Dob wrote:krabapple wrote:There is no agreed upon criterion; some consider dolphins and apes to have intelligence of a sort. In any case, 'intelligence', as far as we know, is a characteristic of real organisms, not speculative, supernatural entities....The question of whether a specualtive nonphysical supernatural 'intelligence' exists is much less amenable to scientific discussion...
When archeologists uncover ancient remains, don't they make assessments about the intelligence of the people that lived there? And aren't these assessments based solely on the artifacts that are found?
I cant' recall any archaeologists ever speculating about the *intelligence* of people who made the artifacts -- only that the *cutlure* was 'advanced', by some *human* criterion -- taht is, comparison to other human cultures.
Anyway, what is your point vis a vis 'intelligent design' here? That archaeologists shoudl consider the possibility that a clay pot was part of God's plan?
The actions of an intelligent entity leaves behind artifacts that show evidence of its intelligence (if they haven't been destroyed). How is speculating on the intelligence of an ancient race of people, based on artifacts, any more scientific than using the artifacts of life to speculate on the intelligence of its design? Whatever label you attach to this design/designer (be it evolution or God) is immaterial to assessing the intelligence of the design.
Evolution isn't a 'person' or a 'being' or a 'designer' in teh sense you seem to be insisting upon. It's a natural process, like erosion. Is erosion a 'designer' of mountain ranges?
Yet you insist on attaching the label "nonphysical supernatural intelligence" to this designer, and then you use that label to dismiss the whole discussion as non-scientific.
And still do. I think your premises are faulty. I think your ideas of what scientists do and think, are too. So I've suggested you read Dawkins on 'design', since he's both a well-known evolutionary biologist and someone who can write well. OF course, not every scientist agrees with everything he says, but I think they agree that positing 'intelligent design' without some sort of testable hypotheses to go with it, is a non-starter.
Furthermore, you imply that I am the one insisting on that label. At this stage of discussion, it's putting the cart before the horse, as I see it.
You are the one trying to work out 'intelligent design' -- *that's* putting the cart before the horse!. I'm telling you that scientists have to see more than *order* and *complexity* to consider a human-style *intelligence* to be at work. And,. too, 'intelligent design', in *practice*, is simply a cover for Christian fundamenalism (e.g. the Discovery Institute).
talk.origins, the website, and talk.origins, the newsgroup, are two different things...You'd be taken seriously unless you came in quoting Bible text; sarcasm willbe returned in kind. So, what's holding you back? Are you interseted in having your questions debated, or not?
The reason I started this thread on FLO is because this topic seems to come up, or gets referred to, rather often here. I thought that perhaps some folks here might be curious to discuss this with a creationist (me) who isn't going to start quoting Bible text or raving about eternal damnation.
Hmm..remember, that 'God created the universe as we see it' *isn't* what creationism is.
While such a model is unverifiable, much less even testable, it has no effect on science;
it's like saying that God created the world ten minutes ago and MADE IT ALL LOOK LIKE it has existed for 14 billion years. *shrug* So what? A god who sets it all in motion and then sits back and lets it all play out is not incompatible with 'natural' evolution (or any other natural processes).
But that's not what 'creaationists' tend to believe. They posit a much more active and personal and human-like god.
Nor is it *necessary* for a Goddy model to be true. Other models with no god...such as infinite universes models...are equally as untestable and equally valid. Scientists tend to prefer the most parsimonious models. They dont' invoke god to explain snowflakes...unless they invoke god to explain *everything*. And answer like that, that explains everything, doesnt' really *explain* anything.
My comment about "rigorous and brilliant minds" wasn't sarcasm in the sense that I meant the opposite. I have no doubt that there are plenty of smart, well informed people on talkorigins. The problem is that they damn well know it and don't hesitate to flaunt their "superior" knowledge and thought processes.
Good for them. The world could use more people flaunting scientific knowledge, and less people flaunting ignorance of science.
Isn't the following an example of the kind of condescending attitude that I would find at talkorigins?
People who find evolution...to be 'outrageously bogus', tend to understand it poorly if at all. Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.
Is there any way to read that statement other than "evolutionists find creationism not only unscientific, but patently ridiculous, and they also question the ability of creationists to think clearly."
Since *I* wrote that, and you clearly aren't 'afraid' to deal with me, what , again , holds you back from asking your questions on the talk.origins newsgroup? There are people there who are MUCH NICER than I am, smarter and more knowledgable than I am... as well as some people even LESS PATIENT than I am. I think from the way you handle yourself on this forum, you're *quite* capable of surviving talk.origins.
There are probably also *moderated* lists out there with real scientists on them, for discussing evolution, but I dont' have any to point you to offhand (at leas,t not from this browser).
Have you actually *read* the thousands of words rebutting Behe and Dembski, or not?
I didn't read the rebuttals of "specified complexity" because I find that concept weak to begin with. But I did read the rebuttals on "irreducible complexity." I found the "irreducible complexity of the mousetrap" discussion particularly interesting, if only for the reason that it's a simple enough concept for me to understand.
I was incredulous at some of the convoluted, oh-so-clever arguments showing that a mousetrap, missing one piece, was not useless at all. Keith Robison wrote that you didn't need the base, you could simply nail the mousetrap to the floor. Then he recalled his discussion with Behe in an attempt to show how confused Behe's thinking is ("you're just substituting a different base") and how clear his own is ("no, it works without a base").
And he goes on: "Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now 'irreducibly complex.' Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental" (I seem to have missed the sarcasm that prompted this response "in kind").
So, Mr. Robison, I guess if you were only given one part -- the metal hammer -- you could still claim it functions as mousetrap, because you could throw it at the mouse?
Another fellow argues that, even if we accept that the incomplete parts can't function as a mousetrap, the individual parts still have useful functions. For example, (I'm not making this up) the base can be used as a
paperweight.
In fairness, I should add that I didn't find that rebuttal at talkorigins.
Oh. So, shoudl I find some particularly, convoluted, poorly argued creationist site to counter it?
Anyway, examples of functional biological 'parts' of supposedly 'irreducibly complex' systems a la Behe *have* been identified and are offered again and again to creationists. You can find all that on the talk.origins website. Behe and Dembski have been *repeatedl;y* refuted,a s have all other creationists 'arguments' (they have no *data*, and certainly nothing resembling *science*, only arguments). That's one of the most tiresome things about these debates, is the sheer redundancy of it all.