Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.

[ncooty]

I've noticed a disturbing trend in many arenas of social discussion: identification of others by their current beliefs. I have recently read pieces in which the authors use the term "Europhiles" to describe individuals who have at one time or another agreed with a point of view of a European. I have read (repeatedly) on this site the term "evolutionist" to describe those people who currently ascribe to the theory of evolution.

The danger implicit in these categorizations is that we make others out to be a certain TYPE of person different from the TYPE of person we are. It creates an "us vs. them" ad hominem discussion. By identifying others as a different type of person, we insinuate that they cannot be reasoned with and that we are fundamentally at odds with them.

I think WHAT we think is a product of the INFORMATION we have and the WAY we think. If you and I disagree, it might be because we have different ways of arriving at our conclusions or we might have different information.

Scientists describe themselves with a term that represents HOW they arrive at their beliefs: the scientific method. If you intend to change the mind of a scientist, present evidence that adheres to the scientific method. If that person is a bona fide adherent to science, he or she will change his or her mind without feeling as though they've lost a battle or been personally affected.

Christians define themselves with a set of beliefs (as indicated by the title). If you intend to change the mind of a Christian, you must first understand HOW that person arrived at those beliefs. Unfortunately, people who define themselves by WHAT they think rather than HOW they think ensure that changing their minds means that they have to redefine themselves. Moreover, it is unclear to the rest of the world just HOW that person thinks. That uncertainty is troubling, because it affords others a very unclear idea of what to expect in the future.

The fundamental precept here is that a scientist always knows what kind of evidence would be necessary to change his or her mind. My question is: What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

If advocates of intelligent design cannot state the exact manner of empirical evidence that would disprove such a theory, the theory does not meet the minimum requirements of science. I think this is why intelligent design meets with such backlash from most of the scientific community. Many would argue that such a non-falsifiable claim would be better taught in a philosophy or theology class, but it simply isn't scientific in nature. That's not to say it's wrong, just that it can't be studied scientifically.

Incidentally, for those who think this site advocates "following science, wherever it leads," you need to re-read this site's terms of use that specifically forbid posting anything that might assail Christian beliefs. This site began and is maintained with the end in mind. This site is most certainly NOT dedicated to following anything to anywhere other than stronger Christian faith. Don't kid yourselves.

Here's an excerpt:

This site "serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people."

Now THAT is an open forum. Clearly, this site is dedicated to open discussion that leads wherever openness, reflection, and debate lead.

I expect this post to meet with a public stoning, but I would like it if someone would educate me on the empirically falsifiable hypotheses of intelligent design.

If you're just going to attempt to be mean and belittling, we'd all rather you just go hate quietly in the corner with some of your toys.

Begin the ad hominem assaults and petty jeers...

NOW...

(P.S. I'll change my views in a heartbeat if you can present the evidence. That's why I'm on this site. I don't buy into ID, but I'm willing to be convinced.)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Thank you for using all the false arguments against intelligent design. I'm rather confident in my beliefs if the same stuff is used over and over.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ed.pdf[url]

ID is empirical.

[Believer]

Thank you for using all the false arguments against intelligent design. I'm rather confident in my beliefs if the same stuff is used over and over.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ed.pdf[url]

ID is empirical.

Just correcting the link, it should be - http://www.designinference.com/document ... isited.pdf. Now the link will work .

[ncooty]

I wasn't aware that I'd made any arguments at all. I listed an element of an antecedent to an argument, but asked if someone could provide a missing element.

Thanks for the link. I'm trying to get a handle on this intelligent design concept.

You really should work on easing off the assumption that curious people are attacking you.

[Believer]

You really should work on easing off the assumption that curious people are attacking you.

It's happened too often here, that's why these assumptions are made, because we have been over this "ID IS NOT Creationism" debate for awhile, yet skeptics still persist in claiming ID is Creationism. Creationism takes the God of the Bible and therefore it is religion, Intelligent Design does no such thing except say that there are things in life that are too complex to have evolved by evolutionary theory, and does not identify the creator as God. And because a majority of scientists accept the evolutionary theory, they are very hostile towards ID because they believe it will ruin what they have been doing for decades. Also, not to mention, this evolution vs. ID vs. creationism is now a war, and I strongly believe it is the evolutionists that are making it so. As ID scientists, they are not trying to say all of evolution is false, there are indeed problems with it, and they are not hostile in "trying to take over evolution", they are just trying to make a point that some aspects of life are very complex to have arrived by evolution.

[ncooty]

KMart,

OK, I'm obviously not getting this. I'm reading the document in the link you sent and there are numerous logical fallacies that have already been committed in the first 6 pages. I'm willing to overlook those, because I haven't seen the whole argument yet and they might just be minor issues, but I have run across something that does seem central and flawed.

On pg. 6, the author wrote, "Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty producing irreducibly complex systems.

"There's an obvious difficulty extending this line of reasoning to
biology, however. The selection operating in biology is Darwinian natural
selection, and this form of selection operates without goals, plans, or
purposes."

I've read the rest of the section, but that comment doesn't make sense to me. There are multiple selection rules in biology: self-preservation, increased ability to procreate, etc. The second is most applicable here.

Moreover, it seems that the entire argument is based on a fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent. If A, then B. B, therefore A. This argument form is logically unsound. For example, if it's raining, then it's cloudy. It's cloudy, therefore it's raining. Here, it manifests as: If God created something, that thing shows intelligent design. Things show intelligent design, therefore God exists. Logically unsound.

I'm not attacking your position. I'm just skeptical of new arguments (as I think we all should be). I've heard of creationism many times, but if intelligent design is different, I don't yet see how, so I'm here trying to see what's what. Thanks for the help.

Let me know if I'm on the wrong track so far. There's no sense in reading the whole thing on the wrong track.

[ncooty]

Thinker:

Thanks for the ID/creationism clarification.

OK, so the only difference between the two is that the creator of ID isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Do I have that right?

Just so you don't think I'm here for another assault, I'll put my cards on the table. My initial reaction to the inclusion of ID in science classes was that it wasn't science. I took the position of many on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism site http://www.venganza.org. However, I've heard people mention that ID and creationism are not the same and I didn't want to oppose something I don't understand. So, I'm here... open-minded. I came hoping to understand the difference between ID and creationism and to get evidence that ID really abides by the scientific methodology.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of my beliefs and I'm not so stubborn, bull-headed, ego-centric, and self-righteous to think that my beliefs are necessarily, absolutely RIGHT. I'm a sponge.

[Believer]

Thinker:

Thanks for the ID/creationism clarification.

OK, so the only difference between the two is that the creator of ID isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Do I have that right?

Just so you don't think I'm here for another assault, I'll put my cards on the table. My initial reaction to the inclusion of ID in science classes was that it wasn't science. I took the position of many on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism site http://www.venganza.org. However, I've heard people mention that ID and creationism are not the same and I didn't want to oppose something I don't understand. So, I'm here... open-minded. I came hoping to understand the difference between ID and creationism and to get evidence that ID really abides by the scientific methodology.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of my beliefs and I'm not so stubborn, bull-headed, ego-centric, and self-righteous to think that my beliefs are necessarily, absolutely RIGHT. I'm a sponge.

Yes, Intelligent Design DOES NOT advocate the God of the Bible as Creationism does. The designer or designers are unidentified, so it doesn't have to be any God or gods that any religion that has ever existed subscribe/ed to. ID just shows there is complexity that evolution cannot explain by it's own theories definition. But of course evolutionists snap at anybody advocating Intelligent Design because it gets in their "way of things", since the evolutionists don't want the theory "replaced" due to them being supremely confident that their theory is true and everything else is false/garbage.

The creator of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a close local of where I live. The purpose of his website is to make fun of ID by saying that a Flying Spaghetti Monster could be the creator, because ID doesn't specify the creator, which most smart people know his conception is absurd to believe man made product is a creating entity. He submitted his idea to the Kansas State Board, and got some attention but wasn't considered in any true debate. The fact is, people don't seem to understand what ID truly is. The ACLU, atheist organizations, the media, etc... love to criticize ID so people will reject it, but people need to look into ID themselves and not rely upon such people telling them what ID is, which in their case is not what ID truly is, but a twisted one to convince the public to say "no" to ID.

[ncooty]

OK, so irrespective of the religious affiliation of the creator, is the creator necessarily supernatural?

I would assume so, because anything that created all physical things (and I'll include both energy and mass in that) would have to be itself non-physical... or else, you end up with the question, "Who created the creator?"

The other question is, What counts as too complex for evolution to explain? Are there things that are not too complex for evolution to explain?

Thanks.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

On pg. 6, the author wrote, "Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty producing irreducibly complex systems.

"There's an obvious difficulty extending this line of reasoning to
biology, however. The selection operating in biology is Darwinian natural
selection, and this form of selection operates without goals, plans, or
purposes."

I've read the rest of the section, but that comment doesn't make sense to me. There are multiple selection rules in biology: self-preservation, increased ability to procreate, etc. The second is most applicable here.

No...what he's saying is that if evolution were sentient and had a goal in mind, irreducibly complex systems could be made through it...but evolution has no goal, unlike Dawkin's computer simulator, which "knew" when to keep a mutation in a sentence from being changed because it was the right letter in the right position in the goal of Dawkin's program. This is why self-preservation and increased ability to procreate, etc, does not work...because until the Irreducibly complex system is up and running, none of the goals of evolution can be met....and evolution is not a strategist, it doesn't think to itself "you know, this little mutation does absolutely nothing, but I can see what I can do with this if I get tons more mutations."

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Moreover, it seems that the entire argument is based on a fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent. If A, then B. B, therefore A. This argument form is logically unsound. For example, if it's raining, then it's cloudy. It's cloudy, therefore it's raining. Here, it manifests as: If God created something, that thing shows intelligent design. Things show intelligent design, therefore God exists. Logically unsound.

LOL, you bum, you copied most of that straight from the first website that popped up on google...LOL!!!

But, you have not explained how the article falls under that fallacy.

[ncooty]

It seems to me that your point makes two distinct assumptions:

1) individual mutations couldn't be worthwhile in and of themselves

and

2) organisms with mutations can't procreate.

If assumption 1 were true, no single mutation would be viable. I'll give you one genetic mutation that is viable in and of itself: the recessive sickle-cell trait. It's presence drastically reduces the likelihood of malaria infection. I think any single-chromosome genetic mutation should suffice to disprove assumption 1, given that a tRNA or RNAi discrepancy from the DNA would result in a phenotypic anomoly of the offspring.

If assumption 2 were true, none of us would be here. In fact, the mere fact that cancer spreads is likely sufficient to disprove assumption #2.

Of course, all of this is moot if I've misjudged what it is that you're saying.

By the way, thanks to everyone who's taking my interest seriously and addressing it civilly.

[ncooty]

KMart,

Don't deride other people who don't agree with you. That's not very Christ-like of you. I have a degree in philosophy. Discussing the elements of logical argument doesn't require that I mindlessly copy from Google. At any rate, even if I copied the nature of logical fallacies straight from an intro to argument text, they would nonetheless be relevant.

One of the preliminary problems with his argumentation deals with the fact that he teleologically and deontologically restricts his definition of irreducible complexity so that no system would be considered reducibly complex (or, perhaps, irreducibly non-complex). Note that a change in structure or function would constitute a change in the system, thus any change is necessarily a change in the system and the system has therefore not been faithfully reduced. Moreover, teleological definition of an organism is necessarily subjective. The purpose of any action is a perception, not a percept. As I wrote, I didn't want to nit-pick, though these issues turn out to be relevant to the author's argument. I didn't want the discussion to get distracted with smaller issues; I wanted to stick to the primary subject and what I thought were the big fish that needed frying.

I'd appreciate it if you would try to act like an adult from now on. If you could be a little more civil and respectful, I'd appreciate it.

[ncooty]

KMart,

Quote:
No...what he's saying is that if evolution were sentient and had a goal in mind, irreducibly complex systems could be made through it...but evolution has no goal, unlike Dawkin's computer simulator, which "knew" when to keep a mutation in a sentence from being changed because it was the right letter in the right position in the goal of Dawkin's program. This is why self-preservation and increased ability to procreate, etc, does not work...because until the Irreducibly complex system is up and running, none of the goals of evolution can be met....and evolution is not a strategist, it doesn't think to itself "you know, this little mutation does absolutely nothing, but I can see what I can do with this if I get tons more mutations."

Response:
I may have this wrong, but it seems that now you've presented another logical fallacy: denial of the antecedent. If A then B. Not A, therefore not B. That argument is logically unsound. It seems in your response that you've stated: If evolution were sentient and had a goal (A), then irreducibly complex systems could be made through it (B). Evolution is not sentient and does not have a goal (not A), therefore, irreducibly complex systems cannot be made via evolution (not B). Thus, if I understand you correctly, this argument is also logically unsound... and, by proxy, the author's argument is unsound (if your argument is also a veridical representation of the author's argument).

Do I understand you correctly?

[ncooty]

I just realized, my simple, initial question has still not been answered. Here it is again:

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

This is the fundamental pre-requisite of a scientific theory.

If it's so simple, somebody just post it. It doesn't require ad hominem attacks or guffaws; just type it out and post it.