and hence can make definite statements about its possibility coming about "by chance" (forgive me for using a creationist canard here)."
Who exactly has claimed that we know all there is to know? It seems naive for one to say that one position or the other has "more" metaphysical and epistemic baggage. But I guess that's what happens when one's philosophy enjoys a privileged position. If you wear your rose-tinted glasses long enough, after awhile you forget they are there.
"And again, what is the ID score on that? Zero: no predictions made, no research program (at least none that is not married to a specific conception of a designer), nothing interesting whatsoever. A few popular pseudo-scientific texts do not make a good science."
Let's apply that standard to evolution: "What is the evolutionary score? Zero: no predictions made, no research program (at least none that is not married to a specific conception of history), nothing interesting whatsoever. A few popular pseudo-scientific texts do not make a good science."
By the way your downgrading of evolution from scientific theory to [metaphysical] research program is much appreciated. But I see no reason why one metaphysical research program should enjoy a privileged position over any other one.
As some previous posters have mentioned, Boris' behavior was problematic, even if we thought that the "gist" of his arguments was sound. But Jorgon Gorgon hasn't yet explained the gist of Boris' comments on Jesus' existence that he considers reasonable. Here's what Boris wrote:
ReplyDelete"For what reason should any sane person believe that Jesus Christ even existed? Give me a good reason not the lies I've heard all my life."
Does Jorgon want to defend that point of view? Or is that something he disagrees with Boris about? The belief that Jesus didn't exist is less popular among the scholars who work in the relevant fields than opposition to evolution is among the scholars who work in the fields relevant to that subject matter. If Jorgon is going to refer to a lack of research programs for intelligent design, how intelligent design has "a few popular pseudo-scientific texts", etc., then what does he make of the even lesser scholarly support for the view that Jesus didn't exist?
If he agrees that Boris' position on Jesus' existence is unreasonable, then he should have more of an understanding of why Boris was banned than his initial comments suggested. And he shouldn't have said of Boris that there's "nothing wrong with the gist of his comments whatsoever...his points stand".
What about Boris' claim that "There is no evidence for anything supernatural in the universe"? Or his comment "Give an example of what area scientific research is not applicable"? As Peter has explained, Boris' comments reflect a large degree of ignorance about what science is and how it relates to other fields. What about Boris' claim that "Intelligent Design is a Christian hoax....The ID promoters are all Christian creationists"? Does Jorgon want to defend that?
He writes:
"Since ID theorists claim, that in some instance, there is no possible evolutionary pathway, their claims are logically disproven by demonstration of one such. (Usually they retreat into 'implausibility' and 'improbability' conveniently forgetting that their initial claim was about 'impossibility')."
Many intelligent design proponents have said upfront, not in "retreat", that the issue is what's probable, not what's certain. See, for example the definitions of intelligent design in the FAQs here. I've repeatedly seen William Dembski, for example, explain that he's addressing probability instead of certainty. People often use the language of certainty when discussing probabilities. The historian who believes that George Washington probably existed will say "George Washington existed", without using a qualifier like "probably" or "likely" every time. You can find some intelligent design proponents who use the language of certainty, whether for the same reason historians do or because he's being careless or for some other reason. But the most knowledgeable and leading advocates of intelligent design have been careful, for years, to specify that they're addressing probability rather than certainty. They don't just make that clarification in "retreat". They state it explicitly upfront. You can validly criticize individual proponents of intelligent design for erring on this subject at times, but I don't think you can hold the entire movement responsible for it.
Neal: the 6 day creation, in light of modern evidence is NOT plausible. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteJason: while I myself am of the opinion that a person named Jesus most likelydid exist, there is no primary evidence supporting that and a case against his existence can be made, simply on the lack of said evidence.
The claims by ID theorists do indeed revolve around impossibility; probability is not a strong enough argument, and Dembski's ramblings betray either his ignorance of the theory of probability (I know, kind of embarrassing for a mathematician, but his ignorance of information theory has already been dealt with elsewhere) or simple misrepresentation of facts. The simple fact is that the probability of a given event having happened, after it happens, is equal to precisely 1. Its initial probabilities are less relevant than one may think. what's more, in evolutionary theory specific physical constraints further limit the search space; something that is seldom taken into account.
there certainly no evidence for anything supernatural in the Universe, outside of anecdotal claims. You may consider such claims to be evidential; I do not. The limits of science are ill-defined: name me one field in which science is not applicable today and then check with me in 10 years or so. That has been the pattern of the growth of knowledge, and I see no reason that it will change in the future. Of course, I may be wrong.
Back to Neal: Forgive me, but I have never denied that evolution is a scientific theory (as well as an observed fact). Someone needs to work on their reading comprehension. And of course, your score-card for evolutionary theory is blatantly false: specific predictions abound (naked mole-rats, anyone? for an admittedly funny example), specific results are all over the place (trawl through BioMed for a selection of current research).
And Steve...what can I say? I am embarrassed to have to respond. Just a couple of notes: we knew that evolution (in the sense of change of living forms through time) was true long before Darwin. Most of the scientists that first noticed and described Earth's evolutionary past were good Christians. One suspects (with Mayr) that is was the underlying Platonic metaphysics that prevented the simple Darwinian ideas from being discovered much earlier than they were; they certainly were in the air for a long time. Oh, and the classic trick of demanding an unrealistic level of evidence from evolutionary theory while settling for no evidence whatsoever to support one's own view is noted, and laughed at.
Wait! wait!
ReplyDeleteSteve: "If you think that’s a design flaw, give us a working model of a superior design"
Um, human eye can be easily redesigned to get rid of a blind spot. And giraffe's laryngeal nerve does not have to traverse its neck multiple times. (Vagus nerve has the same problem).
Our spines, to use another immediate example, are engineered for quadrupeds, not so well for bipeds. These are elementary anatomical facts.
At best, they indicate a fumbling and rather inexpert designer. Probably not what you have in mind.
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“And Steve...what can I say? I am embarrassed to have to respond.”
Given the inadequacy of your response, your embarrassment is justified. .
“Just a couple of notes: we knew that evolution (in the sense of change of living forms through time) was true long before Darwin.”
Of course, that’s a bait-and-switch tactic. “Evolution” in that generic sense is hardly synonymous with macroevolution or common descent.
“Oh, and the classic trick of demanding an unrealistic level of evidence from evolutionary theory.”
It’s unrealistic to demand evidence specific to the specificity of the theory? How is that unrealistic?
If you lack specific evidence to corroborate specific claims of your theory, then your theoretical belief is evidentially unwarranted. All you’ve given us is your imaginary narrative.
“While settling for no evidence whatsoever to support one's own view is noted, and laughed at.”
You haven’t begun to show that my own view has no supporting evidence. Try to present an actual argument the next time around. Mere assertions pull no weight.
Feel free to keep laughing in your padded cell.
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Um, human eye can be easily redesigned to get rid of a blind spot.”
If that’s easy to do, then do it. Show us your working model. Show us your model in action.
Show how that’s an improvement. Show how you can make that adjustment while leaving everything else intact.
“Our spines, to use another immediate example, are engineered for quadrupeds, not so well for bipeds. These are elementary anatomical facts.”
You haven’t given us any elementary fact. You’ve given us elementary assertions masquerading as facts. Asserting X to be a fact does not a fact make. A factual assertion is not a fact.
Your usage of the term "macroevolution" with the connotation that it is somehow a qualitatively different process than "micro" is duly noted and again, laughed at. Redefinitions of terms? Of course. Your incredulity at the idea of common descent is also noted. Your lack of response to my engineering questions is again not unexpected. I suppose next you'll express doubts at radiometric dating systems, and we can go from there to cosmological time scales.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. Steve, Steve: there are several different anatomies extant in this world. Octopuses, for example, have no blind spot. it is strictly a function of mammalian eyes. You do realize that organs of vision evolved on multiple occasions and did so in different ways, thoroughly consistent with the blind process tinkering with pre-existing structures under environmental pressures? Your inability to grasp the concept does not render it invalid, after all.
ReplyDeleteAnd "padded cell"? I realize that from what appears to be your point of view, all scientists are insane, but it is refreshing to hear it expressed so clearly. By the way, you do realize that Behe subscribes to common descent as well?
Jorgon Gorgon said...
ReplyDelete"And giraffe's laryngeal nerve does not have to traverse its neck multiple times."
How is that a design flaw? Is redundancy a design flaw? Is that your point? If so, how is redundancy a design flaw? If not, then what's your point?
BTW, according to you, the giraffe has been around for millions of years. It's managde to survive in a harsh, competitive, unforgiving environment. So why do you think the giraffe is poorly designed? Poorly designed in relation to what? Its ecological niche?
Jorgan,
ReplyDeleteLaughing is no substitute for evidence.
But then, a real scientist would have known that.
Jorgon: I claim X!
Me: Prove it.
Jorgon: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Scientist": Proof! We're reprinting the textbooks ASAP.
Jorgon Gorgon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Jason: while I myself am of the opinion that a person named Jesus most likelydid exist, there is no primary evidence supporting that and a case against his existence can be made, simply on the lack of said evidence."
In other words, you disagree with Boris on that issue, despite your initial comments that suggested that Boris' claims were more credible. Boris suggested that no "sane" person should believe in Jesus' existence, and he referred to the "lies" he had been told about Jesus' existence. Your position is significantly different from what Boris presented.
You go on:
"The claims by ID theorists do indeed revolve around impossibility; probability is not a strong enough argument"
You're changing the subject. You initially criticized intelligent design advocates for allegedly bringing up an appeal to probability in "retreat". I documented that they bring it up from the start. Your response is to argue that they're wrong in thinking that the issue should be probability, regardless of when they bring it up. But the issue I was addressing was when probability is brought up. To reply to me by saying "probability is not a strong enough argument" is to change the subject.
You write:
"there certainly no evidence for anything supernatural in the Universe, outside of anecdotal claims. You may consider such claims to be evidential; I do not."
The difference is that we've argued for the supernatural at length in the context of this blog, whereas you haven't. We've given the readers a large amount of evidence for our claims, whereas the readers don't even know much about who you are or what you believe, and you frequently offer little or no support for your claims.
You write:
"The limits of science are ill-defined: name me one field in which science is not applicable today and then check with me in 10 years or so. That has been the pattern of the growth of knowledge, and I see no reason that it will change in the future. Of course, I may be wrong."
Peter has already addressed that subject. Why are you ignoring what's already been said?
You go on to ignore some of the other comments of Boris that I asked you about. It seems, then, that Boris was much less reasonable than you initially suggested, even by your own standards.
Do you laugh, Jorgon? Well, this is a new kind of refutation, — when any one says anything, instead of refuting him to laugh at him.
ReplyDeleteJorgon Gorgon said...
ReplyDelete“Your usage of the term ‘macroevolution’ with the connotation that it is somehow a qualitatively different process than ‘micro’ is duly noted and again, laughed at.”
i) “Laughed at” is not an argument. Is “laughed at” your idea of scientific evidence? If so, that would certainly explain what you’re prepared to believe.
ii) You’re free to disregard the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, but you still need to furnish evidence commensurate with the specificity of your theory. If you believe in macroevolution, then you need to furnish specific evidence–on a case-by-case basis.
If you can’t furnish specific evidence, then your theory is based on something other than real evidence. What would that be? Secular dogma? Do you use methodological naturalism to putty in the evidentiary gaps in your theory?
“Your incredulity at the idea of common descent is also noted.”
In my response to you, I haven’t staked out a position one way or the other. I’ve merely noted your threadbare assertions and slippery equivocations.
“Your lack of response to my engineering questions is again not unexpected.”
Lack of response? In fact, I have responded. Where’s your counterargument?
“I suppose next you'll express doubts at radiometric dating systems, and we can go from there to cosmological time scales.”
Actually, you’re the one who’s changing the subject, not me. Shall we take that as a tacit admission that you couldn’t back up your previous claims?
“Octopuses, for example, have no blind spot. it is strictly a function of mammalian eyes.”
i) Of course, aquatic organisms function in a very different environment than mammalian land animals. The challenges are hardly comparable.
ii) Moreover, their eyes are not discrete organs which you can isolate from the overall requirements of their octopoid systems. Different designs have trade-offs. You may have to trade down in one department to trade up in another.
It’s simple-minded to focus on one organ or body part to the exclusion of the overall design. An engineer has to balance out all the competing variables.
iii) Show us a working model of how you’d adapt an octopoid eye to a human body. What corresponding adjustments would be required to pull that off? How would that improve on human vision, in our non-aquatic environment? How would that confer a survival advantage on human beings?
“You do realize that organs of vision evolved on multiple occasions and did so in different ways, thoroughly consistent with the blind process tinkering with pre-existing structures under environmental pressures?”
Actually, your faith in the miraculous ability of a blind process to independently hit upon so many feasible solutions is a tribute to your secular credulity.
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete"Neal: the 6 day creation, in light of modern evidence is NOT plausible. Nuff said."
Excuse me? What exactly is this modern evidence? Evolutionary speculation does not count. What you really mean is in light of your evolutionary and naturalistic presuppositions, 6 day creation is not plausible. Duh. What about people who reject evolutionary and naturalistic presuppostions? You think it might be plausible to them?
"Forgive me, but I have never denied that evolution is a scientific theory (as well as an observed fact). Someone needs to work on their reading comprehension."
Someone needs to lighten up a little. Anyway, point me to the research where evolution has been observed. Not speculations and interpretations, I want some hard observational evidence.
"And of course, your score-card for evolutionary theory is blatantly false: specific predictions abound (naked mole-rats, anyone? for an admittedly funny example)"
If it's that easy, the creationist can play that game too. See that platypus over there? Proof of a designer. Naked mole rat you say? Also proof of a designer. Name that organism.
"You do realize that organs of vision evolved on multiple occasions and did so in different ways, thoroughly consistent with the blind process tinkering with pre-existing structures under environmental pressures? Your inability to grasp the concept does not render it invalid, after all."
You do realize that your assertions are precisely what is in dispute right?
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“I realize that from what appears to be your point of view, all scientists are insane, but it is refreshing to hear it expressed so clearly.”
Sorry to disillusion you, but you don’t speak for all scientists–even if it seems that way from your padded cell.
“By the way, you do realize that Behe subscribes to common descent as well?”
Oh dear. Jorgon, Jorgon: you do realize that in my response to you, I haven’t expressed a personal opinion about intelligent design theory or macroevolution or common descent.
Thus far I’ve confined myself to shooting down your lame objections and tendentious assertions.
One of your many problems is an inability to listen. You assume you already know what your opponent is going to say, so treat us to your canned objections and your rote assertions.
And if I don’t play the typecast role you’ve assigned to me, then you’re at a loss.
You’ve dutifully copied down the little zingers from Stenger, Dawkins, & Dennett. You have all those zippy one-liners alphabetically indexed in your Rolodex of cue cards.
But as soon as you bump into a Christian who doesn’t play into your Hollywood narrative of the gap-toothed fundy, you have nothing in reserve.
And you’re doing no better on the historical Jesus. Trying to bluff your way through the debate doesn’t win you any chips here. You actually have to present real honest-to-goodness arguments.
And, yes, I’m aware of Behe’s arguments for common descent. I’m also aware of the counterarguments.
Steve" "How is that a design flaw? Is redundancy a design flaw? "
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about redundancy? The nerve traverses up and down the neck; it is a single nerve that, rather than cutting straight across from brain to the laryngeal region, takes a detour all the way down first. It is not redundant, but only to be expected ifthe giraffe's ancestors had shorter necks. Capiche?
As far as laughter is concerned: when one exhibits ignorance of itroductory biology while thinking that they may make protentious pronouncements on much more advanced subjects, laughter is the only answer. (BTW, I laugh at myself all the time: try it, it may turn out to be beneficial...:))
Steve: "Show how you can make that adjustment while leaving everything else intact."
Lo and behold! Steve takes a small albeit unwitting step towards understanding how evolution actually works. Will he realize this momentous breakthrough? I doubt it, but anything is possible.
Meanwhile, a hypothetical designer is not limited by preexisting structures, of course.
I wish I could apologize for my laughter; but no matter, no matter.
Steve"But as soon as you bump into a Christian who doesn’t play into your Hollywood narrative of the gap-toothed fundy, you have nothing in reserve. "
ReplyDeletePlease, please, don't flatter yourself/ves. Ken Miller is a sophisticated Christian. So is John Haught. Here, I don;t see them, not so much.
Jorgon said:
ReplyDelete---
It is not redundant, but only to be expected ifthe giraffe's ancestors had shorter necks.
---
Hmm, if I assumed evolution, then I would say that this would be expected only if the ancestors had *LONGER* necks.
As in, the nerve originally evolved it's size in a longer neck, but now it's in a shorter neck, so it has to compress and that makes it double-back on itself.
But that's just me applying logic to evolutionary claims, and we know THAT isn't permitted.
Peter: LOL no. The nerve elongated with the rest of anatomy in question. Being looped through the aorta it could not be "shortcut" easily and hence reached its current silly length of 15 feet, significantly (10+ times) longer than the distance from the brain to larynx. Again,. this is something a freshman zoology student should know. (BTW, without googling it, do you know how many vertebrae a giraffe has?)
ReplyDeleteJason:"Your position is significantly different from what Boris presented."
ReplyDeleteAs I have said, stripped of "fighting words" I do not have much issues with him. His presentation may have been quite impolitic, granted, but after 24 or so hours on this blog, I am beginning to see why he would have reacted in such a way. Not to condone such behaviour, mind you, but only to provide an explanation. The attitude on this blog (as well as most creationist/ID fora I have seen) can best be described by an excellent Russian word (sadly without a precise English equivalent): "невменяемые". :)
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Who said anything about redundancy?”
If the RLN doubles back rather than taking the most direct route, then why do you object to “redundancy” to characterize this feature?
And I ask, once again, how is redundancy a design flaw? For example, redundancy can sometimes preserve function or partial function in case of injury.
“It is a single nerve…”
Actually, from what I’ve read, the RLN has branches.
“It is not redundant, but only to be expected ifthe giraffe's ancestors had shorter necks. Capiche?”
Several problems with that assertion:
i) You dismissed intelligent design arguments as God-of-the-gap arguments. However, if that’s the case, then design flaw arguments are Godless-of-the-gap arguments. If you can’t explain the purpose of “suboptimal adaptations,” you fall back on blind evolutionary mechanisms. So your objection is simply the reverse of what you fault in ID-theory. But if appeal to intelligent teleology is a “cop-out” or “science-stopper,” then appeal to blind dysteleology is likewise a “cop-out” or “science-stopper.”
ii) The giraffe has a highly specialized circulatory system. You need to explain how a blind evolutionary process could synchronize the fortuitous emergence of these interdependent adaptations.
iii) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the modern giraffe did “evolve” from ancestors with shorter necks. How would that disapprove intelligent design?
Dog breeders cultivate different subspecies of dogs with a variety of specialized features.
“As far as laughter is concerned: when one exhibits ignorance of itroductory biology while thinking that they may make protentious pronouncements on much more advanced subjects, laughter is the only answer. (BTW, I laugh at myself all the time: try it, it may turn out to be beneficial...:))”
It’s true that your ignorance of introductory biology makes you a laughingstock. That’s one thing we agree with on.
“Lo and behold! Steve takes a small albeit unwitting step towards understanding how evolution actually works. Will he realize this momentous breakthrough? I doubt it, but anything is possible.”
You’re dodging the issue, even though you were the one who choose to introduce that issue. I’m still waiting for you to furnish a working model of a functional human eye with octopoid improvements.
“Meanwhile, a hypothetical designer is not limited by preexisting structures, of course.”
i) You’re the one who cited the octopoid eye as your point of reference. Therefore, the onus lies on you to present a detailed physiological explanation of how you’d combine features of the octopoid eye with features of the human eye to produce a more optimal design.
ii) Use of preexisting structures is a mark of simplicity and efficiency.
“I wish I could apologize for my laughter; but no matter, no matter.”
No need to apologize. A buffoon like you makes an excellent foil. You’re like a clown we hire to entertain little tikes at the birthday party.
Steve" "If the RLN doubles back rather than taking the most direct route, then why do you object to “redundancy” to characterize this feature?"
ReplyDeleteOh boy. Are you really trying to tell me that you do not see how a single nerve from larynx traversing the length of the neck, looping around the aorta and traversing the length of the neck again on its return path to the brain has nothing to do with redundancy (where is the backup system, my friend?)? Oh boy. I apologize; I thought I was conversing with people with at least a freshman level understanding of basic biology; my mistake.
BTW, regarding your earlier confusion between methodological and metaphysical naturalism: do not fall into Johnson's rhetorical cesspit: they are two different devices entailing quite different committments. I know of plenty people who are methodologically quite naturalistic (perhaps even more orthodox than me in that sense) while holding all sorts of metaphysically non-naturalistic beliefs: Miller, Gilberson, Collins, Abdus Salam (!) spring to mind instantly.
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Oh boy. Are you really trying to tell me that you do not see how a single nerve from larynx traversing the length of the neck, looping around the aorta and traversing the length of the neck again on its return path to the brain has nothing to do with redundancy (where is the backup system, my friend?)?”
i) You have a simple-minded grasp of redundancy. For example:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-pz-ron-faitheism-templeton-bloggingheads-and-all-that-some-follow-up-comments/#comment-327882
ii) Since a giraffe is a unified organism with a set of functionally integrated subsystems, you must detail how, exactly (and I do mean “exactly”) you could reroute the RLN without disrupting the delicate balance. Optimality is a property of the entire organism, in relation to its ecological niche, and not an isolated organ or body party.
BTW, you’re not my friend.
“Oh boy. I apologize.”
You have a lot to apologize for. Don’t stop now.
“I thought I was conversing with people with at least a freshman level understanding of basic biology; my mistake.”
Since I never mistook you for someone with at least a freshmen level understanding of basic biology, I’m unapologetic.
“BTW, regarding your earlier confusion between methodological and metaphysical naturalism: do not fall into Johnson's rhetorical cesspit: they are two different devices entailing quite different committments. I know of plenty people who are methodologically quite naturalistic (perhaps even more orthodox than me in that sense) while holding all sorts of metaphysically non-naturalistic beliefs: Miller, Gilberson, Collins, Abdus Salam (!) spring to mind instantly.”
I spelledout why your makeshift dichotomy is unstable. Methodological naturalism logically collapses into metaphysical naturalism. I gave reasons. You offer no counterargument.
Instead, you resort to biographical anecdotes. But what some people happen to believe is irrelevant. Name-dropping is not an argument. Collecting opinions is no substitute for reasoned argument.
Jorgon Gorgon said:
ReplyDeleteUm, human eye can be easily redesigned to get rid of a blind spot.
Are you referring to the optic disc of the retina? If so, how do you propose to redesign the optic disc in order to get rid of this blind spot without adversely affecting the physiology of vision?
And giraffe's laryngeal nerve does not have to traverse its neck multiple times. (Vagus nerve has the same problem).
Specifically, what do you find problematic about how the vagus nerve innervates the human body? For one thing, it's responsible for significant parasympathetic functions which would not be possible if it didn't innervate the human body in the manner it does.
Our spines, to use another immediate example, are engineered for quadrupeds, not so well for bipeds. These are elementary anatomical facts.
You can't simply take the spine in isolation and make such a sweeping claim.
What specifically is it about the human vertebral column that you believe to be poorly engineered for bipedal motion over and against quadrupedal motion?
How do you explain other skeletal features such as the clavicle which serves as a strut and keeps the humerus away from the thorax and allows it the range of motion it has (and which, as you'd claim, is one reason we're not quadrupeds)?
Not to mention that if you were to do away with the clavicle, then you'd have other problems such as deep inspiration because it wouldn't be possible for humans to elevate their ribs.
And we've said nothing of other anatomical features such as the various muscle attachments that are involved in bipedal motion.
Steve: your claim that methodological naturalism is unstable is belied by many practitioners that use it without a problem. I confess, I find such compartmentalization a bit difficult to imagine myself; not so they, however. (Your claim is akin to a crank-point from John Baez's list: 5 points for every mention of the sueriority of a thought experiment that contradicts well-observed empirical observation).
ReplyDeleteMy grasp of redundancy may or may not be simplistic, but a single system is not redundant in any sense without another system fulfilling the same/similar task. Your apparent inability to grasp it does not bode well for future discussion. To reiterate: a single nerve is not redundant. And of course, it is a reflection of the blind design. It could, easily, go directly from the brain to larynx. But it does not, due to the evolutionary history of mammals. In giraffes (with their 7 vertebrae!) it reaches rather ridiculous proportions. BTW, I assume you may be aware that the giraffe's engineering is quite faulty, for old specimen in any case: often they are not able to get up after drinking and die.
What's more, your requirements of specificity are a classic ID/creationist canard: a demand for 100% specific and proven pathway/method/system from an opponent while themselves providing nothing but vague generalities (in fact, s vague as to be useless, as with IC, for example.
In fact, I am under no obligation to demonstrate anything to you that you cannot fiind out by perusing your local college library. Would you like a reading list? It can be provided, upon request. If you raised any interestig points, I would be happy to engage in a thoughtful dialogue (contrary to what you may believe, my training in relevant disciplines is quite real, as is my knwoledge of Monty Python--both of which seem to be quite relevant in current discussion). Instead, you repeat well-worn non-points from Dembski et al, without betraying any knowledge of the current state of research in real biology. Really: for the latest list of lies by Wells and Mayer, see Panda's Thumb (hey! you sent me to Uncommon Descent, which is always good for a laugh; I can only return the favour).
I must say, I have not had this much fun since watching A fock of Dodos...
One at a time: "Are you referring to the optic disc of the retina? If so, how do you propose to redesign the optic disc in order to get rid of this blind spot without adversely affecting the physiology of vision?"
ReplyDeleteMammalian eye is designed as a reflector. It did not have to be. Had it been designed by an intelligent and logical engineer, it most likely would have been a refractor. The fact that I cannot think of specific details of its design means nothing: I assume that such a designer would have much more advanced tools than any of us do. All I can concentrate on is function; and for a given function, better designs are possible.
Of course that assumes an "intelligent and logical" designer. It could have been Arioch the Duke of Chaos, and often it seems that way.
Jorgon Gorgon said:
ReplyDeleteMammalian eye is designed as a reflector. It did not have to be. Had it been designed by an intelligent and logical engineer, it most likely would have been a refractor. The fact that I cannot think of specific details of its design means nothing: I assume that such a designer would have much more advanced tools than any of us do. All I can concentrate on is function; and for a given function, better designs are possible.
Of course that assumes an "intelligent and logical" designer. It could have been Arioch the Duke of Chaos, and often it seems that way.
1. I don't know if this is what you're assuming but I'm not arguing for intelligent design. Rather, I'm simply asking you to make good on the claims you've made. If you claim x, then specify how claim x would work. And, yes, it does mean "something" if you can't make good on your claim.
2. You're simply wrong to say that the eye is designed as a reflector and not a refractor. How do you explain the refractive media of the eye: the cornea, aqueous humor, lens, and vitreous humor?
And I thought you understood "introductory biology" since you were the one who said the following:
As far as laughter is concerned: when one exhibits ignorance of itroductory biology while thinking that they may make protentious pronouncements on much more advanced subjects, laughter is the only answer.
JORGON GORGON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve: your claim that methodological naturalism is unstable is belied by many practitioners that use it without a problem.”
I give arguments, you give anecdotes. Needless to say, citing biographical vignettes doesn’t go an inch towards disproving my argument. You’re an irrationalist posing as a rationalist.
“(Your claim is akin to a crank-point from John Baez's list: 5 points for every mention of the sueriority of a thought experiment that contradicts well-observed empirical observation).”
That’s such a stupid comparison. There’s no analogy between the metaphysical/methodological dichotomy and the thought-experimental/empirical-experimental dichotomy.
Your anecdotes about methodological naturalists don’t count as observational facts about the concept of methodological naturalism. Rather, that merely tells us something about the mental state of the methodological naturalist. His opinions. That’s irrelevant to whether their opinions are true or false.
The truth or falsity of the metaphysical/methodological dichotomy is a logical issue, not a psychological or empirical issue. Are you too dense to figure that out?
“My grasp of redundancy may or may not be simplistic, but a single system is not redundant in any sense without another system fulfilling the same/similar task. Your apparent inability to grasp it does not bode well for future discussion.”
It’s redundant in the sense I gave. See the link.
“It could, easily, go directly from the brain to larynx.”
You say it but you don’t show it. Asserting something to be the case is not an argument, especially when you’re making counterfactual claims about optimal bioengineering. A real engineer needs to demonstrate his claims, not make promissory assertions about what’s allegedly easy to do.
You act as if we were dealing with an isolated system. What corresponding changes would be required to implement that particular change? Do you have any idea? We’re waiting to see your schematics.
“BTW, I assume you may be aware that the giraffe's engineering is quite faulty, for old specimen in any case: often they are not able to get up after drinking and die.”
Another stupid statement. It reflects your chronic inability to keep more than one idea in your head at a time.
Specialization has advantages and disadvantages. Which is a better design: A leopard, a tiger, or a cheetah?
There is no uniform answer to that question. A cheetah sacrifices power and claws for sheer speed. Speed is advantageous. But it comes at a cost.
A leopard is more flexible. More powerful than a cheetah. Can climb better than a lion or cheetah.
On the other hand, it lacks the power of a lion, or the speed of a cheetah.
What is a survival advantage in one situation, one environment, one ecological niche, may be disadvantageous in another environment.
Optimality is relative to other considerations. A cost/benefit ratio. There are tradeoffs to being a giraffe. Better in some ways, worse in others.
[JG] “What's more, your requirements of specificity are a classic ID/creationist canard: a demand for 100% specific and proven pathway/method/system from an opponent while themselves providing nothing but vague generalities (in fact, s vague as to be useless, as with IC, for example.”
ReplyDeleteEven if ID theory were guilty of the inadequacies you allege, shifting the blame to the inadequacies of the opposing position does nothing whatsoever to rectify the inadequacies of your own position. That’s just a diversionary tactic on the part of somebody who can’t back up his sweeping claims with comparable evidence.
“In fact, I am under no obligation to demonstrate anything to you that you cannot fiind out by perusing your local college library. Would you like a reading list? It can be provided, upon request. If you raised any interestig points, I would be happy to engage in a thoughtful dialogue (contrary to what you may believe, my training in relevant disciplines is quite real.”
Flaunting your epaulets like the head of a banana republic is no substitute for putting hard evidence on the table or presenting a counterargument.
I’ve been answering you on your own terms. When I do so, you respond with an abundance of bluster and schoolboy fallacies.
“Instead, you repeat well-worn non-points from Dembski et al, without betraying any knowledge of the current state of research in real biology.”
Once again, you have no argument. You talk about knowledge without putting the relevant knowledge on display. Stalling for time.
“I must say, I have not had this much fun since watching A fock of Dodos...”
There’s nothing behind your façade. It’s just a cardboard wall. Once we punch a hole in your facade, there’s nothing but air on the other side.
You’re long on scientific rhetoric, but short on scientific evidence.