Calilasseia wrote:Ah, the joy of pareidolia. Which is going to manifest itself whenever one spends long periods of time examining apparently patternless vistas. It's as if the human brain has a need to encounter familiar entities, and homes in on patterns with ever more tenuous resemblance to those familiar entities, as the subconscious longing becomes more desperate.

Yep. The Mrs. and I were watching the sunset the other night and she was trying to show me a puppy she saw in the clouds. All I saw was a duck fucking a pig. Go figure.

To be fair, puppies do look like a duck fucking a pig.

I always thought they were, and I was very surprised when I Iearned that they were actually dogs.

You learn something new every day. Except today. I didn't learn a bloody thing today.

THWOTH wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

scott1328 wrote:The difference is that, Intelligent Design is compatible with every observation anyone could ever conceivably make; it is irrefutable in principle.

Theistic Evolutuion, in as much as it defers to the science, is refutable with respect to that science.

Can ID not be refuted on the basis that it is unfalsifiable perhaps?

No. But it can be ignored on the basis that it is irrefutable.

While ID might account for what we observe, to some degree, can it not be refuted on the basis that it is a less parsimonious reading of those observations? Are we not rationally obliged to put aside the least good explanations of the evidence and adopt the best, until or unless new info becomes available? Does this most simple of logical principles not serve to refute the argument of the ID proponent?

What you have stated do not constitue a refutation, per se. They give justifications for not bothering to refute ID. ID is irrefutable in principal.

When ID proponents suggest that it only looks as if evolution is a natural, unguided phenomenon while this or that datapoint could equally be explained by a wilful agent so powerful that we wouldn't necessary be able to conclude their existence from its handiwork, they are applying an unnecessary condition to their argument and falling to the fallacy of composition. I think we do ourselves a rational disservice sometimes by taking IDers entirely at their word as self-declared dispassionate enquirers, for if one says to them, "OK, so if ID is true what difference does it make to our understanding of the natural realm?" they invariably thank you for holding the door open for God and push him through. We have to remember that Creationism in all its forms starts with its conclusion, and the fallacy in that means Creationism refutes its own arguments from the off.

laklak wrote:You learn something new every day. Except today. I didn't learn a bloody thing today.

Yes, you did. You learned it was possible to go an entire day without learning a single thing.

Careful now Shrunk, you're treading in dangerous territories, it's this kind of thinking that turned mathematicians and philosophers loopy for decades.

Shrunk wrote:

laklak wrote:You learn something new every day. Except today. I didn't learn a bloody thing today.

Yes, you did. You learned it was possible to go an entire day without learning a single thing.

He probably knew that already.

scott1328 wrote:What you have stated do not constitue a refutation, per se. They give justifications for not bothering to refute ID. ID is irrefutable in principal.

Actually, the situation is somewhat more complex. Some IDist assertions are refutable, such as the assertion about "irreducible complexity" purportedly constituting evidence for a magic entity. This assertion was refuted 60 years before Behe was even born, by Hermann Joseph Müller in a 1918 scientific paper, in which he demonstrated how irreducible complexity as properly understood, far from being a purported "problem" for evolutionary theory, was actually a natural outcome of the operation of evolutionary processes.

I suspect other examples of refutable IDist assertions exist.

Indeed, I've presented myself, details of an empirical test that could in principle be conducted, that would settle the question once and for all. That the test would require an enormous amount of diligent labour, and some revolutionary scientific groundwork to be performed, doesn't detract from the fact that I was able to devise said test.

Calilasseia wrote:

scott1328 wrote:What you have stated do not constitue a refutation, per se. They give justifications for not bothering to refute ID. ID is irrefutable in principal.

Actually, the situation is somewhat more complex. Some IDist assertions are refutable, such as the assertion about "irreducible complexity" purportedly constituting evidence for a magic entity. This assertion was refuted 60 years before Behe was even born, by Hermann Joseph Müller in a 1918 scientific paper, in which he demonstrated how irreducible complexity as properly understood, far from being a purported "problem" for evolutionary theory, was actually a natural outcome of the operation of evolutionary processes.

I suspect other examples of refutable IDist assertions exist.

Indeed, I've presented myself, details of an empirical test that could in principle be conducted, that would settle the question once and for all. That the test would require an enormous amount of diligent labour, and some revolutionary scientific groundwork to be performed, doesn't detract from the fact that I was able to devise said test.

Yes wherever IDists make such claims, they can be refuted. But, such refutations do nothing to dispel the IDist's Designer.

As sceptics we challenge claims in the basis of their justification. And unjustified, poorly justified, or erroneously justified claims can be refuted thereby - that is, countered on the basis of their justificatory failure. Generally we have to do some work to show this, and that work is subject to challenges of its own, but that's not to say that ID is somehow an idea that is up in the air, an idea that cannot be challenged or that resists all challenges, or an idea grounded by a secured justification: I.e. un-refutable.

scott1328 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

scott1328 wrote:What you have stated do not constitue a refutation, per se. They give justifications for not bothering to refute ID. ID is irrefutable in principal.

Actually, the situation is somewhat more complex. Some IDist assertions are refutable, such as the assertion about "irreducible complexity" purportedly constituting evidence for a magic entity. This assertion was refuted 60 years before Behe was even born, by Hermann Joseph Müller in a 1918 scientific paper, in which he demonstrated how irreducible complexity as properly understood, far from being a purported "problem" for evolutionary theory, was actually a natural outcome of the operation of evolutionary processes.

I suspect other examples of refutable IDist assertions exist.

Indeed, I've presented myself, details of an empirical test that could in principle be conducted, that would settle the question once and for all. That the test would require an enormous amount of diligent labour, and some revolutionary scientific groundwork to be performed, doesn't detract from the fact that I was able to devise said test.

Yes wherever IDists make such claims, they can be refuted. But, such refutations do nothing to dispel the IDist's Designer.

I see what you're getting at now, but doesn't this just mean that ID reduces to a kind of weak deism?

scott1328 wrote:Yes wherever IDists make such claims, they can be refuted. But, such refutations do nothing to dispel the IDist's Designer.

They're pretty damn devastating to any subsidiary assertion, that the original and now refuted assertions purportedly make the existence of a magic entity necessary. Which is an essential part of the entire IDist apologetic strategy. The moment magic entities become even more dispensable than the litter in IDists' bins, the only thing IDists have to hold on to, is the tragically puerile notion that the universe has to be the product of their imaginary magic entity, regardless of what the data says, because their favourite mythology can't possibly be wrong.

But of course, another aspect of the apologetic duplicity surrounding ID, is the idea that their favourite magic entity purportedly becomes the only option available, if their other assertions happen to be something other than horseshit. Apart from the candidates supplied by other, rival mythologies, there's the possibility of another, antecedent life form wielding advanced technology stepping up to the plate, which is actually more credible than a mythological magic man for several reasons, not the least being that we ourselves provide an example of such a life form. Which means that whilst little green men in flying saucers remain a somewhat ridiculous source to postulate for our origins, they're less ridiculous than mythological magic men.

At bottom, ID is merely another attempt to cling desperately to mythology, primarily because doing so makes those doing the clinging feel special. It's all about belonging to an elite club, and feeling smug and superior because of it, which is a powerful reason for the hold any religion has upon its adherents, especially if the adherents are manifestly anything but superior. At bottom, religion attracts the gullible and indolent, who want to posture as being special without doing any real work to justify this, and the cynical crooks who happily prey upon them and make a lucrative living from their inadequacies.

Calilasseia wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Yes wherever IDists make such claims, they can be refuted. But, such refutations do nothing to dispel the IDist's Designer.

They're pretty damn devastating to any subsidiary assertion, that the original and now refuted assertions purportedly make the existence of a magic entity necessary. Which is an essential part of the entire IDist apologetic strategy. The moment magic entities become even more dispensable than the litter in IDists' bins, the only thing IDists have to hold on to, is the tragically puerile notion that the universe has to be the product of their imaginary magic entity, regardless of what the data says, because their favourite mythology can't possibly be wrong.

But of course, another aspect of the apologetic duplicity surrounding ID, is the idea that their favourite magic entity purportedly becomes the only option available, if their other assertions happen to be something other than horseshit. Apart from the candidates supplied by other, rival mythologies, there's the possibility of another, antecedent life form wielding advanced technology stepping up to the plate, which is actually more credible than a mythological magic man for several reasons, not the least being that we ourselves provide an example of such a life form. Which means that whilst little green men in flying saucers remain a somewhat ridiculous source to postulate for our origins, they're less ridiculous than mythological magic men.

At bottom, ID is merely another attempt to cling desperately to mythology, primarily because doing so makes those doing the clinging feel special. It's all about belonging to an elite club, and feeling smug and superior because of it, which is a powerful reason for the hold any religion has upon its adherents, especially if the adherents are manifestly anything but superior. At bottom, religion attracts the gullible and indolent, who want to posture as being special without doing any real work to justify this, and the cynical crooks who happily prey upon them and make a lucrative living from their inadequacies.

An intelligent ET doesn't help their cause at all, because they still have to explain ET origins, which is either as an evolved creature or a divinely created one.
So making their god as useless as tits on a bull solves the ET "problem" at the same time. The only designer is natural processes. Everything else is a causality violation. We are 'gods" compared to humans living even a few hundred years ago. In a few years may may be able to create life properly, and hence be eligible for "god-status" if our ancestors could view us. But they gave rise to us, and the TARDIS does not exist. Even if it did, going back in time to create our ancestors seems to be to be yet another causality violation.

Calilasseia wrote:In short, ID is nothing but religious creationism wearing a stolen lab coat, a characterisation I've used frequently in the past. As for theistic evolution, that's merely the continued clinging to a purported need for magic, despite zero evidence that magic is needed to explain the biosphere and its contents.

Another way to say that: ID is the complete refusal to acknowledge facts, while TE is acknowledging the facts while maintaining whatever portions of your belief system that facts do not contradict.

I'm reading Coyne's book now. He goes after Miller and Francis Collins big time. The whole thesis of the book is about why religion is incompatible with science. He stresses that of course you can be a believer and a scientist, but what he argues against is Gould's NOMA and this accomadationist view that you can make religion fit the science. He sees religion as trying to elbow its way into the scientific debate where it's not needed, let alone wanted, and giving religion a say in scientific debates with its "other ways of knowing" gives the false impression that religion can impart some equal truths about the universe when it's not even equipped with the tools to do so.

As usual his prose is succinct and brutally honest and I'm finding myself agreeing with just about everything he says.

Yeah, fucktards creationists may be, at least they have the manners to be consistent fucktards. Theistic evolutionists hold the ridiculous position of believing that you can be a little bit pregnant.

Miller suggests, in his book Finding Darwin's God, God might be able to influence evolution by affecting genes by knocking them with electrons (or something like that). That's not science, and Coyne contends he shouldn't even be saying misleading shit like that.

Zadocfish2 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:In short, ID is nothing but religious creationism wearing a stolen lab coat, a characterisation I've used frequently in the past. As for theistic evolution, that's merely the continued clinging to a purported need for magic, despite zero evidence that magic is needed to explain the biosphere and its contents.

Another way to say that: ID is the complete refusal to acknowledge facts, while TE is acknowledging the facts while maintaining whatever portions of your belief system that facts do not contradict.

In theory, that sounds good. In practice, it doesn't really work. The idea that God deliberately planned the creation of sentient beings like humans is contradicted by the fact that evolution is a mostly random process whose outcome cannot be predicted. If God is directing mutations to create particular organisms, that would also constitute intelligent design, not theistic evolution. I think it might also be detectable.

Animavore wrote:Miller suggests, in his book Finding Darwin's God, God might be able to influence evolution by affecting genes by knocking them with electrons (or something like that). That's not science, and Coyne contends he shouldn't even be saying misleading shit like that.

What Miller says is possible, but not even remotely probable and not scientifically testable anyway. People will conflate the idea that these theistic scientists like Ayala, Collins, Conway-Morris know their science [and they DO!] with their religious notions. Ayala is an ordained priest as well.
People untrained in science or philosophy [or at the very least critical thinking] will just assume Miller is being cautious. But he is not, because quantum fluctuations are just random and don't mean anything. But he does not say that. He throws other believers a bone.
Kudos to him for defending evolution and science, but I think a part of it is him defending his belief in theistic evolution against a rival belief, literal creationism. In other words, it is a religious turf war as well as a scientific debunking. You god is silly, mine is not.
To Miller evolution is the workhorse, that does the routine stuff. Souls are not routine, because he believes they have [an undemonstrated] magical component* which still gives his god a job to do.

*Disembodied souls, immortal souls, souls independent of body, souls transferred by god into/out of bodies, etc


.