|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
"Agnostic" pretty much means that you accept it as unknowable and unverifiable. I am not understanding why you find that objectionable.
If the empirical evidence strongly indicates that the unverifiable, unfalsifiable, unknowable "metaphysical truth" in question is a product of human invention then we should follow the first part of your sentence and treat it as such. Otherwise we are back in the realm of agnosticism towards Immaterial Pink Unicorns, undetectable pixies and the Easter Bunny. Etc.
As far as I know, nobody is making serious claims about immaterial pink unicorns, undetectable pixies or the easter bunny. So there's no need to be agnostic since there is no claim about which to be agnostic.
Are you proposing agnosticism towards all such concepts?
No. Only about those for which people make serious claims. If somebody makes a serious metaphysical claim, for which there is no evidence, then it seems to me that
It seems to me that the last of those choices is the more sensible one.
If omphalism claims that the universe is physically one week old and the empirical evidence says that the universe is billions of years old there is a mutually exclusive discrepancy.
Omphalism makes no claim about the empirical evidence. There is no discrepancy, so there is nothing mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
"Agnostic" pretty much means that you accept it as unknowable and unverifiable. I am not understanding why you find that objectionable. Because the same can be said of jolly magical undetectable, unknowable and unverifiable Santa or the unknowable and unverifiable existence of the Easter Bunny. In fact it can be said about a near infinite arrayof things which I, nor I doubt you, are genuinely agnostic about. These things may exist. It is possible. But I would say desperately unlikely.
As far as I know, nobody is making serious claims about immaterial pink unicorns, undetectable pixies or the easter bunny. So there's no need to be agnostic since there is no claim about which to be agnostic. Why do you consider the things that people make "serious claims about " to be any more or less likely to exist than things that they don't? Why is that your criteria when evidentially they remain identical? Anyway - I am asking you to seriously consider whether or not omphalism is evidentially different to the IPU, whether or not omphalisms is more or less likley to be true than the IPU and whether or not omphalism is thus any more or less worthy of your agnosticism than the IPU. So what do you say?
No. Only about those for which people make serious claims. Who decides whether a claim is "serious" or not?
If somebody makes a serious metaphysical claim, for which there is no evidence, then it seems to me that * I can punch him in the nose;* I can argue with him until I am red in the face; * I can adopt an agnostic position, and walk away. It seems to me that the last of those choices is the more sensible one. It may well be the more pragmatic one in terms of living a stress free life (I kinda envy you ambivelance). It may well be the most socially acceptable one. But it is not the most evidentially consistent one. You seem to consider agnosticism a social frame of mind rather than a position reliant on evidence. That is all very well. But it is not really the point in a thread about evidence is it?
Omphalism makes no claim about the empirical evidence. There is no discrepancy, so there is nothing mutually exclusive. Nonsense. Omphalism (AKA Last Thursdayism) claims that the universe is less than a week old. If I use my Pixie dust to magic a fully formed tree into existence with a 100 years of tree rings perfectly consistent with having existed for a hundred years is it true to say that this tree has actually existed for a hundred years? Because that is all omphalism is. Except on a grander scale. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
According to the Wikipedia article, "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable." Why do you consider the things that people make "serious claims about " to be any more or less likely to exist than things that they don't? That says nothing about whether they are more or less likely to exist. Perhaps we are disagreeing over what we mean by "agnostic".
Straggler writes:
That is not an empirical claim. If anything, Omphalism goes out of its way to avoid any possibility that there could be empirical evidence as to its validity.
nwr writes: Omphalism makes no claim about the empirical evidence. There is no discrepancy, so there is nothing mutually exclusive. Nonsense. Omphalism (AKA Last Thursdayism) claims that the universe is less than a week old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: Bluejay writes: But, we can be agnostic about the possibility that SOME of the differences between humans and apes were directed or mediated by intelligent design. When you say "agnostic" what do you mean? Are you saying that it is equally probable that this occurred by means of wholly natural processes as it is that it occurred with some ID thrown in? I was just trying to parallel the syntax of your statement: I hadn’t actually thought about it in that much detail. I never considered the possibility that agnostic might be a technical term in formal logic. I suppose I thought of agnostic as meaning acknowledgement of the uncertainty and hesitance to commit in the presence of uncertainty. I don’t think probabilities entered my mind at all while I was writing that. Also, am I saying that it is equally probable that what occurred, exactly? Natural history? The erect posture of hominids? The substitution of G for C at position 478 in gene X? Scale is critical here. Your probabilities are drawn on a broad scale (the history of life, diversity or life, etc.), and my arguments are based on a narrow scale (individual features): I think this is a major source of our communicative failures so far. There will always be questions about how well broad-scale probabilities apply to narrow-scale problems, because broad-scale dynamics tend to swamp out narrow-scale dynamics. If intelligent design was responsible for a relatively small number of events in natural history, wouldn’t these events just appear* as outliers or blips, which we can ignore for all practical intents and purposes?
*If they appear at all, that is. For instance, Kaichos Man pointed out that a certain human gene is more similar to the kangaroo variant of that gene than it is to the horse variant (he got some of the particulars wrong). On the broad scale, this means nothing, because it is completely swamped out by hordes of genetic evidence showing that humans have a closer kinship with horses than with kangaroos. But, on the narrow scale, we still haven’t explained why that particular gene is more kangaroo-like than horse-like. Sure, we can disregard it: it’s just a blip, and it doesn’t really challenge the overarching theory, anyway. But, the intelligently-designed Bt-endotoxin gene in transgenic corn would also appear as such a blip, and also wouldn’t challenge the overarching theory if future paleontologists noticed it. Should future paleontologists just ignore that blip and assume that evolution is wholly responsible? For all practical intents and purposes, sure, why not? Saying that we can ignore something for all practical purposes isn’t the same as saying that we have evidence against it. I don’t think I have tried to make the case that we shouldn’t ignore intelligent design for practical purposes (if I have made that case, it was unintentional): I thought I was only making the case that we can’t seriously claim that evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. -----
Straggler writes: If in the practical context of education (as opposed to bickering about logical possibilities on a debate forum) the ID possibilities do not even get a look in at the hypothesis level when considering gaps in biological knowledge how can one say that ID has been anything other than refuted to all practical intents and purposes? In effect a form of de facto atheism regarding ID prevails. Sure, from a practical standpoint, we can generally ignore ID and pretend it isn’t going to happen. But, we’re talking about making lists of evidence against ID, not about ignoring it because there is no evidence for it. -----
Straggler writes: But you must face that question indirectly every single time a student asks you about any gap in our knowledge. If I currently had a teaching position, I probably would face the question often. But, since I’m a doctoral student funded by a research assistantship, I’m not doing any teaching right now, and I don’t recall having encountered many questions like this from my peers or superiors. So... thanks for warning me ahead of time and giving me the chance to prepare mentally for it. When I face a question about gaps in my personal knowledge, I prefer not to answer the question. However, peers and professors will often ask for speculation or hypotheses on some things (usually from the standpoint of preparing or correcting an experimental design or for a line to put into a presentation), and I might be inclined to provide them. But, I’m very sensitive to subjective opinions and excessive reliance on inferences, so I’m generally very explicit about my confidence in and evidentiary support for anything I say. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I was just trying to parallel the syntax of your statement: I hadn’t actually thought about it in that much detail. I never considered the possibility that agnostic might be a technical term in formal logic. I am utterly unprepared for the level of biological detail you are considering this at. I am broadly thinking in terms of naturalistic Vs non-naturalistic rather than specific detailed biological theories.
I suppose I thought of agnostic as meaning acknowledgement of the uncertainty and hesitance to commit in the presence of uncertainty. I don’t think probabilities entered my mind at all while I was writing that. Uncertainty - Absolutely. I don't claim to be certain about the absence of a supernatural designer at all. In fact I would go so far as to say certainty on such matters is rationally impossible. But I would say the involvement of a supernatural designer was very unlikely. And I would also say that this is an evidentially valid conclusion. I want to find out if you agree with this or not.
Should future paleontologists just ignore that blip and assume that evolution is wholly responsible? For all practical intents and purposes, sure, why not? But would that be evidentially valid? It is my argument that the long history of overturning supernatural answers with naturalistic ones along with the wider evidence that humans are prone to invoking design, conscious intent and the supernatural all wholly justify such a stance. In effect we operate in paradigm whereby the naturalistic possibility is always considered superior to the supernatural one. But the basis of this paradigm is not just an "absence of evidence" or "world view". It is wholly pragmatic and wholly evidenced. It is based on the the rampant success and positive evidence in favour of the naturalistic model over the supernatural alternative.
Saying that we can ignore something for all practical purposes isn’t the same as saying that we have evidence against it. What about saying that we can ignore it because we have a deeply evidenced and successful alternative mutually exclusive paradigm in which to operate? Is that not effectively evidence "against"?
I don’t think I have tried to make the case that we shouldn’t ignore intelligent design for practical purposes (if I have made that case, it was unintentional): I thought I was only making the case that we can’t seriously claim that evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. Then on what evidential basis are we justified in promoting naturalistic explanations at the expense of intelligent design ones? The answer (I think) is that biological evidence operates in the wider context of scientific evidence which in turn operates within the deeply evidenced as superior paradigm of methodological naturalism. The end result of this is that we are in practise de facto atheists with regard to the role of the supernatural in biological design. Not just in the trivial practical sense of taking the path of least practical resistence. But in the wholly evidentially justifiable sense of actually considering ID to have been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Not disproved. But refuted by the superiority of the mutually exclusive naturalistic model within the bounds of scientific tentativity.
Sure, from a practical standpoint, we can generally ignore ID and pretend it isn’t going to happen. But do you think that is evidentially justified? That remains my key question.
But, we’re talking about making lists of evidence against ID, not about ignoring it because there is no evidence for it. Hopefully you can see why I think there is evidence against it that does not just amount to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Because in fact no claim or theory can every operate in a complete vacuum of all evidence. We have plenty of evidence on which to infer the likelihood that any gap in knowledge is more likley to be filled by mindless natural processes than supernatural intelligent designers.
So... thanks for warning me ahead of time and giving me the chance to prepare mentally for it. Hah! My pleasure!
But, I’m very sensitive to subjective opinions and excessive reliance on inferences, so I’m generally very explicit about my confidence in and evidentiary support for anything I say. Which is why I am interested in your take on whether or not it is evidentially valid to concentrate on naturalistic possibilities at the expense of intelligent design possibilities when considering gaps in biological knowledge? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perhaps we are disagreeing over what we mean by "agnostic". Very fair point. I am once again assuming that everybody is aware of the terminology used in a series of debates on similar subjects. My bad. We have generally used the Dawkins scale of belief as a reference. Obvioulsy replace God with whatever we are talking about here.
Dawkins Scale of Belief writes: 1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there 3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' 6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.' For the record I would argue that the rational position with regard to omphalism is a 6 (de facto atheist). Where do you stand?
Nonsense. Omphalism (AKA Last Thursdayism) claims that the universe is less than a week old. That is not an empirical claim. If anything, Omphalism goes out of its way to avoid any possibility that there could be empirical evidence as to its validity. Well exactly! The conclusion of omphalism that the universe has existed for less than a week remains wholly mutually exclusive with the conclusion of empiricism that the universe has existed for billions of years. It is exactly because of this mutual incompatibility that omphalism is required to make itself unfalsifiable by being being empirically irrefutable. But the means of making the conclusion doesn't change the fact that the two conclusions are mutually exclusive. Seriously how can you conclude both that the universe didn't exist last Wednesday whilst at the same time concluding that it has existed for billions of years? Without your head exploding? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
Okay. So Dawkins is using "agnosticism" as a kind of soft atheism. By contrast, I use it as defined in Wikipedia, as a principled position that is outside the Dawkins scale, and would use "undecided" for position 4 on that scale.
We have generally used the Dawkins scale of belief as a reference. For the record I would argue that the rational position with regard to omphalism is a 6 (de facto atheist). Where do you stand?
I don't see a need to be on that scale. I think of omphalism is analogous to that old philosophers question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That is, it cannot be settled, but it has no actual relevance to us. So we should just ignore it or laugh at it, depending on the circumstances.
Seriously how can you conclude both that the universe didn't exist last Wednesday whilst at the same time concluding that it has existed for billions of years? Without your head exploding?
My view: That the earth has existed for billions of years best fits the available evidence. That does not require any contradiction, nor does it lead to any head explosion. Perhaps I should add that I think the accounts of knowledge and rationality coming from philosophy (i.e. epistemology) is mostly bullshit. I see no need for the kind of belief commitments listed on the Dawkins scale. Edited by nwr, : fix typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: I am broadly thinking in terms of naturalistic Vs non-naturalistic rather than specific detailed biological theories. I forgot to address this in my last post. I don’t accept the implicit premise that intelligent design must be non-naturalistic. It’s possible to design things while staying fully within the limitations of the laws of physics. Perhaps this is where we’re losing each other? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Okay. So Dawkins is using "agnosticism" as a kind of soft atheism. By contrast, I use it as defined in Wikipedia, as a principled position that is outside the Dawkins scale, and would use "undecided" for position 4 on that scale. Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP. Staying on topic here, Dawkins also puts forward evolution as evidence against intelligent design. This argument is a variety of the one I made earlier combined with the infinite regress argument. It goes like this: Either the complex things in this world can be explained by recourse to simpler more fundamental things or they can only be explained in a top-down fashion. But top-down leads us to infinite regress, and evolution has told us that things just don't tend to follow the pattern of complex things being built by more complex things. It's always complex things making simpler things or simple things making simple things or simple things making complex things.
I don't see a need to be on that scale. I think of omphalism is analogous to that old philosophers question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Indeed - omphalism or a designer that designs things to look undesigned - would fit into the PAP category of Dawkins. PAP isn't on the scale, the scale only includes things for which argument and evidence can actually have any reasonable contribution to. On the scale, any non-PAP designer of life (Dawkins argues - a non-PAP designer would include any designer that wanted us to know it did it (or at least had no motivation to hide their deeds)- most worshipped creator deities for example) is low, the dinosaur's killing blow is somewhere in the middle, and evolution is high.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes: (from Dawkins argument) ...evolution has told us that things just don't tend to follow the pattern of complex things being built by more complex things. It's always complex things making simpler things or simple things making simple things or simple things making complex things. What is the difference between the two parts I bolded? Edited by Bluejay, : Better wording. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes: But in the case of mutations we can determine the causation. So, if I showed you this mutation (parent on top, daughter beneath)...
AATCGTGCTAGT AATCGTCTTAGT ...you could tell me what caused it? {AbE: maybe I shouldn't have said you, specifically, but the point is still there.} -----
Taq writes: We can say that the appearance of mutations is consistent with randomness (with respect to fitness). We can say that the differences between genomes is consistent with random mutation. Agreed. But, randomness only describes the pattern of occurrence. Intelligently-designed things can still occur in a random pattern (I realize that "random pattern" is sort of a contradiction in terms). Edited by Bluejay, : Disclaimer. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What is the difference between the two parts I bolded? Technically, none - I was a bit distracted there, looks like I mangled two halves of an argument together when I got back to writing it later. Lemme try a second time, ...evolution has told us that things just don't tend to follow the pattern of complex things being built by more complex things. Even when we seem to find complex things making simpler things it's actually explained by recourse to simple things. A dam for instance, might be explained by a beaver. But that is only an explanation if we know what a beaver is. If we don't then we have to explain the beaver in terms of...essentially natural selection. So the explanation of the dam is 'natural selection' and the beaver is just part of that explanation. To anticipate your possible response: Could we have been designed by a designer that is ultimately explained in simpler terms? Sure - Dawkins has explicitly said as much (and ironically got jeered at by IDists at the time for doing so). His argument is against the design arguments that terminate with a more complex entity than was originally raised. Which, he argues, is not the way the evidence indicates things work around here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes: A dam for instance, might be explained by a beaver. But that is only an explanation if we know what a beaver is. If we don't then we have to explain the beaver in terms of...essentially natural selection. So the explanation of the dam is 'natural selection' and the beaver is just part of that explanation. So the explanation for computers and airplanes is also "natural selection," and humans are just part of that explanation? That's interesting. It actually makes sense in a roundabout sort of way. And, I wouldn't have a problem with a designer who had evolved through natural selection. I think there needs to be some type of partitioning in it, though: distinguishing between "proximate" and "ultimate" causes, for instance. Otherwise, it's kind of esoteric. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So the explanation for computers and airplanes is also "natural selection," and humans are just part of that explanation? That's interesting. It actually makes sense in a roundabout sort of way. And, I wouldn't have a problem with a designer who had evolved through natural selection. I think there needs to be some type of partitioning in it, though: distinguishing between "proximate" and "ultimate" causes, for instance. Otherwise, it's kind of esoteric. It's kind of the mind bending thesis of "The Extended Phenotype" - it's quite interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Okay. So Dawkins is using "agnosticism" as a kind of soft atheism. Not really no. He simply takes into account the fact that certainty is not an option with regard to evidence based arguments and that de facto atheism is not a declaration of certainty. As Bertrand Russel put it:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality" My view: That the earth has existed for billions of years best fits the available evidence. That does not require any contradiction, nor does it lead to any head explosion. Omphalism was a Young Earth Creationist invention derived such that they could conclude that the Earth was actually less than 10,000 years old (as dictated by the bible) regardless of what the scientific evidence might say to the contrary. So I ask you how long do you think the Earth has existed? Billions of years? Less than 10,000 years? Or both simultaneously? You cannot claim a high degree of confidence in the Earth being billions of years old whilst also claiming to be anything but a de facto atheist with regard to the conclusion that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (or less than a week old in the case of "Last Thursdayism"). The two conclusions are mutually exclusive. This is just indisputable. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024