Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[setarcos]

I suggest using the term 'unintended' instead of 'undirected'. Natural forces like gravity guide the configuration and motion of matter. They maintain the orbits of planets and moons, which is an unintended yet not undirected process.

It's a subtle distinction. Your term is commonly interpreted as 'unintended', but I wanted to mention this in case you seek greater precision.

Greater agreed upon precision would be best in my estimation for sentient beings to better communicate with one another.

I have a counterpoint for you to consider though...

My premise is that processes cannot be unintended without conscious reflection.

The argument...

1) A purposeful action requires intention, both of which have their first cause in awareness.

2) A purposeful action may have unintentional effects. Those unintentional effects never the less can only be unintentional if they contradict what was intended which requires conscious reflection.

3) An undirected event implies no intention was involved. An undirected event can have no unintended consequences since it had no intended purpose (awareness of its actions) to begin with.

In summation, 'unintended' requires a cause with conscious reflection. 'Undirected' requires a cause lacking in conscious reflection.



The clarion call of most macro evolutionists is that evolution has no intentions. Thus it can have no unintended consequences. If a genetic mutation causes a happy little happenstance that happens to be beneficial to the organism it wasn't because it was intended by evolution. Nor was it because it was unintended by evolution. It was because it just happened by following whatever processes dictates its possible effects.

We wouldn't say gravity intended to guide the configuration of physical matter and its motion would we? Gravity just is, according to naturalists, and matter and its motion just happens in accordance with what gravity just is. We can't say that the maintenance of the orbits of planets and moons is an unintended consequence of gravity for the simple reason that we can’t meaningfully say what gravities intentions were in the first place. If gravity had intentions in its actions it would have to be aware.

If water heading down hill happens to cut a rut to the left instead of the right which then happens to water a plant that would have otherwise died we wouldn't consider that an unintended event since we couldn't meaningfully say water intended to cut right instead of left.

Evolution is guided, yet it seems to lack intention

I agree if you mean in the sense that all things are guided by the processes that dictate their causes or effects in reality. What that guide is can be naturally or artificially induced.

'Natural' evolution must of necessity lack intention.

natural selection, as far as we understand, unintentionally molds biological forms to fit their environments.

Again I would ask if natural selection unintentionally molds biological forms from time to time then what we might ask would be natural selections intention to begin with? Makes as much sense as asking if the boulder intended to roll down the mountain and smash the house at its bottom or if it was just an unintended consequence of gravity. Or we might ask if gravity intended to pull it down the mountain but not into the house.

And then we might ask what the mountains intentions would be in all of that? To support the actions of the other two participants perhaps?

That appears to be a subjective assessment.

No, that is a logical assessment.

The case is proven daily in labs around the world. Scientists eliminate the complexities inherent in improbable natural events combining to create productively ordered structures through purposeful intention all the time. Injecting sentience into the process makes it less complex because it requires less energy than undirected processes.

there are numerous forces and particles that operate mindlessly, following simple rules, yet complexity can emerge from such processes over time.

I'd say all forces and particles operate mindlessly. And yes complexity can emerge but doing so naturally requires a lot more energy than complexities arising from purposeful direction. That is what would make them less probable events than if done by artificial means. Why do you think that time is so desperately needed as the saving grace for evolutionary theories? It’s because time is the only thing allowing for enough energy to be expended/exchanged in order to mindlessly develop the sufficiently complex structures necessary for the life we see today by overcoming the sum of multiple improbabilities in order to get to the probable.

We should avoid attributing natural complexity to an intelligent designer simply because it seems too intricate to have self-organized without intelligent direction.

Should we then attribute the complexities found in nature to the less probable cause?

I don't definitively attribute nature’s complexities to a specific cause.

I lean towards one cause over another given my understanding of the presented evidence and my experiences coupled with what I see as a generally healthier way of viewing reality.

What I find annoying is when people ask for evidence, then evidence is given, but that evidence is disregarded because it’s not definitive. And then they claim no evidence has been given.

George's earlier point: the world appears to require a deity to explain its existence, leading you both to believe in a divine architect of our reality.

It’s not as simple as that. Human experience is much richer than what science can prove. Appearances can be deceiving its true. But as science delves deeper beyond mere appearances it seems to be moving close to the transcendental not further away.

The quantum realm seems to dictate the necessity of consciousness in determining reality. If so then there would seem to be purpose inherent in the universe.

Religiously speaking we can see all kinds of marvelous phenomena in the mirror and can relate them each to one another. But we can only scientifically see what’s reflected in the mirror. We can’t see what’s holding up the mirror and I choose to have faith in what I feel by calling that something which transcends what we can know, God. Science is only recently getting to the edges of reality which indicates some purposeful sustainer holding up that mirror in which we ponder the glories of creation.

The first is the fallacy of incredulity, which is the notion that "I cannot fathom how it could have occurred without a deity, therefore it did not."

This doesn't exactly fit my arguments. You’re implying that I consider to have presented a proof of sorts. I do not and have not.

I CAN and do acknowledge the possibility of a purposeless creation. I'm not arguing for proof of God. God’s existence remains for me a matter of faith. I do lean towards one possibility over another for some of the reasons we are discussing. But then again, you do too don't you.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that your fallacy cited here can also be applied to most of the people on here regardless of the labels they claim to adhere to. We should remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This argument could similarly challenge the existence of a god, claiming it's too complex to exist uncreated or undesigned.

I'm not pleading anything here...special or otherwise. I'm simply stating facts and giving interpretations of those facts that seem more likely than the alternative interpretation.

It’s not special pleading to presume an automobile to be artificially created given certain considerations. Is it impossible for nature to create an automobile all on its own? I don't know. But it sure seems improbable given the theories that have been developed about information etc.

We act on the more probable as if it’s the proven consistently throughout our daily lives.

If we didn't no human actions would ever take place.

That doesn't mean that we completely disregard the alternatives. It just means that we have faith that in the future our luck will hold out and the gravitational constant won’t change for some reason for instance.

 

[setarcos]

Believers often counter this by exempting their deities, arguing that reason doesn't apply to a god who created it and asserting that such a being transcends reason.

I don't put much blind credence in what believers 'often' do. Believers and non-believers can often be wrong.

Christians should believe that such a God transcends man’s ability to comprehend what's reasonable.

God cannot be contradictory in its being or actions as far as being reasonable goes.

However, nothing truly transcends reason.

I can agree with this. Not all reasonable things are comprehensible by humans either though.

we don't abandon reason; we refine it. If something seemingly unreasonable proves true, then our reasoning must be revised.

I'm glad you mentioned this.

The results of our experimentation in quantum mechanics IS unreasonable from a human perspective. But we can't change the rules of human rationality. What we do change in such cases is we add labels to our vocabulary that are placeholders for observed results. That doesn’t mean we can reasonably understand those results.

Our ability to rationalize is an innate quality of human nature. No amount of 'rule changing' can make black equaling white or particles being both particle and wave at the same time reasonable to humans. Logic need not apply. But that fact does not necessarily mean that these things cannot be reasonable to a being that transcends human abilities.

It appears that your argument likens the universe to a sculpted rock, which is more precise than 'carved,' as natural processes like erosion also carve formations such as the Grand Canyon and river rocks. If that's the case, it suggests you perceive design where science does not.

By carved rock I mean a rock whose specificity of information content includes recognized patterns of purpose such as that found in statues or primitive attempts at artwork verses rocks with little or no recognized purposeful patterns. Natural processes, as I said, can and do produce very realistic patterns of seeming purpose. For instance the so called 'Martian face' on Mars before closer and more clarified scrutiny. However it is the specificity of the information content of the artifact being studied which determines for scientists whether or not that artifact is more or less probably artificially or naturally created.

The higher the specificity of its informational content the more probable its artificiality etc.

This could potentially be explained in natural terms.

As my knowledge stands now I'd have to say that you are correct. I've not argued against this point.

It might have been the result of intelligent design, but the evidence to assert this conclusively is lacking.

Conclusive evidence is of necessity lacking on both sides of the argument. These discussions were never about being conclusive.

I feel no compulsion to speculate, and I have valid reasons for restraint. Knowledge isn't derived from mere hunches, intuitions, or conjectures.

I can hardly see how you can engage in these forums without speculating. I think the compulsion is a natural inclination in human nature. We just attempt to choose what we actively speculate about. Often upon further inspection we find we have speculated on what we thought we chose not to.

Knowledge can only be gained through empirical means.

And how have you come to this conclusion? Doesn't that eliminate mathematical and logical knowledge for instance? Never the less, simply because we might be incapable of gaining empirical knowledge of something does not mean that there is no method by which we can gain true knowledge of something non-empirically...unless you can prove that it does. I'd be interested in that proof.

Knowledge isn't derived from mere hunches, intuitions, or conjectures.

Ironically you've just described how many of the major advancements in scientific knowledge were achieved.

Einstein praised his intuition and imagination in leading him towards development of his general and special theories for instance.

Many scientists credit dreams for giving them their breakthroughs.

Here, 'knowledge' refers to more than just compelling intuitions or beliefs rooted in faith; it pertains to verifiably accurate propositions (inductions) that enable us to predict outcomes successfully (deductions).

That's fine but realize that even the foundations of science are based on propositions which themselves are unverifiable axioms.

THE foundations of science IS faith based. None of the so called natural laws have proofs backing them. IT’S ALL CONJECTURE based on probabilistic evidence.

If your initial visit is pleasant and subsequent visits are consistently satisfying, you then possess the knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal. This is my definition of knowledge: concepts that enable us to predict outcomes with success.

Nooo....you possess the knowledge of where you HAD a great meal then you translate that knowledge into the probability of where you can find a similarly satisfying meal again. You don't actually have knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal. You've simply equated the two types of knowledge after the fact then developed a confirmation bias which informs your future decisions. Your outcomes then can only have probable success. But I agree...the less probable the outcome the less probable that outcome will be successfully achieved in reality. And vice versa.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In summation, 'unintended' requires a cause with conscious reflection. 'Undirected' requires a cause lacking in conscious reflection.

Not as I use the word unintended, which to me means that either the process was not directed by a mind or else by a mind that didn't anticipate some outcome.

We wouldn't say gravity intended to guide the configuration of physical matter and its motion would we?

No, but we would say that gravity directed the configuration or motion of a material object

Again I would ask if natural selection unintentionally molds biological forms from time to time then what we might ask would be natural selections intention to begin with?

Natural selection is a blind process with no intention or purpose.

complexity can emerge but doing so naturally requires a lot more energy than complexities arising from purposeful direction.

I don't know exactly what you mean, but I don't see an argument for an intelligent designer there.

Why do you think that time is so desperately needed as the saving grace for evolutionary theories?

Time is an element in all processes.

It’s because time is the only thing allowing for enough energy to be expended/exchanged in order to mindlessly develop the sufficiently complex structures necessary for the life we see today by overcoming the sum of multiple improbabilities in order to get to the probable.

I don't know what that means, either. Yes, a lot of time has passed since the universe began expanding and a whole host of transformations have occurred. You declare the universe improbable without an intelligent designer, and your reasons refer to probabilities and energy and time, but I still don't see a cogent argument there.

Should we then attribute the complexities found in nature to the less probable cause?

No. We shouldn't guess.

I lean towards one cause over another given my understanding of the presented evidence and my experiences coupled with what I see as a generally healthier way of viewing reality.

You see invoking an intelligent designer as a healthier way of thinking about reality? I don't. I see maintaining an agnostic position most appropriate.

Human experience is much richer than what science can prove.

I'm discussing knowledge, not all experience. Empiricism teaches us how to manage our experiences. We want to facilitate the euphorias (desirable and pleasant experiences) while minimizing the dysphorias. That's what reasoning minds can do for us. We use knowledge to do that.

The quantum realm seems to dictate the necessity of consciousness in determining reality. If so then there would seem to be purpose inherent in the universe.

I don't see how you get from one to the other.

You’re implying that I consider to have presented a proof of sorts.

I wrote, "The first is the fallacy of incredulity, which is the notion that "I cannot fathom how it could have occurred without a deity, therefore it did not." You implied that you considered an intelligent more likely than not based in the idea that you didn't see blind nature up to the task.

It’s not special pleading to presume an automobile to be artificially created

Agreed, but it IS special pleading to say that the universe seems unlikely absent a god and ignore how unlikely it is that a supernatural god should exist. Why would one? How would that even be possible? All of your probability arguments die when you invoke a god to explain things that might not need a god to explain.

Our ability to rationalize is an innate quality of human nature.

Rationalize or reason? Rationalizing should be avoided, whereas reasoning should be pursued.

I can hardly see how you can engage in these forums without speculating

I hypothesize, but I don't guess.

And how have you come to this conclusion? Doesn't that eliminate mathematical and logical knowledge for instance?

You're correct. Pure reason is also a source of knowledge, but it isn't useful knowledge until it is applied to reality.

Ironically you've just described how many of the major advancements in scientific knowledge were achieved.

I wrote, "Knowledge isn't derived from mere hunches, intuitions, or conjectures." Hypothesizing is not enough. There needs to be empirical confirmation

even the foundations of science are based on propositions which themselves are unverifiable axioms. THE foundations of science IS faith based.

The success of science empirically validates it fundamental assumptions.

you possess the knowledge of where you HAD a great meal then you translate that knowledge into the probability of where you can find a similarly satisfying meal again.

Yes.

You don't actually have knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal.

I don't know why you wrote that. If I've been to a restaurant several times and had good meals every time, then I have knowledge of where I am likely to find another good meal.

Is the issue that it's only very likely that I will have a good meal rather than certainty? I'm not claiming that I am sure that my next meal in a favorite restaurant will be good, just that I know where I want to eat in anticipation of a likely good meal. I consider that knowledge. It's an idea that I can use to facilitate the likelihood of a good meal.

 

[Pogo]

What I mean by natural hypothesis is the presumption that all processes in reality can ultimately trace their origins to purposeless happenstance. That is, undirected, fortuitous events causing an increase in the productively effective order of a realistic system .
For example, while the productively effective order of the realistic systems of modern transportation can be traced to another productively effective ordered system - Conscious human ingenuity - that ordered system is itself ultimately traced to other ordered systems which themselves eventually can be traced to undirected, fortuitous events causing an effective cascade of increases in the productively effective order of a realistic system.
Nature creates order and out of that order consciousness and out of that consciousness artificiality.

One reason I think that the natural hypothesis ( a purposeless universe) is less probable than a purposeful universe is that there are many more processes in nature which rely on improbable undirected fortuitous events in order to advance the ordered system sans sentient direction than there would be with purposefully directed events.
Science uses similar considerations to determine the natural or artificial origins of any specific system.
For example, if a scientist is asked to determine the origins of an artifact found on mars or in space for instance to see whether or not it was artificially or naturally produced that determination is usually done first by comparing it to similar, if any, artifacts of known origin. Then a probabilistic analysis of the systems necessary to produce the artifacts specificity of information content would be performed. A sufficiently high specificity of information content would indicate a corresponding lower probability of that artifact being naturally produced.
Automobiles for instance have high specificity of information content while rocks do not. Carved rocks have higher specificity of information content than uncarved rocks but not as high as automobiles. That's why hardly anyone who sees a working automobile thinks its a natural item and most people who see rocks consider them to be naturally made through geological processes. That's also why most who see carved rocks might think they are artificially derived even though they may be mistaken.
Its much less probable that you'd mistake what looks and functions like an automobile as a naturally produced item than that you would mistake what looks like a carved rock as an artificially made artifact but is in reality naturally produced due to their respective specificity of information content.
This is why molecular structures like DNA are so eyebrow raising. They are presumed to be naturally derived but have extremely high specificity of information content.

Without reading all of your salad, your assumption that natural processes will automatically progress is an unwarranted teleological interpretation.

 

[setarcos]

Without reading all of your salad

Word salad implies a lot of product without much substance. Why do you start your conversation with an ad hominem attack which implies I've said a lot but with little of substance? That's an unnecessary method used by mediocre minds that arrogantly think they know better but either are too lazy to show that or have too low of self esteem to make the attempt. I think your better than that so please refrain from such stupidity and just communicate with me if you think you have something to contribute to my understanding.

your assumption that natural processes will automatically progress is an unwarranted teleological interpretation.

This is why respectful communication is always better than ridiculously puerile little jabs at those your in a discussion with.
You call my post 'salad' but you've not even processed what your eating correctly.
Nowhere in my response did I assume that natural processes will automatically progress. And how the heck is the assumption that natural processes will automatically progress a teleological interpretation? IF that were the case then the proposal that sentient directed interference in natural processes being more probable would be rendered impotent.
As a matter of fact I'm suggesting the opposite of what you've interpreted. The apparent fact that blind purposeless natural processes don't automatically progress, which is just another improbability nature has to overcome over an over again in order to succeed in building complex structures may be another piece of evidence indicating purposefulness to the universe.
Of course if I HAVE said something implying your interpretation of what I've said then please quote that part so that I may either correct myself or correct your misinterpretation.

 

[Pogo]

Word salad implies a lot of product without much substance. Why do you start your conversation with an ad hominem attack which implies I've said a lot but with little of substance? That's an unnecessary method used by mediocre minds that arrogantly think they know better but either are too lazy to show that or have too low of self esteem to make the attempt. I think your better than that so please refrain from such stupidity and just communicate with me if you think you have something to contribute to my understanding.

This is why respectful communication is always better than ridiculously puerile little jabs at those your in a discussion with.
You call my post 'salad' but you've not even processed what your eating correctly.
Nowhere in my response did I assume that natural processes will automatically progress. And how the heck is the assumption that natural processes will automatically progress a teleological interpretation? IF that were the case then the proposal that sentient directed interference in natural processes being more probable would be rendered impotent.
As a matter of fact I'm suggesting the opposite of what you've interpreted. The apparent fact that blind purposeless natural processes don't automatically progress, which is just another improbability nature has to overcome over an over again in order to succeed in building complex structures may be another piece of evidence indicating purposefulness to the universe.
Of course if I HAVE said something implying your interpretation of what I've said then please quote that part so that I may either correct myself or correct your misinterpretation.

Excuse me you are right, it was a typo, should be won't, your alternative is not evidenced.
Sorry.

 

[Audie]

What I mean by natural hypothesis is the presumption that all processes in reality can ultimately trace their origins to purposeless happenstance. That is, undirected, fortuitous events causing an increase in the productively effective order of a realistic system .
For example, while the productively effective order of the realistic systems of modern transportation can be traced to another productively effective ordered system - Conscious human ingenuity - that ordered system is itself ultimately traced to other ordered systems which themselves eventually can be traced to undirected, fortuitous events causing an effective cascade of increases in the productively effective order of a realistic system.
Nature creates order and out of that order consciousness and out of that consciousness artificiality.

One reason I think that the natural hypothesis ( a purposeless universe) is less probable than a purposeful universe is that there are many more processes in nature which rely on improbable undirected fortuitous events in order to advance the ordered system sans sentient direction than there would be with purposefully directed events.
Science uses similar considerations to determine the natural or artificial origins of any specific system.
For example, if a scientist is asked to determine the origins of an artifact found on mars or in space for instance to see whether or not it was artificially or naturally produced that determination is usually done first by comparing it to similar, if any, artifacts of known origin. Then a probabilistic analysis of the systems necessary to produce the artifacts specificity of information content would be performed. A sufficiently high specificity of information content would indicate a corresponding lower probability of that artifact being naturally produced.
Automobiles for instance have high specificity of information content while rocks do not. Carved rocks have higher specificity of information content than uncarved rocks but not as high as automobiles. That's why hardly anyone who sees a working automobile thinks its a natural item and most people who see rocks consider them to be naturally made through geological processes. That's also why most who see carved rocks might think they are artificially derived even though they may be mistaken.
Its much less probable that you'd mistake what looks and functions like an automobile as a naturally produced item than that you would mistake what looks like a carved rock as an artificially made artifact but is in reality naturally produced due to their respective specificity of information content.
This is why molecular structures like DNA are so eyebrow raising. They are presumed to be naturally derived but have extremely high specificity of information content.

If I may?
I've tried to write a summary of your post.
Please tell me if anything of crucial importance
is omitted:

"There are many reasons why I believe everything has a purpose driven by intelligence from god."

Is that the main idea?

 

[setarcos]

Excuse me you are right, it was a typo, should be won't, your alternative is not evidenced.
Sorry.

Thanks for the clarification. I've given some interpretable evidence. You've not commented on what I have given.

 

[setarcos]

"There are many reasons why I believe everything has a purpose driven by intelligence from god."

That's the simplistic version of my beliefs but broadly acceptable.
More specifically, I believe there are many evidences that can have more than one interpretation.
Which interpretation one leans towards would have to be a matter of calculable probability.
I believe that given some evidences concerning nature, it is more probable that purpose in creation is involved rather than blind purposelessness.
I'm not inclined to label whatever drives that purpose as 'God' since that word drives most people toward specific ideations on what specific attributes are of said 'God' which is a whole other discussion which for me remains faith based in Christian conceptions.

 

[Audie]

That's the simplistic version of my beliefs but broadly acceptable.
More specifically, I believe there are many evidences that can have more than one interpretation.
Which interpretation one leans towards would have to be a matter of calculable probability.
I believe that given some evidences concerning nature, it is more probable that purpose in creation is involved rather than blind purposelessness.
I'm not inclined to label whatever drives that purpose as 'God' since that word drives most people toward specific ideations on what specific attributes are of said 'God' which is a whole other discussion which for me remains faith based in Christian conceptions.

"I believe in I.D." covers it. Simple.
Not simplistic.

I don't do simplistic.

We presume you don't just believe randomly
but have your reasons.

If I may, I'd like to suggest you summarize your ideas
and avoid use of jargon having no
generally agreed upon meaning.

You might also take "word salad" as constructive
criticism instead of getting defensive. There really is a signal / noise prob.

It took a while to figure the summary I wrote!

Not everyone will take the time, and your idea is lost.

Now- a specific example of order that cannot emerge from
chaos unless by intelligent design?

 

[setarcos]

"I believe in I.D." covers it. Simple.
Not simplistic.

First off, let me be clear that I'm not implying that 'you' are simplistic in your thinking. I don't want you to be unnecessarily offended. Nor do I want to open myself up to being proven a fool.
"I believe in I.D." may be simple as a statement but if you believe that the tip of the iceberg defines what's beneath the waves then its simplistic in what its communicating.

We presume you don't just believe randomly
but have your reasons.

I do. But most people here don't simply presume I have reasons and leave it at that do they.
And why should they. I myself would expect to be shown those reasons so that they may be discussed.
If I attempt to summarize those reasons I'm often accused of having no reasons at all or having reasons that are unsupportable -end of story. I don't mind summarizing my reasons for the sake of brevity or what have you but people here often treat summaries as if they are the entirety of the argument in itself instead of an opening for further discourse. This often only leads to an exchange of insults without actually understanding each others positions.

I'm not here to 'one up anybody'. I'm not keeping score and I'm not a professional debater looking for accolades about my intellectual prowess that so many debaters seem to want. I don't expect to change anyone's position on a matter, only the person changing can do that. I'm here to challenge the veracity of my own opinions. I certainly don't want to be wrong. Being wrong literally hurts a person and who want's to get hurt? But a apt aphorism here would be 'what hurts you but doesn't kill you makes you stronger'.
But we all have to contend with that possibility and when an opinion is under attack we are necessarily led to go beyond summarization.

If I may, I'd like to suggest you summarize your ideas
and avoid use of jargon having no
generally agreed upon meaning.

As I've said, one must necessarily go beyond summarization of ones ideas when those ideas are being criticized.
You are correct though about jargon. Words need to have agreed upon meaning in order to fulfill their purpose of communicating. We all use jargon from time to time. But how are we to know if that jargon has no agreed upon meaning if we don't identify that fact? And if we identify that fact then are we not obligated to rectify and clarify the disparities in our understanding with each other? That is typically done through discussion after the fact not by avoidance before the fact.

You might also take "word salad" as constructive
criticism instead of getting defensive. There really is a signal / noise prob.

I can take constructive criticism. That's why I'm here, to test the veracity of such criticism.
That kind of injury to the mind is recognizably understandable.
What I get 'defensive' about or rather find offensive is destructive criticism.
The use of the phrase 'word salad' is in no way constructive criticism. It is one of the worst and laziest ways to summarize another persons communications -unless it is clinically derived- because it shows no cause.
Because of that fact there is nothing that the person being criticized can constructively work with in order to improve. Failure to understand what someone is trying to convey does not mean that what's trying to be conveyed is, according to Merriam-Webster "a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments".
Those are strong accusations which must show cause in order to be constructive. "Word Salad" does not show cause and is traditionally used to incite an emotional injury not a reasonable one.

There really is a signal / noise prob.

Their always is until each participant gets tuned to the others signal.
Because there is noise does not mean that it is just noise. If it did there would be no paradigm shifting advances in any field of endeavor.

It took a while to figure the summary I wrote!

You should have a better grasp about how that summary was arrived at then in comparison to someone who merely saw the summary. After all its easier to see the berg above the waves than below.
Truth may be simple but getting there is not unfortunately for human beings.

Not everyone will take the time, and your idea is lost.

? If someone comes into a discussion part way through then it might behoove them to check the beginning of the discussion. Usually the starting idea is summarized at that point.
At this point what you are analyzing is a discussion about an idea. Occasionally people lose their place in what they were saying or trying to understand. Fortunately in these kinds of communications we have a literal record we can retrace and refresh from. If you don't take the time or have the time to analyze what's being said then you should refrain from commenting upon it lest you use empty, insulting phrases like 'word salad'.

Now- a specific example of order that cannot emerge from
chaos unless by intelligent design?

I've never said that order cannot emerge from chaos...
I've said that some cases are apparently less probable, give what we now know about reality, that blind purposeless process created them than that some kind of purposeful direction did.
Case in point - complex biological structures such as the DNA molecule.

 

[Jimmy]

I reject it through wisdom.

 

[Audie]

First off, let me be clear that I'm not implying that 'you' are simplistic in your thinking. I don't want you to be unnecessarily offended. Nor do I want to open myself up to being proven a fool.
"I believe in I.D." may be simple as a statement but if you believe that the tip of the iceberg defines what's beneath the waves then its simplistic in what its communicating.

I do. But most people here don't simply presume I have reasons and leave it at that do they.
And why should they. I myself would expect to be shown those reasons so that they may be discussed.
If I attempt to summarize those reasons I'm often accused of having no reasons at all or having reasons that are unsupportable -end of story. I don't mind summarizing my reasons for the sake of brevity or what have you but people here often treat summaries as if they are the entirety of the argument in itself instead of an opening for further discourse. This often only leads to an exchange of insults without actually understanding each others positions.

I'm not here to 'one up anybody'. I'm not keeping score and I'm not a professional debater looking for accolades about my intellectual prowess that so many debaters seem to want. I don't expect to change anyone's position on a matter, only the person changing can do that. I'm here to challenge the veracity of my own opinions. I certainly don't want to be wrong. Being wrong literally hurts a person and who want's to get hurt? But a apt aphorism here would be 'what hurts you but doesn't kill you makes you stronger'.
But we all have to contend with that possibility and when an opinion is under attack we are necessarily lead to go beyond summarization.

As I've said, one must necessarily go beyond summarization of ones ideas when those ideas are being criticized.
You are correct though about jargon. Words need to have agreed upon meaning in order to fulfill their purpose of communicating. We all use jargon from time to time. But how are we to know if that jargon has no agreed upon meaning if we don't identify that fact? And if we identify that fact then are we not obligated to rectify and clarify the disparities in our understanding with each other? That is typically done through discussion after the fact not by avoidance before the fact.

I can take constructive criticism. That's why I'm here, to test the veracity of such criticism.
That kind of injury to the mind is recognizably understandable.
What I get 'defensive' about or rather find offensive is destructive criticism.
The use of the phrase 'word salad' is in no way constructive criticism. It is one of the worst and laziest ways to summarize another persons communications -unless it is clinically derived- because it shows no cause.
Because of that fact there is nothing that the person being criticized can constructively work with in order to improve. Failure to understand what someone is trying to convey does not mean that what's trying to be conveyed is, according to Merriam-Webster "a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments".
Those are strong accusations which must show cause in order to be constructive. "Word Salad" does not show cause and is traditionally used to incite an emotional injury not a reasonable one.

Their always is until each participant gets tuned to the others signal.
Because there is noise does not mean that it is just noise. If it did there would be no paradigm shifting advances in any field of endeavor.

You should have a better grasp about how that summary was arrived at then in comparison to someone who merely saw the summary. After all its easier to see the berg above the waves than below.
Truth may be simple but getting there is not unfortunately for human beings.

? If someone comes into a discussion part way through then it might behoove them to check the beginning of the discussion. Usually the starting idea is summarized at that point.
At this point what you are analyzing is a discussion about an idea. Occasionally people lose their place in what they were saying or trying to understand. Fortunately in these kinds of communications we have a literal record we can retrace and refresh from. If you don't take the time or have the time to analyze what's being said then you should refrain from commenting upon it lest you use empty, insulting phrases like 'word salad'.

I've never said that order cannot emerge from chaos...
I've said that some cases are apparently less probable, give what we now know about reality, that blind purposeless process created them than that some kind of purposeful direction did.
Case in point - complex biological structures such as the DNA molecule.

So do you consider it most likely that:
- There is a " god" of eternal existence
that can do anything

- Said " god" probably lacked the capacity to
make a universe with life being an
emergent property

( tha said " apoarent" probabikity is a personal opinion and should be stated as such)


Re summarizing:
Of course oversimplifying
results in lost content

So does turgid prose

" Word salad" felt insulting but was it misapplied?

Not taking time to write something concise and readable
can readily be taken as a lack of respect for the reader.

Think about it!

Thanks for culling the jarg.

 

[Audie]

I don't put much blind credence in what believers 'often' do. Believers and non-believers can often be wrong.

Christians should believe that such a God transcends man’s ability to comprehend what's reasonable.

God cannot be contradictory in its being or actions as far as being reasonable goes.

I can agree with this. Not all reasonable things are comprehensible by humans either though.

I'm glad you mentioned this.

The results of our experimentation in quantum mechanics IS unreasonable from a human perspective. But we can't change the rules of human rationality. What we do change in such cases is we add labels to our vocabulary that are placeholders for observed results. That doesn’t mean we can reasonably understand those results.

Our ability to rationalize is an innate quality of human nature. No amount of 'rule changing' can make black equaling white or particles being both particle and wave at the same time reasonable to humans. Logic need not apply. But that fact does not necessarily mean that these things cannot be reasonable to a being that transcends human abilities.

By carved rock I mean a rock whose specificity of information content includes recognized patterns of purpose such as that found in statues or primitive attempts at artwork verses rocks with little or no recognized purposeful patterns. Natural processes, as I said, can and do produce very realistic patterns of seeming purpose. For instance the so called 'Martian face' on Mars before closer and more clarified scrutiny. However it is the specificity of the information content of the artifact being studied which determines for scientists whether or not that artifact is more or less probably artificially or naturally created.

The higher the specificity of its informational content the more probable its artificiality etc.

As my knowledge stands now I'd have to say that you are correct. I've not argued against this point.

Conclusive evidence is of necessity lacking on both sides of the argument. These discussions were never about being conclusive.

I can hardly see how you can engage in these forums without speculating. I think the compulsion is a natural inclination in human nature. We just attempt to choose what we actively speculate about. Often upon further inspection we find we have speculated on what we thought we chose not to.

And how have you come to this conclusion? Doesn't that eliminate mathematical and logical knowledge for instance? Never the less, simply because we might be incapable of gaining empirical knowledge of something does not mean that there is no method by which we can gain true knowledge of something non-empirically...unless you can prove that it does. I'd be interested in that proof.

Ironically you've just described how many of the major advancements in scientific knowledge were achieved.

Einstein praised his intuition and imagination in leading him towards development of his general and special theories for instance.

Many scientists credit dreams for giving them their breakthroughs.

That's fine but realize that even the foundations of science are based on propositions which themselves are unverifiable axioms.

THE foundations of science IS faith based. None of the so called natural laws have proofs backing them. IT’S ALL CONJECTURE based on probabilistic evidence.

Nooo....you possess the knowledge of where you HAD a great meal then you translate that knowledge into the probability of where you can find a similarly satisfying meal again. You don't actually have knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal. You've simply equated the two types of knowledge after the fact then developed a confirmation bias which informs your future decisions. Your outcomes then can only have probable success. But I agree...the less probable the outcome the less probable that outcome will be successfully achieved in reality. And vice versa.

" No known natural process could produce such an object"


And please please don't do equivocation with the
word " faith"!

 

[setarcos]

" No known natural process could produce such an object"


And please please don't do equivocation with the
word " faith"!

You'll have to clarify what your trying to get me to realize here? As far as I am aware I haven't made the statement you've quoted. If I did you have to be leaving out a lot of context.
What kind of equivocation of the word faith are you talking about? Faith is faith is it not? Do to the limitations of our human natures, we all have it and we all act in accordance with it most of the time.
I'm curious, why did you bring up equivocation of the word faith? Has the word been 'twisted' some how to fit someone's point in your experience?

 

[setarcos]

So do you consider it most likely that:
- There is a " god" of eternal existence
that can do anything

No.

- Said " god" probably lacked the capacity to
make a universe with life being an
emergent property

Okay...your argument for this proposition?

( tha said " apoarent" probabikity is a personal opinion and should be stated as such)

When I use 'apparent probability' or 'improbability' Its not my personal opinion. Its data I've came across from scientific professionals calculations in their respective fields of study if that's what your getting at. I've identified those professionals.

So does turgid prose

Turgid prose? I hadn't realized it seemed turgid to you? I hadn't meant it to be.
Perhaps you can give me some examples so I can do better.

" Word salad" felt insulting but was it misapplied?

I don't know was it?
Its usually not in my experience given the contexts of the replies that use it. Its usually intended to do exactly what I said it is intended for. It convicts itself with its own lack of justification.

Not taking time to write something concise and readable
can readily be taken as a lack of respect for the reader.

Think about it!

Thanks for culling the jarg.

I will take this into consideration in my future posts. Should I wander into 'turgid' or confusing jargon in those posts fill free to point out where and I'll do my best to correct and or clarify.

 

[Audie]

You'll have to clarify what your trying to get me to realize here? As far as I am aware I haven't made the statement you've quoted. If I did you have to be leaving out a lot of context.
What kind of equivocation of the word faith are you talking about? Faith is faith is it not? Do to the limitations of our human natures, we all have it and we all act in accordance with it most of the time.
I'm curious, why did you bring up equivocation of the word faith? Has the word been 'twisted' some how to fit someone's point in your experience?

I checked goog and see "equivocation" is too strong a term.

So let's put it this way- what do YOU mean by " faith"?

The dictionary and Bible together provide many shades of meaning.
Some nearly opposite.


To your q-
I won't say " twist", it's probably just ignorance but
it's a creationist playbook standard to speak of, say,
" faith" in evolution. So I'd hate to see you appear to get into that odious nonsense.

No provisional acceptance of the high probability that ToE
is sound remotely matches what OT or NT says about
the meaning of faith.

What did you mean by f"aith" in science?

 

[Audie]

No.

Okay...your argument for this proposition?

When I use 'apparent probability' or 'improbability' Its not my personal opinion. Its data I've came across from scientific professionals calculations in their respective fields of study if that's what your getting at. I've identified those professionals.


Turgid prose? I hadn't realized it seemed turgid to you? I hadn't meant it to be.
Perhaps you can give me some examples so I can do better.

I don't know was it?
Its usually not in my experience given the contexts of the replies that use it. Its usually intended to do exactly what I said it is intended for. It convicts itself with its own lack of justification.

I will take this into consideration in my future posts. Should I wander into 'turgid' or confusing jargon in those posts fill free to point out where and I'll do my best to correct and or clarify.

So what possible point do you have if it's not
ID?

You've seen opinions about probability and
chose to adopt them? "Apparent" to you and Dr's x and y
Its still opinion being stated as fact.

Apparent to thee and not to me.

If you want to talk science you can't expect to get by with such careless talk.

xxxxxxxxxx

You used a lot of jarg in that post.
Go back and see if anyone could reasonably be
expected to find it smooth reading or know what the
jarg means.
I sure didnt.

 

[Audie]

I don't put much blind credence in what believers 'often' do. Believers and non-believers can often be wrong.




That's fine but realize that even the foundations of science are based on propositions which themselves are unverifiable axioms.

THE foundations of science IS faith based. None of the so called natural laws have proofs backing them. IT’S ALL CONJECTURE

You don't do blind credence- so where do you
see the attributes of God you state as facts?


Re science-


All "faith" based? "Proof(s)?

What definition of faith are you applying ?

Why do you speak of proof, knowing it has no more
role in science than do 100% unevidened statements
presented as facts?

Natural laws.....lets do the gas laws... are 100%
empirical in nature.
Probability that they are wrong? Awful small.
Uncountable trillions of demontrations every minute
world wide and you call it conjecture??

There's some semantics problem going on.

And- just to save you time- nobody here on the atbiest sice of fence needs lessons in basic science anyway.

 

[setarcos]

So let's put it this way- what do YOU mean by " faith"?

In short, belief in something for which one has reasons but no definitively verifiable proof.
Of course one can have unreasonable, irrational, or even delusional faith but I try to follow the tenet that ones faith should be reasonable.

it's a creationist playbook standard to speak of, say,
" faith" in evolution. So I'd hate to see you appear to get into that odious nonsense.

Whether you find it odious or not, human nature is such that in any endeavor it undertakes it must include faith in the equation. That goes for science as well as religion.
I don't care if someone's relying on a creationist playbook or an atheist one. I'm interested in what their arguments are and what they have to contribute to human understanding.
I cringe every time someone invokes the 'playbook' reference since its a logical fallacy to assume that since an argument has been placed under the 'playbook' rubric the argument must be wrong.
It is a fact that the theory of macro evolution requires faith in its presumptions since it, of necessity, must rely on unknowns in its propositions. Just like the other sciences. Even more faith is needed in the evolutionary sciences though since it relies on hypothetical, unverifiable, singularly unique events which have not been witnessed nor can be experimentally reenacted with any true exactitude.

No provisional acceptance of the high probability that ToE
is sound remotely matches what OT or NT says about
the meaning of faith.

You'll have to elaborate for me on why you think that.

What did you mean by f"aith" in science?

I meant exactly how I define faith in your question above.
All science invariably involves faith in its suppositions.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems invoke faith in science.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle invokes faith in science.
No scientific laws have been proven. All scientific laws invoke faith in their affirmation.

So what possible point do you have if it's not
ID?

No one has yet, nor in my opinion can, confirm its not ID. So I'd have to say I wouldn't have a point if it were confirmed not to be ID.
Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of my "No." to your previous posts question about "god".
Let me clarify. I do not believe in a God that can do "anything". I believe in a "God" which is fundamentally limited to what is possible to do within reality without creating a contradiction.
I believe that any Intelligence sufficiently capable enough to bring something into existence cannot do so by contradictory means.

You've seen opinions about probability and
chose to adopt them? "Apparent" to you and Dr's x and y
Its still opinion being stated as fact.

I've never stated their opinions as facts. As I told Mcbell...

"I've offered specific probabilities given by Penrose and Myer's for instance. Of course sometimes it is untenable in forums like these to give the specifics of how some scientists came to their conclusions since many of these conclusions have several pages of complex equations behind them.
In such cases the best we can do is acknowledge their peer rated qualifications and offer counterpoints by other peer rated qualified persons in their respective fields of expertise."

I chose adopt them with faith that their opinions are accurate to their understanding of the data they have presented.
I suspect you do the same every time you choose to 'adopt' the opinion of some scientists experimental results as accurately implying something. Do you choose to believe in evolution? Then your probably choosing to adopt someone's opinion based on their research into that field of study.

Apparent to thee and not to me.

This says nothing about the truth of the matter. Why would you think that truth hinges on being apparent to you? And yes that goes for me too.
I think if its not apparent to you then it might behoove you to try and understand why I think its apparent to me. That's how I approach a discussion. I'm trying to discuss with you what isn't apparent and why?

If you want to talk science you can't expect to get by with such careless talk.

Um...okay. I don't think what I've said really qualifies for careless talk but...okay?

Go back and see if anyone could reasonably be
expected to find it smooth reading or know what the
jarg means.
I sure didnt.

Sometimes, because of the nature of what's being discussed it invariably become not very smooth reading. If you don't know what some jargon means then ask and I'll try to reword it for clarification.
Have you ever looked at Nietzsche's, Einstein's, Penrose's, Augustine's, - pick any highly exalted individual in any field of endeavor - papers? They're full of jargon and not made for smooth reading.
That's why we communicate and explain together.
Your not in my head and I'm not in yours. We have to meet at some external point together.