EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[The Voice of Reason]

That is your answer? Marvelous . . . quite intellectual.

The difference between my post and yours is that I used one sentence to underwhelm you - whereas you use about half a page of blather to reveal just how ludicrous your assertions are about science being slanted against your version of God.
Sadly for you, you don't get extra credit for being long winded with your inanities.

Odd . . . I thought I was explaining an epistemological bias and philosophy of science issues with other intelligent folk . . . my mistake.

Well, not surprisingly, you're wrong. All you have done so far is try to launch a campaign against a nonexistant conspiracy. The "intelligent folk" have bent over backwards to help you see the folly of your delusions, but to your credit, you have (so far) resisted their efforts to drag you back to reality.

I did as you asked . . . but all I found were unsubstantiated assertions and other useless diatribes and vitriol . . . like your "drivel" . . . and accusations about my motivations, knowledge and intelligence.

This one is on me. I have no idea why I thought that by revisiting the responses you might understand what was clearly over your head.
I should have saved the bandwidth.

 

[Magic Man]

I would prefer not to be painted with the tainted label of Intelligent Design . . . which is a Creationist ploy and fraudulent attempt by the Discovery Institute to inject religion into science curricula. Since I know (personally . . . no one need believe me) that the universe is conscious . . . I would prefer to consider the design deliberate (not capricious or random or indifferent or . . . whatever).

Well, there are only two options. Either the design is random or it's intelligent/deliberate. You don't think it's random, therefore you think it's intelligent/deliberate. I'm sorry if that classifies you as something you don't want to be, but that's what you're saying.

I guess the "can't be contradictory" kind of went over your head . . . a fly-by?

Nope, I caught. It just doesn't matter. We have theories that explain all of that, even the "contradictory" stuff. It can be contradictory and still work, which is why we can explain it as we do.

You must have missed the "substantive" part, eh?

Again, nope. You can justify it all away, if you want, but there have been more than enough substantive rebuttals to you here. If you choose to ignore them, or rationalize them away as "not substantive", then that's your problem.

I can only assume you are not familiar with the lengths to which they have gone to impose a "design" evolved over time by random processes over huge time frames . . . recognize the non-explanatory "random processes" of "inherent flaws" using the artificial mathematical constructs of "law of large numbers" and "probabilities?"

Not really sure what you're getting at. I can only assume you refuse to see because of your bias that they don't go to any lengths at all to make anything a certain way. They simply pull the best explanation available out. I'm sorry that it annoys you that that best possible explanation doesn't involve your precious theology.

I dealt with this earlier.

You responded to it. I wouldn't say you "dealt with it", though. It was a good effort, at least.

I did as you asked . . . but all I found were unsubstantiated assertions and other useless diatribes and vitriol . . .

Yes, you have to look past your posts, and look at our posts. That's the point.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Have you ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Probably not, but he's doing his best to elevate it to legendary status among the logical fallacies.

 

[MysticPhD]

I hate to have to say it, but he actually has a point there. The universe we experience is necessarily constructed out of our thoughts about it. So it is to the extent we interface with it "designed" and ordered - though I hesitate to use the word "deliberate" or "conscious" because telos gives all the shape and form to the design and I'm suspicious about the ability to choose or alter telos.

Dare I hope we have another philosopher in our midst! A recognition of the conflicting perspectives of telos, techne and espisteme . . . as encountered here . . . might mitigate some of the vitriol aimed at me.

 

[doppelganger]

Dare I hope we have another philosopher in our midst! A recognition of the conflicting perspectives of telos, techne and espisteme . . . as encountered here . . . might mitigate some of the vitriol aimed at me.

Well, an "agnostic" "mystic" and "perspectivist" perhaps, but only arguably am I a "philosopher."

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A design feature to ensure change (the essence of life itself?) or error?

You don't even try to hide your desperate need to inject your desire to see design into it, do you?

Unbiased, my ***.

 

[Magic Man]

I hate to have to say it, but he actually has a point there. The universe we experience is necessarily constructed out of our thoughts about it. So it is to the extent we interface with it "designed" and ordered - though I hesitate to use the word "deliberate" or "conscious" because telos gives all the shape and form to the design and I'm suspicious about the ability to choose or alter telos.

That's true. However, that's quite a bit different than what he's claiming.

 

[doppelganger]

You don't even try to hide your desperate need to inject your desire to see design into it, do you?

As a model constructed and continually refined for its usefulness in explaining and predicting observations about biological diversity, the theory of evolution itself has both a purpose and a design. The map still isn't the terrain. And when it is, that's the moment the science stops.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I hate to have to say it, but he actually has a point there. The universe we experience is necessarily constructed out of our thoughts about it. So it is to the extent we interface with it "designed" and ordered - though I hesitate to use the word "deliberate" or "conscious" because telos gives all the shape and form to the design and I'm suspicious about the ability to choose or alter telos.

I don't disagree that the universe (as we experience it) is framed by our ability to conceive it. With that said, I see no reason (whatsoever) to accept his "preference to consider the design deliberate". That last part is nothing more than conjecture on his part, and is the entire basis for his attack on science.

 

[doppelganger]

That's true. However, that's quite a bit different than what he's claiming.

I think perhaps he's confusing himself by working in elements of theism, thereby causing him to conflate epistemology with metaphics/ontology in an unworkable manner. But that aside, there's something to what he's saying.

 

[themadhair]

Hardly . . . but epigenetic changes n response to environment seem to use the non-coding areas some of which are heritable . . . opening up the question of their importance rather than their uselessness.

But YOU are ascribing the labels of ‘important’ and ‘useless’. YOU. Think about it. You later claim to seek only neutrality while completely ignoring that science IS that neutrality. If you are ascribing levels of importance that it is YOU who is not being neutral.

I knew the mathematical constructs would be mentioned . . . you are right about random . . . there is no such thing . . . it represents our IGNORANCE

I have to again remind you that you don’t seem to know what the word ‘random’ means in a scientific context. Also, isn’t the fact that you are attempting to point to a gap in knowledge (a gap you have failed to demonstrate even exists, although you have done a god job showing the gaps in your own knowledge) as a pretext for your own whatever-your-god-is explanation NOT THE VERY DEFINITION OF argumentum ad ignorantiam??

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, there are only two options. Either the design is random or it's intelligent/deliberate. You don't think it's random, therefore you think it's intelligent/deliberate. I'm sorry if that classifies you as something you don't want to be, but that's what you're saying.

You still don't get that random doesn't exist . . . it is our ignorance, period. Ignorance cuts both ways when arguing for one side or the other . . . and cannot be used to substantiate either.

Nope, I caught. It just doesn't matter. We have theories that explain all of that, even the "contradictory" stuff. It can be contradictory and still work, which is why we can explain it as we do.

Ah . . . techne.

Not really sure what you're getting at. I can only assume you refuse to see because of your bias that they don't go to any lengths at all to make anything a certain way. They simply pull the best explanation available out. I'm sorry that it annoys you that that best possible explanation doesn't involve your precious theology.

You still don't understand that probabilities and random processes do not EXPLAIN anything . . . they represent compensations for our ignorance.

 

[themadhair]

But that aside, there's something to what he's saying.

I’m not seeing it. If he/she had a valid point philosophically I don’t think he/she would be attempting to disguise it as a scientific one or launch an attack on science.

 

[doppelganger]

You still don't get that random doesn't exist . . . it is our ignorance, period.

THAT is also extremely insightful. "Randomness" is merely incomplete information. And the information is never complete - except within the confines of a theoretical model and then only after the probability wave has collapsed by the observer (and even then it's only "complete" to the extent that it's complete enough to apply the model by which the observer apprehends the event and "realizes" it).

 

[doppelganger]

I’m not seeing it. If he/she had a valid point philosophically I don’t think he/she would be attempting to disguise it as a scientific one or launch an attack on science.

Well, that's why I mention that the philosophy MysticPhD is trying to apply in this discussion appears to be polluted by some theism.

 

[MysticPhD]

You don't even try to hide your desperate need to inject your desire to see design into it, do you?

Unbiased, my ***.

There is no desperation . . . and I make no claim to neutrality . . . but science does (and should). I am not attacking science. I am a staunch supporter and user. I am decrying the insidious use of a "No God" default (argumentum ad ignorantiam) . . . FOR ANY PURPOSE.

 

[themadhair]

You still don't understand that probabilities and random processes do not EXPLAIN anything . . . they represent compensations for our ignorance.

I could have sworn I asked you something about this….

Now what was it….

Holy ѕhit I found it:

I do not believe, for a single moment based on your comments, that you know what a probabilistic prediction even is. You could prove me wrong by citing a few examples and why they are non-explanations, but I won’t be holding my breath.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As a model constructed and continually refined for its usefulness in explaining and predicting observations about biological diversity, the theory of evolution itself has both a purpose and a design. The map still isn't the terrain. And when it is, that's the moment the science stops.

I agree - completely - with both points. The difference is that, the design and purpose of the theory of evolution is a product of mankind - we know that, and have evidence of it.
The design and purpose of the universe is unsubstantiated. It is possible that it is correct, but until evidence is gathered that can support the claim (in this instance), it will remain nothing more than a child demanding that the rest of the world give him what he wants to be true.

In my view, Mystic is doing exactly the same thing that the Catholic church did, when it insisted that Galileo adhere to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Mystic has nothing - absolutely nothing - to support his position, yet he insists that science has some grand scheme to ignore his irrational, unfounded claims.

 

[Magic Man]

You still don't get that random doesn't exist . . . it is our ignorance, period. Ignorance cuts both ways when arguing for one side or the other . . . and cannot be used to substantiate either.

Again, randomness isn't an explanation. It's not saying this stuff happens because everything's random. It's saying it's the opposite of intelligent design. As Dopp pointed out, randomness does tend to mean an ignorance on our part. The point is that that lack of information is just that. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that it had to be intelligently designed.

Ah . . . techne.

Ah....drivel.

You still don't understand that probabilities and random processes do not EXPLAIN anything . . . they represent compensations for our ignorance.

No, you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not sure how many times I can say this. I've said that they don't explain anything. It's basically like saying "I don't know" instead of attributing it to something arbitrary like God. At some point in time, humans probably thought of gravity as sort of random. It was later explained without usig God. The same can be reasonably assumed about anything else that seems random to us now.

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, that's why I mention that the philosophy MysticPhD is trying to apply in this discussion appears to be polluted by some theism.

The use of the word polluted reveals the very insidious nature of the anti-theist bias that exists . . . apparently even among avowed agnostics (neutrals). Very frustrating. I am not neutral. I am a theist. But even if I wanted to be . . . I cannot be neutral in arguing for neutrality when the ubiquitous default is not neutral.