Relating Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Teleologist]

kut2k2 wrote:
"Thus far in any scientific theory of evolution, there is no need for the hypothesis of a Creator."

ID isn't a hypothesis of a Creator. ID is an investigation of possible teleology behind the origin of life and subsequent evolution. Sure, the data from the natural world can be interpreted from a non-teleologocal perspective. So what? You are mistaken if you think only a non-teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Non-teleologists don't have exclusive rights to this type of thinking nor is one obligated to abandon observation, hypothesis-making, testing, etc. because they are skeptical of non-teleological origin explanations.

ID proponents need only show that a teleological perspective
does work to help us understand the biological world and evolution itself. It doesn't have to disprove a non-teleological
interpretation. It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have
to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some
form of pay-off.

I just got Conway Morris’ book, Life's Solution. The book jacket reads:

"Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. If evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose”.

This is a good description of what many ID proponents are investigating.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

kut2k2 wrote:
"Thus far in any scientific theory of evolution, there is no need for the hypothesis of a Creator."

ID isn't a hypothesis of a Creator. ID is an investigation of possible teleology behind the origin of life and subsequent evolution. Sure, the data from the natural world can be interpreted from a non-teleologocal perspective. So what? You are mistaken if you think only a non-teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Non-teleologists don't have exclusive rights to this type of thinking nor is one obligated to abandon observation, hypothesis-making, testing, etc. because they are skeptical of non-teleological origin explanations.

ID proponents need only show that a teleological perspective
does work to help us understand the biological world and evolution itself. It doesn't have to disprove a non-teleological
interpretation. It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have
to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some
form of pay-off.

I just got Conway Morris’ book, Life's Solution. The book jacket reads:

"Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. If evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose”.

This is a good description of what many ID proponents are investigating.

Go on then, reason the doctrine explaining ends or purposes of the origin of life, because that's what teleology is.

• "It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have
  to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some
  form of pay-off."

You've had around half a billion pages in another thread and you couldn't do it once.

There isn't even an agreed thesis for it. Never has been . There's a clue.

All you ever have to say is what you think it is science can't do. Furthermore there is nothing teleology (ie. an abstract philosophy ) could do that science hasn't already done and doesn't already do.
You just keep shooting at ducks that have already been shot.

There is on the other hand normally a reason to peddle mis-information. In the case of teleology/intelligent design, it is the purpose of promoting creationism while all the time trying not to admit it.

 

[Teleologist]

A Design Argument From Cognitive Reliability


You are out hiking and the trail becomes faint and hard to follow. You peer into the distance and see what appear to be three stacked rocks. Looking a bit farther, you see another such stack. Now you are confident which way the trail goes.

Your confidence is based on your taking the rock piles as more than merely natural formations. You take them as providing information about the trail's direction, which is to say that you to take them as trail markers, as meaning something, as about something distinct from themselves, as exhibiting intentionality, to use a philosopher's term of art. The intentionality, of course, is derivative rather than intrinsic. It is not part of your presupposition that the rock piles of themselves mean anything. Obviously they don't. But it is part of the presupposition that the rock piles are physical embodiments of the intrinsic intentionality of a trail-blazer or trail-maintainer. Thus the presupposition is that an intelligent being designed the objects in question with a definite purpose, namely, to indicate the trail's direction.

Of course, the two rock piles might have come into existence via purely natural causes: a rainstorm might have dislodged some rocks with gravity plus other purely material factors accounting for their placement. Highly unlikely, but possible. This possibility shows that the appearance of design does not entail design.

Nevertheless, your taking of the rock piles as trail markers presupposes (entails) that they are designed. It would clearly be irrational to take the rock piles as evidence of the trail's direction while at the same time maintaining that their formation was purely accidental. And if you found out that they had come into being by chance due to an earthquake, you would cease interpreting them as providing information about the trail. One must either take the rock piles as meaningful and thus designed or as undesigned and hence meaningless. One cannot take them as both undesigned and meaningful. For their meaning -- 'the trail goes that-a-way' -- derives from a designer.

Now consider our incredibly complex sense organs. We rely on them to provide information about the physical world. I rely on eyesight, for example, both to know that there is a trail and to discern some of its properties. I rely on hearing to inform me of the presence of a rattlesnake. I rely on my brain to draw inferences from what I see and hear, inferences that purport to be true of states of affairs external to my body. The visual apparatus (eye, optic nerves, visual cortex and all the rest) exhibits apparent design. It is as if the eyes were designed for the purpose of seeing. But the appearance of design is no proof of real design. And indeed, human beings with their sensory apparatus are supposed to have evolved by a process of natural selection operating upon random mutations. If so, eye and brain are cosmic accidents.

But if this is the case, how can we rely on our senses to inform us about the physical world? If eye and brain are cosmic accidents, then we can no more rely on them to inform us about the physical world than we can rely on an accidental collocation of rocks to inform us about the direction of a trail.

As a matter of fact, we do rely on our senses. Our reliance may be mistaken in particular cases as when a bent stick appears as a snake. But in general our reliance on our senses for information about the world is justified. Our senses are thus reliable: they tend to produce true beliefs more often than not when functioning properly in their appropriate environments. We rely on our senses in mundane matters but also when we do science, and in particular when we do evolutionary biology. The problem is: How is our reliance on our sense organs justified if they are the accidental and undesigned products of natural selection operating upon random mutations?

To put it in terms of rationality: How could it be rational to rely on our sense organs (and our cognitive apparatus generally) if evolutionary biology in its naturalistic (Dawkins, Dennett, et al.) guise provides a complete account of this cognitive apparatus? How could it be rational to affirm both that our cognitive faculties are reliable, AND that they are accidental products of blind evolutuionary processes? I agree with Richard Taylor who writes:

. . . it would be irrational for one to say both that his sensory and cognitive faculties had a natural, nonpurposeful origin and also that they reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves, something that is not merely inferred from them. (Metaphysics, 3rd ed. p. 104)

This suggests the following design argument:
1. It is rational to rely on our cognitive faculties to provide access to truths external to them.

2. It is rational to rely on our cognitive faculties only if they embody the purposes of an intelligent designer.
Therefore

3. Our cognitive faculties embody the purposes of an intelligent designer.

To resist this argument, the naturalist must deny (2). But to deny (2) is to accept the rationality of believing both that our cognitive faculties arose by accident and that they produce reliable beliefs. It is to accept the rationality of something that, on the face of it, is irrational.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

In the interests of your psychological well being (bit late for that but nevertheless..) I explicitly deny I'm axeman or ever have been. Your apology is therefore accepted and you may now retract your statement as you have promised.

Look jem once and for all, you must know deep down in that excuse for a thought process you waggle about, that Dictionaries are the depository for generally accepted and understood definitions. Recognized main stream Dictionary definitions however, vary amongst themselves.
One reason for that is people use words differently to mean different things. So all dictionaries worth being called one, alter and adapt their definitions to contain additional meanings and contexts as knowledge changes.

There should be nothing in my view which should bar a definition of a word being given by anyone, just because it differs from one or all dictionaries, especially when such a definition stands in context and is pertinent to an apprehension of the meaning intended.

If you want to make yourself understood , use words in context to their general meaning and use. If you want a word to mean something else than that, to expand or alter a word's meaning , then fine, so long as you can explain how you intend it to be used.

That is after all how language works. It Evolves. It's definitions are not written in stone.
If you really want to know what atheist does and can mean, ask an atheist. Likewise ask a theist for definitions of theist. But neither will have exclusivity over definitions , as etymology , contrast and context will properly be included for understanding.

Your particular closed mindedness excludes any understanding of a word you don't like. As with others of your ilk, you will cherry pick from dictionaries the meanings you want to see , even when the dictionary gives alternatives.
You are intolerant and deny any expansion or additional meaning to a word , even one which would be obvious given modern day knowledge, should it not fit with your religious views.

In that way you parade yourself as a bigot.

Since you are denying you are axeman I make half of an apology. If you deny you made the statement that atheists should be the ones who make the definition you will get the other half.


The rest of your statement is trash.

When a supposedly learned person says he is an atheist - he should mean that he denies the existence of God. If he is unsure he should state he is an agnostic.

We have dictionaries and accepted definitions so we can communicate effectively.

Language may evolve but it should no evolve for political reasons.

Atheists seem to want to create a soft or alternative definition to mask the fact their postion is illogical. It should not be allowed.

Again I ask you wtf good would it do to have the definition of atheism include agnosticism.

It would be like changing the word believer to mean those who believe and those who doubt the existence of God but do not deny the existence.

So I guess you would then be a believer.

Weak definitions, make for inefficiency communication and a stupid society.

It is what George Orwell warned against.

Weak minded people like weak definitions.

It you think about it you will agree with me.

 

[stu]

The self-importance you attach in awarding apologies jem is of no consequence whatsoever, except to your own ego obviously.

I thought about it, which is what you are not doing, and I don't agree.

Those days when the theist tells the atheist what s/he is, thinks, does and doesn't believe have long gone. Dictionaries don't limit understanding or meaning of words or ideas in the way you wish they did.

That's what religion is for.

 

[jem]

you are a zealous atheist. This argument is political not religious.

Most of the smartest people I know don't believe and some of them are good friends. They are too smart to call themselves atheists.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are a zealous atheist. This argument is political not religious.

Most of the smartest people I know don't believe and some of them are good friends. They are too smart to call themselves atheists.

The entire point of language is to facilitate communication, Trying to deny definition suffocates communication and understanding. Ignoring meanings, reasonable interpretation and explanation in place of your own simply confirms the politically religious bigot in you .

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The entire point of language is to facilitate communication, Trying to deny definition suffocates communication and understanding. Ignoring meanings, reasonable interpretation and explanation in place of your own simply confirms the politically religious bigot in you .

you know when you have won the argument with a liberal - when they pull the race card.

you know when you have one the argument against an atheist... see above.

By pointing out science in not on the side of atheist - I become a religious bigot.

 

[volente_00]

"The big bang theory is based on two purely philosophical ASSUMPTIONS, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong then so is every conclusion about the universe based on the theory "





So now atheist want me to place faith in the science religion and blindly believe theories based on assumptions ?

 

[stu]

Two perversions of reality based on intolerance and prejudice in the form of religious belief . Yep , bigotry about covers it. Unless jem you don't want to use your dictionary any more.

Quote from volente_00:
"The big bang theory is based on two purely philosophical ASSUMPTIONS, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong then so is every conclusion about the universe based on the theory "

So now atheist want me to place faith in the science religion and blindly believe theories based on assumptions ?

Quote from jem:
you know when you have won the argument with a liberal - when they pull the race card.

you know when you have one the argument against an atheist... see above.

By pointing out science in not on the side of atheist - I become a religious bigot.