Summations Only

This was a reply to your input #8 where you stated: "So anyone that doesn't follow ID or Creationism is an atheist? The Catholic Church and millions of Protestants and Jews would disagree with you. "
I didn't say that did I? If I did, I miss-poke though I don't believe I said that at all. It doesn't matter what your faith is; it doesn't matter if you believe in a Designer. It's fine if you believe this is all chaos and improbability. That's fine. Bt this is an example of how this conversation has deteriorated through the decades. It's just silly and unproductive. You're quite right: Enough said. I think my point has been made. To your first point, I originally joined when I was in the midst of Cosmology investigation.
JCH

Well sir. Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours. Neither of us should demand the other relent other than to not interfere with the other's right to those beliefs,---- giant purple anteaters included. They are, after all, the most benign and useful of the insectivores.

Well sir. Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours. Neither of us should demand the other relent other than to not interfere with the other's right to those beliefs,---- giant purple anteaters included. They are, after all, the most benign and useful of the insectivores.

So I take it, a mutually respective discussion of a Teleological ID proponent with Science and Atheists is totally out, eh? JCH

You bet I’m a teleologist! I don’t distance myself from ID because the general concept of Intelligent Design appears to me to be frequently somehow misrepresented and matches most closely teleological foundations. It can be made fundamentalist to the extreme by some, and its demands can be dogmatic as well, -- but so can Science. The words written below indicate that the ID folks have heaped personal abuse on science. I can see why such negativity has evolved, but it doesn’t have to be that way if there is equal acceptance — by Scientists and Atheists - of the beliefs -- by a component of ID proponents -- who believe that design was the foundation of everything from the Big Bang onward; not per force, but by nuance.
If the nuance, or a nudge toward this goal or that, is what scientists or atheists find unacceptable, then so be it. No problem. Discount our beliefs and move on with the next phase of supersymmetry. But we must all avoid demonizing or demeaning the other because of beliefs, and we should NEVER interfere with the education of our children on the basis of those beliefs. I find it most repugnant when it occurs emanating from the Creationists as much as I do from Science and I find it most repugnant when that dogma emanates from Atheists, whom I consider just another form of Religion.

I consider this the more important exchange in this discussion.
I include the entire discussion component here with my responses bracketed by ***--***. It began with the statement:"You have made the classic error of confusing ID with teleology.
quote:"***You bet I’m a teleologist! I don’t distance myself from ID because the general concept of Intelligent Design appears to me to be frequently somehow misrepresented and matches most closely teleological foundations. It can be made fundamentalist to the extreme by some, and its demands can be dogmatic as well, -- but so can Science. The words written below indicate that the ID folks have heaped personal abuse on science. I can see why such negativity has evolved, but it doesn’t have to be that way if there is equal acceptance — by Scientists and Atheists - of the beliefs -- by a component of ID proponents -- who believe that design was the foundation of everything from the Big Bang onward; not per force, but by nuance.
If the nuance, or a nudge toward this goal or that, is what scientists or atheists find unacceptable, then so be it. No problem. Discount our beliefs and move on with the next phase of supersymmetry. But we must all avoid demonizing or demeaning the other because of beliefs, and we should NEVER interfere with the education of our children on the basis of those beliefs. I find it most repugnant when it occurs emanating from the Creationists as much as I do from Science and I find it most repugnant when that dogma emanates from Atheists, whom I consider just another form of Religion.***________________________________________
A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.
***Right. I feel in good company with Plato in this regard.***
________________________________________
Intelligent Design is a specific teleological movement that was constructed so as to propose the important parts of Creationism (namely, that evolution is false) without mentioning the parts of Creationism that lead to legal troubles in the context of education (namely, that god is true).
***The affirmation of faith should never be a requirement if we are to communicate meaningfully. The key is to accept the fact that Science is and has been beneficial, but it does not negate faith. Faith should avoid interacting (and especially manipulating) the law to some end. Such interactions are destructive and counterproductive to us all.***
And that is the main problem with teleological accounts: they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving.
What is the purpose of a hammer? It is to drive nails into things.
What is the purpose of a human? What end is achieved by the existence of rabbits? What is the function of mountains? And to whose ends?
***A teleologist would say that every item may or may not have a rational purpose. The universe appears to operate to its own rhythm which we humans have attempted to define through science. Those attempts have provided us remarkable means to improve our existence, but the attempts themselves were really to satisfy our curiosity. In a way, purpose, was a spin off we call applied science. But it was our need to know, -- our curiosity about who we are; where we are; where we came from and where we are going --- that really spurred science in the first place. It all emanated from our remarkably creative biologic quantum computer — our brains interacting with our mind and — some would say — with our spirit or souls.***
In science, Purpose per se is never the reason something ends up the way it does.
I disagree. Human artifacts can be studied by science, and science can conclude that the artifacts were created for a purpose and may even infer what that purpose was
Except with applied science (i.e., outcomes using scientific discoveries implemented by man’s will), the studies characteristic of science discount any immediacy of purpose at all.
Again, I disagree. Evolutionary biology is all about purpose. What is the purpose of the rabbit's tail? What is the purpose for the appendix? What is the purpose of flagella? If there is no purpose for something that we can detect: it might called a quandary for evolution. How can you work out how something evolved, if you don't know what purpose it serves?
And we can examine tool use in other animals, and infer what the purpose of those tools is. That is: we can study those things that are implemented at the will of animals besides humans.
In fact, to imply there is purpose in the processes of the universe is, to many (if not most) scientists a strong indication of deranged and simplistic thinking.
The modern scientific position on this would be that it was a strong indication of 'normal human thinking'. We are, after all, pretty good agency detectors. We don't need deep thinking to do it, and we will even infer agency where there is none. False positives in this regard are favoured by evolutionary mechanisms - it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to inferring agency...agents are potential rivals/predators after all.
Children frequently think in terms of purpose without prompting. That rock over there is there so the sheep can scratch their back. Flowers are there to look pretty for us.
***Indeed: This is the best definition of concrete thinking.***
Getting out of the habit of purpose oriented thinking is something that requires some considerable training, I believe.
Of course, if we have too many false positives we might end up being called 'paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorists', or perhaps 'teleologists'.
***I (as a teleologist) am not offended, but it seems that teleology is at least as valid as any other discipline (including multiple components of science), --- most of them being unproven as absolute truth or fact.***
In addition, ID adherents clearly separate themselves from fundamentalist creationists.
Not clearly enough. Indeed, at the Dover trial one of the people who were pushing the ID agenda, Bill Buckingham famously got mixed up:
quote:
________________________________________
It's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else - such as Creationism.***I (as a teleologist) would recommend that Creationism be taught as a component of Design guided by conclusions and inferences supported by Scientific investigation, taking an open mind approach to hypothesis even those unproven. Nothing in scientific theory refutes the possibility of guidance in our evolution.***
________________________________________
Or Dembski, who angered YECs with what seemed like a denial of their doctrine later said:
quote:
________________________________________
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.
________________________________________and
quote:
________________________________________
Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.
***I (as a teleologist) would interpret these as relating to the general melt-down and complex multiple floodings which took place at the end of the last Ice Age, about 20,000 years ago.***
________________________________________
source
Most adherents to Intelligent Design (ID) do not deny scientific facts nor observations, but leave the door wide open to inclusion of new and meaningful information providing the hope of clarity.
In my personal experience, most ID adherents that have graced this board have wound up denying some scientific facts at one stage or another.
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
The scientists are already at that position. But the IDists are calling the scientists unprofessional liars and conspiracists, accusing them of ostracizing the IDists and other unpleasantries. And not only that but the IDists have decided to circumvent normal channels. Instead of trying to win scientific consensus through the force of their argument and the weight of their evidence - they try to gain scientific consensus through the education of school children. That is, ID has famously engaged in propaganda to further their cause - and have regularly aimed that at parent's and children.
You should distance yourself from ID. It is not a political movement you want to be involved in any way with. I suggest you embrace the more neutral philosophical position of teleology.
The vitriol from scientists is at the unfairness, misinformation, lies and outright unpleasant tactics employed by the main ID protagonists over the years. I believe it is fully justified.
If a teleologist from a different branch such as yourself were to come along without those tactics, then I'm sure we can all have a fantastic discussion without anger or vitriol of any sort.***Indeed, this is precisely the reason I wrote this piece.***

Absolutely right. It's a two way street. The slogan "Don't Tread on Me" means exactly that. Listen, but reply with consideration and respect; or don't reply at all. JCH

purpose in science
________________________________________
I have to agree that at a fundamental level science cannot account for purpose.
Modulous - you state that evolutionary biology is concerned with purpose and it is a natural mode of thought to infer agency. I would agree but does that make it right from a scientific point of view?
Much scientific language is framed in terms of 'purpose' but ultimately if it is to be scientifically tested it must come down to empirically observable experiment and we can never observe 'purpose' hence it is superfluous to scientific knowledge.
We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.
Of course, in the past and subsequently all these vestigiae had purpose and, we all know, the flagellum has critical purpose in our physiology of providing motility — to reproductive cells (sperm); to a means of propelling mucus and debris in our respiratory tracts and in the critical processes of digestion in the second part of our digestive system (to name just a few).
As to Purpose in science — to me (JCH) the only purpose to science is knowledge. Application is obviously purpose, but that’s another entity.
One guided and guarded by man as his very own (he thinks).
Purpose in evolution is --- like all such endeavors of nature and man --- cluttered with vestigial components. "Shavings from the work bench" as it were — which some tails, appendices etc. most likely are. Cluttering of the evolutionary pathway are like breadcrumbs and (pardon my leap) — sort of messages from God. But they are also structures which can be accessed again in the future should they be needed. Perhaps we should be more reverent to vestigia. They likely have provided us and all animalia with latitude for survival through the eons. JCH

Accepted as true, though the implementation of tools by animals is usually for the immediate purposes of survival (usually food gathering and shelter) and frequently learned from one generation to another. Another similarity with humans.
In order to take advantage of the tool of intelligence, invention must be present on a generational basis; in continuity. This not only requires a supremely evolved central nervous system, but communicated generational memory or information on how things are done. Some birds (e.g., crows and ravens etc.) have this ability, but their lack of dexterity has frozen them at one place in evolution. In the marine environment, the Cephalopods’ (Octopus) central nervous system is exceedingly advanced and they have been demonstrated to show all the basic signs of planning and foresight we have come to think of as uniquely human. They also have remarkable dexterity with their 8-10 armed extensions. Cephalopods are occasionally long-lived, especially in the deep water or polar forms, but most of the group live fast and die young, maturing rapidly to their adult size. But in the most intelligent of the species the maternal member expires soon after expending all her energy to assure survival of her young, leaving each new generation bereft of that experience of those preceding it. Failure of this transference of information in Cephalopods (the octopus), --- in spite of the advanced apparent CNS of these creatures (rivaling or even exceeding human abilities in a one-on-one situation), means that learning from one generation to the next ends. I.e., each generation must re-invent the wheel so to speak.
Thus, in spite of their intelligence, cephalopods have not advanced since they have been structured at a creative (inventive) dead end.
Why in the world would a species evolve this way? Some of us Teleologists would posit:
1) A designer chose to have them held back in favor of some other species chosen to test the benefits (and possible failure) of intelligence or
2) They are being kept protected (in an ocean environment) in reserve in case the intelligent bipeds (with thumbs) destroy themselves and a successor is required.
Of course, function is the original purpose of any leftover of creation or its process.
JCH

So, we can change the word "followers" to "adherents". As I have already said, there is no place in our society to anyone who attempts to coerce involving legal entities in promoting their particular point of view, be it secular or religious -- to the exclusion of others. JCH

Of course, in the past and subsequently all these vestigiae had purpose and, we all know, the flagellum has critical purpose in our physiology of providing motility — to reproductive cells (sperm); to a means of propelling mucus and debris in our respiratory tracts and in the critical processes of digestion in the second part of our digestive system (to name just a few).
As to Purpose in science — to me (JCH) the only purpose to science is knowledge. Application is obviously purpose, but that’s another entity.
One guided and guarded by man as his very own (he thinks).
Purpose in evolution --- like all such endeavors of nature and man --- is cluttered with vestigial components. "Shavings from the work bench" as it were — which some tails, appendices etc. most likely are. Cluttering of the evolutionary pathway are like breadcrumbs and (pardon my leap) — sort of messages from God. But they are also structures which can be accessed again in the future should they be needed. Perhaps we should be more reverent to vestigia. They likely have provided us and all animalia with latitude for survival through the eons. JCH

There is no anger and really only pity and yes, to some extent laughter, when anyone tries to market the con job that is Intelligent Design as anything other than a yet another attempt to try to sneak religion into science.We may not be able to rule out a designer just as we cannot rule out the possibility that fairies exist, but such personal beliefs have no place in the science class or even the science discussion.Until you bring in the Designer and present both the Designer and the Method/model used by that Designer for examination and testing, Intelligent Design is just fantasy.

quote:

---

The sort of science that would answer your question is often called Observational science
  —"modulous"

---

Yes certainly astrophysics and other disciplines rely on observational science. As the link you posted says they use multivariate statistical techniques to approximate experimental control with statistical control.when we look at human intelligence this is not the case. We just assume humans have this intrinsic property called "intelligence" - no evidence, no statistical control.

quote:

---

I can certainly imagine a lively scientific debate about an ancient hammer, as various clues about it are discussed and their implications for its original use: tool or weapon. I can certainly imagine papers supporting both views might get published, if their was sufficient controversy about it.
  —"modulous"

---

Obviously such papers could be published. There are many lively debates on all manner of topics. This is exactly my point it is not scientifically proven if there is room for lively debate.

So your response, to me, is to trash Dawkins (whom was only mentioned via my signature) and preach more? You sir are no scientist and do a great disservice by calling yourself one. You ask for an equal playing field but you are utterly obsessed with trashing non-belief.People like you are what ID does NOT need if it wishes to be taken seriously and as something other than religious dogma.

Do you not understand what secular means?