Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

Philip, I "challenge" you to "construct" a "reply" which doesn't "rely" on quotations to give you "wiggle room" with regards to the "meanings" of the "words" you "use".------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

These are just 2 of innumerable worlds of apperceptive phenomena.
To postulate a mechanism for their naturalistic evolution from old world monkeys (OWMs) is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is holy ground: i.e., apparently separate from natural processes.

---

Hardly.Music "appreciation" in humans seems to be related to pattern recognition. It is a by-product and variation of this quality of our brains, so to speak.If the ability to appreciate or produce music was not a naturally-based factor, then why do we see more people born with the ability to hear perfect pitch in cultures (like China) in which intonation is extremely important in communication?This is the same argument you have used in every topic of discussion here: "Because I, Philip, cannot imagine something happening through naturalistic means, it must therefore be supernatural in origin, and that supernatural origin must be my version of the Christian God."Argument from Incredulity, over and over and over.

quote:

---

Such complex apperceptions have feeling. They think, see, hear, touch, taste, smell, balance, and act independently from confines of the human brain, albeit enshrouded by the brain. They act way beyond the brain, albeit they seem imprisoned by the brain.

---

This is just empty assertion, Philip. It's fine for you to believe it, but there is no evidence that any of our senses, emotions or thoughts are produced anywhere else but in the brain.

quote:

---

They (apperceptions) perceive sin and love as very real phenomena, much more real than the physical naturalistic laws of the cosmos.

---

Great philosoph, but I have no reason to agree with you. [QUOTE]They acknowledge law(s) of faith, law(s) of commandments, law(s) of resistance against doing good, law(s) of the natural body, law(s) of the mind, law(s) of love, law(s) of sin, and law(s) of a Redemptive Christ Spirit, and/or things vicariously similar.[/B][/QUOTE]Ahh, I knew we would get back to Christianity somehow!

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Ahh, I knew we would get back to Christianity somehow!

---

​

--It's credible science;[/QUOTE]

​

Nope, sorry. Creation science isn't science.

​

quote:

---

it never fails to rebut the non-naturalistic problems of stating that men evolved as zombifications (soul-less, mindless, heartless, powerless, etc), which is erroneous.

---

​

Philip, what the heck are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

To state music is mere pattern recognition, with some races more attuned than others, is a mere oversimplified naturalistic physical perspective. It does not explain the apperceptive rapturous joy we detect (or did detect at one time) that transcends the patterns of recognition.

---

​

First of all, I did NOT say that music was "mere pattern recognition".

​

I said that our appreciation of music was probably based in our ability to recognize patterns.

​

You inserted a great deal of nonexistent value judgement into my statement.

​

So, I take it this means that you have no argument to counter my claim that music appreciation has a biological basis as evidenced by certain cultures having a greater number of people being born with perfect pitch due to the language being based upon intonation?

​

quote:

---

--And the science of a cursed-redeemed creation fits the data better than the fabulous science of zillions of (unlikely) evolvements to form beings.

---

​

Argument from Incredulity, Philip, again.

​

You added a faulty use of statistics this time, as well.

​

quote:

---

--Albeit, there be strong natural forces, like in Maslow?s hierarchy of needs that answer to survival-of-the-fittest, there are also other strong non-natural (spiritual) forces that you (and a lot of you other Evos) have conveniently done away with by your astringent naturalistic science(s).

---

​

If those forces were so stong, science wouldn't be able to do away with them, don't you think?

​

quote:

---

Naturalistic Science, as a modern fad/paradigm, always has its huge gaps in explaining the non-zombies that we are. I think you know (or did know) this but are obstinately denying this (like John, Quetzel, and others). By implying we are all merely reflexive creatures (zombies) with regard to our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths, is not science. It is naturalistic delusion to deny the spiritual beings that we are.

---

​

Calm down, Philip, and kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

​

Also, you are faulting science for not having perfect knowledge all at once. Not fair.

​

[QUOTE]--Unfortunately, the faith-biases of naturalistic evolution cause men to shut their telescopes upon non-natural processes and events, like music, art, praise, devotions, meditations, redemptive events, and the like. Hand-waving them off seems extremely bad science, science that is unworthy of acceptance in any academic domain of excellence.[/B]

---

How does one observe non-natural phenomena, Philip? If it is supernatural, doesn't that preclude observation by our 5 senses?You sound threatened by the mere suggestion that science might figure out why humans like music. This must be similar to how some people first reacted when the idea that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system came along.See, this is why we need to keep the supernatural out of science; people like you, Philip, would never allow the questions to be asked because it threatens your preferred mythology too much.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Might we let the reader decide and comment on our bigotries at this point?

---

Fine by me.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Might we let the reader decide and comment on our bigotries at this point?

---

OK, it seems that there are no readers who wish to comment on our discussion, Philip, so maybe you can just reply to my message?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Might we let the reader decide and comment on our bigotries at this point?

---

​

OK, it seems that there are no readers who wish to comment on our discussion, Philip, so maybe you can just reply to my message?

​

---

Bumbety-bump.Philip!!!! Where aaaaaare you?????

bump bump bump

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]Sorry for delays in responding (I might not get through all this countering).[/QUOTE]S'allright.

quote:

---

Shraf: Nope, sorry. Creation science isn't science.
Phil: You mean not naturalistic science; a problem you and I keep butting heads about. Psychology is both an art and a science, yet hardly naturalistic science. The same with Creation science.

---

Are you talking about medical, therapy-type psychology or research psychology?My husband is a Cognitive Psychology Graduate Student. He does research where he studies working memory, face recognition, and visual agnosia. HE designes experiments. He has people push buttons while doing memory tasks in front of a computer to measure response times. He has people do memory tasks while inside an MRI scanner. He takes this raw data, analyzes it, and sees if there are significant effects in the brain or with response times which correlate to his predictions. He then writes up the results and submits it to scientific journals for publication.He most certainly does basic scientific research.Therapists have more medical training than science training, and they don't generally do much research. It is a completely different field, and is much more akin to the humanities than to science. If they diod do research, however, they would have to follow the scientific method just like any other science, if they wanted to publish in science journals.Tell me exactly how Creation science adheres to the scientific method, again?

quote:

---

Phil: it (The science of Christ-crucified-risen-for-sin-restoring/etc.) never fails to rebut the non-naturalistic problems of stating that men evolved as zombifications (soul-less, mindless, heartless, powerless, etc), which is erroneous.

​

Shraf: Philip, what the heck are you talking about?

​

Phil: The science of Christ-crucified-risen-for-sin-restoring/etc. hypothetically accounts for our souls? higher faculties being enabled (by Christ) while we continue to decay due to natural depravity. Or hypothetically call it an anti-zombification principle. Christians call this the grace of God.

---

THat's a nice theology, but I have no special reason to think your theology is any more right than any other.

quote:

---

Shraf: First of all, I did NOT say that music was "mere pattern recognition"? I said that our appreciation of music was probably based in our ability to recognize patterns.
?You inserted a great deal of nonexistent value judgement into my statement.

​

Phil: ?Appreciation of music?(Shraf) vs.?music?(Phil) as mere pattern recognition (Phil)/?our ability to recognize patterns? (Shraf). Shraf, music is a mystery, as is our appreciation of it.

---

No, I just told you that music appreciation is probably related to our ability to recognize patterns, so it isn't a mystery. IT isn't completely figured out, but it isn't a "mysical" mystery. There are certainly some biological pointers which can explain it.

quote:

---

Music involves appreciation by a human being, don?t you conclude. Other beings don?t appreciate music. Albeit, parrots and other creatures may dance to music. But they don?t seem to appreciate music: They don?t sing, compose, or contemplate music.

---

Um, so what? We have the most complex brains of any creature on the planet. We appreciate a lot of things that other creatuires don't, but that doesn't mean anything beyond a greater capacity for complex thought.Computers can compose music. Do computers have a soul?

quote:

---

Shraf:?So, I take it this means that you have no argument to counter my claim that music appreciation has a biological basis as evidenced by certain cultures having a greater number of people being born with perfect pitch due to the language being based upon intonation?

​

Phil: Certain cultures having a greater number of people being born with perfect pitch due to the language being based upon intonation. Who is making what claim here, Shraf? Blacks have their music, Whites their music, Orientals their music? Christians theirs? Voodoos theirs? Etc., etc. Some, like the French, have, peradventure, romantic intonations. Some, like the Greek, perhaps more rhythmic? Can music with its extremely broad harmony be reduced to biological paradigms of logic?

---

I think this has been dealt with already. I will try to explain it more plainly.Perfect pitch is something you are born with or not. You can't learn it. It is a genetic variation.There is a greater incidence of people being born with perfect pitch in cultures in which the language requires the ability to differentiate between very subtle differences in intonation, such as Chinese. This is expected as per evolutionary theory, because it is a proliferation of a favorable trait throuout a population.Perfect pitch is something usually thought of as important in music appreciation, yet clearly it is important for basic communication in those cultures which have languages in which subtle variations in intonation can change the meaning of a word.This would indicate that music, and therefore music appreciation, grew out of basic communication, and basic language is strongly correlated with pattern recognition.

quote:

---

Frank, I have a B.A. in Psychology! Not a B.S.! Much of psychology, Freud, Adler, Horney, Jung, etc., is metaphysical. Freud, for example, gives us concepts of the psyche, the sea of the subconscious, libido, and hosts of other metaphysical concepts. Psychology is essentially another conglomeration of humanistic and naturalistic cults (if you will), bent on demeaning humanity via quantitization and other naturalistic ploys. Yet, Shraf speaks of her husband doing research psychology that seems perhaps to fit naturalistic behavioral psychologic science: a more focused and disciplined endeavor.

---

I would agree...So are you going to explain to me how Creation Science adheres to the scientific method?

quote:

---

This phenomenon is interesting in that the Eastern population(s) are so radically different in language structure, suggesting perhaps that:
1) They did not evolve from a common prototype, but rather were independent languages per se (eg., created originally, then divided as per the Tower of Babel event).

---

...or, as per a simpler, no-need-for-magic-explanation, geographic and cultural isolation made for very different languages. Wasn't the East isolated from all other cultures for thousands upon thousands of years, and weren't they more civilized for several thpousand years before western europe dug out from the mud?

quote:

---

3) Music is an enormously complex universe which cannot be explained by linguistics.

---

It bears a great resemblance to mathematics, actually.

quote:

---

4) Languages and music do evolve, but by non-biological mechanisms completely unrelated to the mega-ToE.

---

So, the people who compose music are not using their brains to do so?[/QUOTEW]5) Language and music both are complex universes which seem to have no biological basis whatsoever, but a supernatural, metaphysical, divine, and/or glorious beginning ?[/QUOTE]Wow, you know nothing of linguistics or language aquisition, do you??Language is VERY biologically-based! Why do people lose the ability to speak if they have damage to a certain part of the brain if it isn't biologically-based? Why do people learn language in one part of their brain before the age of 12 or so, and learn it in a completely different part after that age?

quote:

---

7) The complexity of music(s) and its appreciation is so massive (and subjective for that matter) that it?s difficult to comprehend how the depth, height, width, and breadth of it?s complexity could have evolved biologically, let alone fit into our puny brains.

---

Argument from incredulity and God of the Gaps.Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean Godidit.

quote:

---

Stellar evolution must be appealed to under the ToE, seeing that music (and language) exist outside the neuro-synaptic configurations.

---

So says you. Evidence, please.Just because science does not have all answers to all questions does not = Godidit. It just means that, at this moment, we don't know.You invoke magical, fantastical explanations for things you don't understand, just like ancient people did when they decisded that Apollo must be moving the sun around the Earth in his firey Chariot.Computers can compose music. Do they have souls?

quote:

---

8) The complexity of language(s), which continue SANS human appreciation might easily (parsimoniously) change the paradigm against naturalism and the ToE, in favor of metaphysical/religious paradigms. Be not surprised that many eastern cultures like China reject the ToE in favor of Buddhist and Confucius paradigms. Biblically, most Christians accept that: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. (John 1.1).

---

Again, Argument from Incredulity.

quote:

---

PHILIP: Perfect pitch, if there be such a thing, does seem to have its minute variations (if you will) that still allow it to sound perfect and undetected by most hearers. Yet, in the general sense of perfection as such, it seems important as you state, especially for intonation (despite the language).

​

Perhaps I partially follow you in your hypothesis: that music and its appreciation sprung out of communication and pattern recognition, but not in the way you think. Your sentence is loaded semantically. I know your naturalistic perspective; so, I will address it as such.

---

My sentence is reflective of the observed evidence and is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Your "hypothesis", rife with magic and fantasy, is not reasonable. IT requires belief, not evidence, and relies heavily upon the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity."

quote:

---

1) Music growing out of communication (via the naturalistic ToE) is difficult for me to imagine: Survival/selection pressures seem too fantastical to me, even with a god-of-the-gaps theistic-ToE accounting for such an enormous melodious universe within ourselves. I don?t have time for jokes here and I know you don?t care for them.

---

Argument from Incredulity.

quote:

---

2) But, yes, music seems a heightened form of communication, detectable via pattern recognition, perhaps some cultures slightly more or less than others, because of developmental influences and possibly genetic devolvement(s).

---

Glad you can see the reason and logic and evidence behind the idea.

quote:

---

3) Genetic devolvement of language and music appreciation seems evident enough: The days of Mozart(s) making symphonies at 3 years old are gone.

---

Maybe, maybe not. There are certainly plenty of musical prodigies around.

quote:

---

The astounding KJV biblical and Shakespearian languages of the last century have devolved into naturalistic nuances and gutter-talk (see Talk-Archives forums). The Haitian Creole has slandered Napoleon?s romantic French into Voodoo chants and the minimalist of languages imaginable.

---

Ooooh, this sounds like strong ethnocentric cultural value-judgements to me.Remember, Shakespeare's plays were written for the "gutter"-living masses; the common people.Also, I love listening to the Hatian language; it's very sing-song and pretty.

quote:

---

4) Computers may compose music, Shraf, but who would buy them? I?d sooner buy a recorded whale?s sirening, a wolf?s howling, a cow?s moo-ing, a bird?s singing, or possibly even the random clashing orchestrations of waves at the seashore.

---

Irrelevant. You made the point that the ability to compose music was evidence of a soul. I am just following your claim through to it's logical conclusion when you add in the fact that computers can compose music.

quote:

---

5) Are not computers merely like our brains, worthless without the precious psyche(s) that they (the brains) enable?

---

Computers are not really like our brains. Brains are much more complex.

quote:

---

Brains seem to merely allow us to interact with this peculiar space-time continuum and other organisms and human beings? For our brains merely enable, in my less-than-meager opinion, our souls.

---

Maybe. Except there's no evidence to suggest this, and there is lots of evidence to suggest that emotions are based in the brain.

quote:

---

Metaphysically, like a woman enables a man

---

Ick. That's sexist.

quote:

---

For the Gospel hypothesis beckons me with naturalistic proofs against naturalism:
--Biochemical devolution, despite feeble selection pressures, will continue as expected under the 2nd Law.

---

Definition of deevolution, please. This is a creationist term, not a scientific one.Evidence of deevolution, please.

quote:

---

--Real significant mutations (the only raw mechanism of a mega-ToE) are about as believable as the signs and wonders mockers who?d call fire from heaven and raise the dead, cause Carl Sagan or Oral Roberts done it.

---

Define "real significant mutations".

quote:

---

--Music and original human language(s) (vs evolved Creoles) exist outside organismic parameters and may be believed/hypothesized to exist SANS the cosmos, forever.

---

Believe if you like, but there is no reason at all for me to share this belief, because you have only "I, Philip, can't believe X".Again, it is important to keep the supernatural out of science, because people like you would never allow the questions to be asked.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]John and Shraf:Much of what you two rebut me on is based on my incredulity. Of course its incredulity: a sin-hating God sending his Son to die for miserable wretches and offering total redemption for free, based on the IC of eternal love. Anyone caught under this God-Spell would see redemption going on instead of significant mutations. Mutations creating novel taxonomic structures seem (to me) even more incredible to believe under the delusional and feeble mega-ToE. I hope you two don?t fully perpetrate this mega-ToE, and realize you don?t have all the answers. Incredulity sounds out against you and I both, no?[/QUOTE]What you still don't seem to be able to grasp is that what you, Philip, is able to accept makes absolutely no difference to the validity of the science you reject.The fact that you reject millions of hours of painstaking work by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years not on the basis of more or better scientific work, but on the basis of a particular religious feeling that you have decided to embrace, seems to me to be an extreme willful ignorance.Religious belief I can understand. Intellectual dishonesty and lazy thinking I cannot.

quote:

---

You?ve learned the delusional lingo well, John. For when it comes to your psyche, which you don?t even seem to acknowledge exists (correct me if I?m wrong), you appeal to the mega-ToE and demean the psyche into total arbitrary naturalistic phenomenon.

---

That's it, when you have no argument, resort to calling your opponent "delusional".

quote:

---

You are both naturalists in your perspectives, seeking to strengthen your resolve, and for what? ?To eradicate the world from a few remaining honest and hopeful YECs?

---

I don't seek to strengthen my resolve.I just want to keep religious fanatics from hijacking science to promote their particlar beliefs.

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that the mega-ToE may be mere speculation only and is easily disproven by, and, is outside the realm of naturalistic science?

---

Well, no, because there is a great deal of evidence to support it.

quote:

---

Then what? Currently you disagree. But if you are so sure of your hypotheses, why debate them here? What (redemptive) good could come of it? Your time is expensive, in my opinion.

---

I enjoy debate.

quote:

---

Shraf, you repeatedly bump on my door to debate. And for what? To prove what a scientific bigot I am? I already know my scientific bigotries and hypocrisies, which far exceed others, but my sin is primarily against God, Truth, Redemption, etc., and not against you or any person.

---

I enjoy debate. It is good for practicing logic and analytical skills. Besides, most of the time I am only responding to something someone else bring up in the first place. I rarely start topics myself. I also am aware that there are probably many lurkers, some of whom might be wondering what evolution is all about. So much misinformation and poor thinking and purposeful misleading is contained in the Creationist sites that I hope to counteract it a little bit here for the fence sitters.

quote:

---

Can I help it if I deduct the mega-ToE as a gross perversion of science, an insult to science, a naturalistic cult, ? a cruel demeaning lie against: a human soul?s worth, against the excellencies of language, music, art

---

Yes, you can help it.

quote:

---

?and by inference, against faith in God, faith in His Redemption, and faith that love of God and neighbor is an IC that you and I cannot touch via naturalistic means?

---

Whatever. Science says none of this.There is no reason, save an extreme, radical reading of a particular version of a particular religious book, to think this.It is truly abominable and truly sad that some Christians have been forced to sacrifice their reason and intellect on the altar of the so-called inerrant Bible.

quote:

---

Wait til the curse catches up with you and I (and it will) and you?re suddenly devastated: one of your children dies, your loved one abandons you, this or that mishap completely ruins you or I, etc. Peradventure then our naturalistic jestings will stop long enough to seek a real redemptive science that is truer and unpolluted by cruddy professors. The mourning pain, for example, you or I receive may strengthen your resolve to see the non-naturalistic redemptive component(s) restoring us within our present distress.

---

You know, my husband is studying to be a professor of science. I would appreciate you not calling professors "cruddy".It is easy to forget and discount all that horrible, empty, worthless, naturalistic science has given you in this life, isn't it Philip?You also assume that we haven't gone through any devastating life crisis.It is a common thing for believers to assume of non-believers.

quote:

---

What do either of you two think? Shraf, I gave you Creation Science already. You disagreed already. The data I gave you was naturalistic redemptive data, the conclusion was a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead redemptive designer model, based on the data. What part of the naturalistic redemptive data I gave you hinders you from seeing the supernaturalistic ID. Did I not perpetrate my Gospel scheme crudely but using the scientific method, here earlier, remember?

---

Um, you didn't use the scientific method, no.That is, unless you can provide physical evidence that Christ existed, and then provide physical evidence that he rose from the dead, and then describe how we can tell the difference between a ID system and one that arose naturally which we haven't figured out yet.Your "data" is just religious philosophy, not science.See the following for a good definition and description of what science is and what it isn't;science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comReally, Philip, making up your own terms and scenarios and then calling it science doesn't really do much for me.Also, it is clear that you really don't have much to say about the points we raised adn evidence we provide to support thos points, so now you are focussing on "why debate at all"?.Sorry, but this is what someone who is losing, and losing badly, does.(Nothing personal)[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2002]

Now you are simply babbling.I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]

quote:

---

I can not believe that anything supernatural was involved in human creation, when as much as 98 percent of our genome is shared with chimpanzees, and when most of what is shared has no function. Creationists can claim all they want that we don't know for sure that the DNA is functionless. Until they demonstrate that all the homologous DNA has a function, they haven't got a leg to stand on.

---

quote:

---

Belief that nothing supernatural was involved in human creation is just as much a religion as any other.

---

One belief is based upon evidence, the other is not.One belief is subject to change when additional evidence is encountered, the other is not.

quote:

---

Junk DNA is a problem for evolutionists just as much as for creationists. From evolution theory, it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless,

---

Not necessarily. If there is no particular selection pressure against it, it might persist for a long time.

quote:

---

since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly, and harmful to it.

---

Is this really the case? Something about this statement doesn't seem right to me.

quote:

---

Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ?old? pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations (neutral theory). Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known.

---

So, now you are saying that it CAN be removed, when above you said it couldn't!Mutations are random. Why would pseudogenes be expected to have more "scrambling" than any other genes?

quote:

---

There is growing evidence that "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation (silencing or enhancing gene activity) or as acting as a receptor binding site.

---

So? This is not a problem for Evolutionary Theory.

quote:

---

The very persistence of "pseudogenes" indicates that they do something.

---

So, the fact that hairless apes still get goosebumps is an indication of...what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now you are simply babbling.

​

I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.

---

​

--Oh please pray tell; give me a specific and we'll try again if you wish.

​

Philip

---

OKHow do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either:don't understand yet, ordon't have the capacity to understand?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.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?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]S: How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either:don't understand yet, ordon't have the capacity to understand?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.

quote:

---

So, does this mean that you can't tell the difference?

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Actually, I took an entire year of Mammilian Anatomy and Physiology. We know a lot about the physiology and microbiology of cows. They are a huge industry so there is a lot of Ag Dept. money provided for bovine research.

​

This is beside the point anyway. Even if we didn't know a darn thing about cows, this just means we don't know. Not knowing does not = ID. That is simply a God of the Gaps argument.

​

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.

---

​

If you don't understand something, then how can you make any determination at all? YOU are the one saying that ID has evidence to support it. If you can't provide it, then you are talking out of your you-know-what.

​

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.

---

​

If you want to do science, rather than have faith, then no, they aren't equally valid.

​

Empiricism is based upon evidence that are repatable by anyone and it builds upon past observations.

​

Faith is based upon revelation. It may disregard any evidence. It is experienceable only by the individual, and the revelations can and are altered and changed all the time. It is not reliable for describing nor predicting nature.

​

quote:

---

Why should I deny the affective component of your psyche's abstractions and call them empirical (which they certainly are not)? 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.

---

​

Your discomfort with the idea that we are purely biological creatures is obviously the real reason you cannot seem to be able to simply not know.

​

I have no problem with you believing in ID. I do have a big problem when you say that ID is scientific and that there is evidence for it.

​

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.

---

​

It is not meaningful from a scientific standpoint.

​

Proclaiming your ignorance and calling it "God" is nothing I would be "gleeful" about.

​

quote:

---

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.?

---

​

I don't know if these phenomena will ever be understood fully.

​

God of the Gaps again. Might be a fun way to have faith, but it's a lousy way to try to understand how nature works.

​

We do understand that the Earth goes around the sun, though, even though the Bible implies the opposite. Which explanation do you prefer? Why?

​

quote:

---

Is not the simplest piece of dirt a great mystery: its significant neutron forces for example. What really binds these carbonacious and inorganic molecules together in the soil, Shraf? Mere coincidental and fortuitous arbitrary empirical sub-atomic and quantum energies?

---

​

Sure, why not? Just because you WANT to find your own personal God in there doesn't mean he's there. Doesn't mean he isn't, either, but now we have left science.

​

quote:

---

Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?

---

​

No way to tell. YOu may feel it is so, but you may feel that a lot of things are so. I may feel that the galactic goat holds the world together. Is my belief/feeling more true than yours? Vice versa?

​

quote:

---

The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:

---

​

Nope.

​

quote:

---

The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.

---

​

Silly caricature.

​

Some of the people who are most reverent and wonderstruck towards nature I know are non-beliving scientists.

​

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.

---

​

You have this silly notion of scientists as stoic or cold people. You obviously have never been to a scientific conference or read any popular science books by scientists who are passionate and exicted about what they do.

​

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?

​

The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Ps 19:1-6).

​

Shraf, the Greeks were wisest in their day; perhaps their Apollo devolved from this Psalm. Looks fairly correlated to me.

​

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:

---

​

That's not what my point is. My point is that we have always explained nature the best way we knew how at the time, and for much of human history, we did this in metaphysical ways. Since the scientific method came along, it has shown itself to be a much more poweful and accurate way to describe and predict natural phenomena.

​

We didn't eradicate smallpox by praying, did we?

​

When we know better, we do better.

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

OK, who is more narrow-minded; the scientist who will, because he is a scientist, accept quality evidence which contradicts previous research, or the YEC who believes his interpretation of an ancient book is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH and will NEVER allow any evidence to dissuade him?

​

Tell me again who is more narrow-minded?

​

[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?[/B]

---

Ummmm, right.Getting back to the original question...How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we1) Don't understand yet, or2) Don't have the capacity to understand?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Look, I know that for someone with all those degrees, it must be difficult to reconcile the fact that you want to consider yourself a modern, well-educated, intelligent person, with your simultaneous belief in your particular literal interpretation of certain parts of a certain translation of the Christian Bible.The cognitive dissonance you must experience every time your mind struggles with the backflips and double axles it must perform during the immense task of ignoring the vast amounts of physical evidence in favor of the ToE!It would be much easier if you were not an intelligent person. Then you wouldn't have to actually choose to seek out your ignorance and embrace it as some kind of badge of honor or something.In fact, you admittedly gleefully rejoice in your ignorance, calling it "God!"I find this terribly sad; that you or anyone would follow a religion's dogma which requires you to leave your mind at the door.This is why you don't have a simple, direct answer to my question of how can we tell the difference between a ID system and a natural one we don't understand.Your answer, if you truly accepted what your religion seems to require you to, should have been, "I believe that the world was Intelligently Designed by the Christian God of the Bible in the way and manner in which I interpret the Bible says it did, and no scientific evidence will ever sway me from this belief."It seems to me that you want to appear as an intelligent, educated, modern, person, and therefore you can't quite bring yourself to answer this way, particularly because you have already emphasized your science background so much. You want to use science when it suits you, but then when it doesn't, and you come up against that cognitive dissonance I mentioned, you babble on and on with all of that "redemptive" nonsense in order to somehow fool yourself that you are actually responding at all to what I wrote.It is a SIMPLE question and this is the third time I will have asked it;How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we either,1) don't understand yet, or2) don't have the capacity to understand.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"