quote:
P: Without begging defintions at this point. Intelligently-Designed system/structures, IDSs (if you will) and naturally-occurring system/structures, NOS's seem to obviously overlap in many of their apparent existences. In other words: A cow is a cow both because its gene pool was established (designed in my Gospel scheme) and reproduced. We are far from understanding physiological and microbiological phenomena of cows. Perhaps we have 1 or 2% of this knowledge in books at this time.
Regardless of your hopeful appeal to a future that will somehow save your beliefs.. what you claim clearly flies in the face of all the knowledge about biology that we do have. We know that life and reproduction are biomechanical processes, governed by the forces of chemistry. We know that this biomechanical process implements through genetic inheritance a form of mathematical optimization algorithm, and we know how these types of evolutionary algorithms commonly produce "apparent" irreducible complexity that isn't really irreducible at all.
If you see a process which is nominally equivalent to the one in nature that regularly produces irreducible complexity.. how can you claim that the natural process can not do the same.
We even know how these supposed "irreducible" systems are made.. through scaffolding, multiple function and shifts in function. In fact it is so obvious that these common evolutionary processes are responsible for the "appearance" of irreducible complexity that the argument has been considered settled quite a long while ago. It is only through creationists continuous self imposed ignorance of scaffolding and change in function that the argument constantly seems to ressurect itself in new forms.
quote:
But, Shraf, for me to tell you the difference between phenomenal IDSs and NOSs using necessary (?) empirical terms is vexing, since we don't understand them in empirical detail. I've always appealed (empirically or metaphysically) to cause-effect relations.
IDS's and NOS's are kin enough: in the reproductive events of their evolution (not the mega-ToE) they reflect much of the original and wonderful gene pool. I say wonderful because all IDS/NOS entities are intriguing in many of their qualitative and quantitative arrangements, patterns, proportions, etc.
What evidence do you have of an 'original wonderful gene pool'. Any at all?
quote:
Moreover, your empiricist faith vs. my metaphysicist faith is perhaps the only difference between IDS's and NOS's. Can we not admit that we are stuck with both schemes, Shraf? Are they not both real and valid, the empiricist and the metaphysicist schemes and their respective NOS's and IDS's.
Empiricism is not faith.. it is well justified belief supported by hard physical evidence. If you are standing next to a mountain, and you see it and can touch it.. is it "faith" that tells you there is a mountain behind you. Of course not.
Empirical evidence is evidence which you can see and touch, and that evidence necessarily constrains the sort of inferences and deductions that can be made from it. Needless to say, that evidence is not at all consistent with a miraculous 6 day creation, it stands in stark contradiction to it.
quote:
Why should I deny the affective component of your psyche's abstractions and call them empirical (which they certainly are not)?
Who says so? You? Why should we believe you?
Can you prove that the evidence for evolution and for an old earth is not empirical, that the amount of evidence, and the fact that it cross correlates providing multiple lines of evidence for the same conclusion is false, or that the problems it poses to a miraculous creation are not contradictions?
Simply claiming that it the evidence is not empirical evidence, or it doesn't clearly favor a particular conclusion is not enough.
quote:
You, your psyche and spirit, are a real albeit empirically complex invisible entity in this world. I only know you by faith. I don't even care what you look like. Its you soul I would commune and reckon with; not the bio-mental phenomenon you'd perhaps have us to be.
This is all nonsensical mumbo jumbo. Do you have even a shred of evidence for any of this?
quote:
S: Saying something like, "Nobody knows how X could have happened naturally, so this has ID written all over it" is merely a God of the Gaps argument, and not meaningful.
P: Who said the God of the Gaps argument is not meaninful. The OEC? the theistic-Evo? the YEC? Or the empiricist only? Or, perhaps, am I using the term God of the Gaps indiscriminately? I've been using the term God-of-the-gaps gleefully. Why not? A Christian name is grace.
Though a YEC, EVERY event and object must have God's grace to explain its existence. Light, energy, quantum physics, etc., although somewhat predictable scientifically, are not really understood (as you probably agree). Do you think these phenomena will ever be understood to the point that they are deemed non-miraculous, non-benevolent, non-redemptive, non-consoling, non-mysterious, etc.?
So your argument is that every object and every process is by the grace of God. But how can you prove this to be the case? Isn't this merely a case of making an unsupported claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up?
Well, I think that the processes you describe are not miraculous, not redemptive, and have nothing to do with God. Can you prove me wrong?
quote:
Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?
Or are there two Gods holding it together, or three? How about the angels holding it together for God. Or perhaps there is an unthinking benevolent magical force in the universe that is holding it together. It really doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with a half dozen heady sounding poetic ideas as to the wonderous spiritual nature of the universe. But they are merely fictions created to make us feel good, and have absolutely no basis in reality at all.
quote:
The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:
The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.
And the superstitious spiritualist will concoct dozens of flowery suger laden pronouncements.
The differences is the empiricists claims and advice and ideas tend to work better in the real world than the shamans or witch doctors.
quote:
The ID'st will appear foolish to himself, to the stoic empiricist, and to his can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees contemporaries.
Who precisely can't see the forest for the trees?
quote:
S: It is exactly the same argument as "We don't really know what makes the sun go across the sky every day, so Apollo must pull it across in his firey chariot." ... So, how can we tell the difference?
P: Scriptures are filled with vicarious illustrations of grace (despite our mis/understandings of natural events).
..snip biblical quotes..
Shraf, the Greeks were wisest in their day; perhaps their Apollo devolved from this Psalm. Looks fairly correlated to me.
Ah, the bible mentions the Sun, therefore there must be a connection.
Sure.
quote:
But your point being that mythology, Christianity, Islam, religion, Buddhism, Voodoo, and all metaphysical explanations of life's mysteries are often a lie is not always true:
A person's understanding (as you admit) is minimal, despite his/her Greek-like wisdom. His Apollo-like perspective of Christ, or Moon-God (Islam) perspective of Christ, or 'Jesus'-like perspective of Christ may more accurately depict the redemptive phenonenon of the sun in the sky, than the narrow-minded empiricist ever will at Guntersville High School.
So you're saying that the Sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot? And you're claiming that this explanation is just as good as the scientific explanation?
I don't think so.
quote:
My question is: Who's description of the sun is the most redemptive, beneficial, inspiring, helpful, and loving, while respecting astronomical science, and is thus the most learned and/or appreciative?
So, what you're saying is that the best measure of truth is that which makes us feel nice, regardless of any evidence or reason?
I think that is very revealing.
™ Version 4.2