Part 1: Harran's Ignorance of ID Theory; A Forensic Fire Examiner May Conclude Design but Cannot identify the arsonist

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that
>>>>it does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible,
>>>>religious publications or religious doctrine for support.
>>>
>>> As I have explained to you elsewhere [1], the problem is that
>>> Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer which means some
>>> sort of entity which is outside of what we know as nature.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>********************ERROR 1******************************************
>>1. I think you make a subtle but fatal error here----you place the cart
>>before the horse.
>>
>>2. ID theory does not---within the four corners of its theory---require
>>the existence of a God any more than does "common descent--neoDarwinism"
>>require the absence of a God.
>
> ID by definition requires a designer.

>Perhaps you would explain to us
> who this designer is and how they could be different from a God - R.
> Dean seems rather reluctant to do so.



1. Determining the nature or identity of the designer is beyond the
scope of ID Theory. Any answers to these question are found outside of ID
Theory.

2. By analogy: A Forensic Fire Examiner may be able to conclude using
his methodology that a particular fire was set intentionally; however,
identifying the nature or identity of the arsonist is beyond the scope of
his science. This requires additional steps, methods and premises
"outside" of his forensic methods.

3. That you find inferences to God being made "outside" of ID Theory
unpalatable is not a fault of ID Theory.

4. By analogy: Christians can't accuse neoDarwinian theory of denying
God. Such inferences are drawn outside of neoDarwinian theory.


snip

more to follow as time permits

[*Hemidactylus*]

T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> 2. By analogy: A Forensic Fire Examiner may be able to conclude using
> his methodology that a particular fire was set intentionally; however,
> identifying the nature or identity of the arsonist is beyond the scope of
> his science. This requires additional steps, methods and premises
> "outside" of his forensic methods.
>

If a pattern from the arson leads the examiner to suspect a certain subtype
of arsonist or individual you are wrong. Maybe the arsonist has a very
specific MO such as leaving copies of Darwin’s Origin in the mailbox with
specific pages ripped out to ignite the accelerant always poured on a
couch. If an incompletely burned wall always has “I hate Darwin” smeared in
ketchup taken from the victim’s refrigerator there seems to be a pattern
indicating something about the arsonist.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:15:17 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Your assertion above makes sense only if there is some other objective
basis for inferring design, else you're just presuming your
conclusions, circular reasoning.

>2. By analogy: A Forensic Fire Examiner may be able to conclude using
>his methodology that a particular fire was set intentionally; however,
>identifying the nature or identity of the arsonist is beyond the scope of
>his science. This requires additional steps, methods and premises
>"outside" of his forensic methods.

You analogy assumes the arsonist is human. ID explicitly excludes
humans as their Agent. There's a difference.

>3. That you find inferences to God being made "outside" of ID Theory
>unpalatable is not a fault of ID Theory.
>
>4. By analogy: Christians can't accuse neoDarwinian theory of denying
>God. Such inferences are drawn outside of neoDarwinian theory.
>
>
>snip
>
>more to follow as time permits

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Mark Isaak]

You said elsewhere that an intelligent designer must be either human or
an intelligent supernatural being. Since humans are ruled out on
account of not existing when most of the designing occurred, that leaves
God. So you can stop pretending that ID theory is about anything other
than God.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:15:17 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Seems to me that this "theory" of ID consists solely of:

"It looks designed so somebody must have designed it. I know nothing
about them but despite all the gross deficiencies in their design,
they are clearly so intelligent that they must be supernatural. Full
stop."

Doesn't look like much of a theory to me, to be honest.

[T Pagano]

1. The forensic arson investigator's principle function is to determine
whether a fire was accidental, equipment failure/malfunction or
intentionally set. The methodologies are for "that" function and nothing
further.

2. Narrowing the class of possible arsonists, *even if performed by the
arson investigator*, is a process separate and distinct from his methods
of determining if the fire was set intentionally.

3. In some (or perhaps many) jurisdictions the forensic fire examiner
renders an expert opinion (concerning intentionality) and turns over all
the evidence to the appropriate criminal investigators whose job it is to
identifying the arsonist.


These attempts to link ID Theory to God, Creationism or Religion in
general are misbegotten, flawed and failed. They don't even get off the
ground.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 2:40:04 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:01:34 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> 2. By analogy: A Forensic Fire Examiner may be able to conclude using
> >> his methodology that a particular fire was set intentionally; however,
> >> identifying the nature or identity of the arsonist is beyond the scope
> >> of his science. This requires additional steps, methods and premises
> >> "outside" of his forensic methods.
> >>
> > If a pattern from the arson leads the examiner to suspect a certain
> > subtype of arsonist or individual you are wrong. Maybe the arsonist has
> > a very specific MO such as leaving copies of Darwin’s Origin in the
> > mailbox with specific pages ripped out to ignite the accelerant always
> > poured on a couch. If an incompletely burned wall always has “I hate
> > Darwin” smeared in ketchup taken from the victim’s refrigerator there
> > seems to be a pattern indicating something about the arsonist.
>
>
>
>
> 1. The forensic arson investigator's principle function is to determine
> whether a fire was accidental, equipment failure/malfunction or
> intentionally set. The methodologies are for "that" function and nothing
> further.

The forensic fire examiner can only determine that the fire was intentionally set because, even if he has no idea who the arsonist was, he has a good idea of how arsonists start fires. He has extensive knowledge of the characteristics and methods of arsonists. That's a far cry from the situation with hypothetical, unspecified designers of life.

[T Pagano]

1. Your argument is reasoned but it doesn't quite justify the attempt by
the atheist to smear ID Theory as religion

2. [FIRE EXAMINER] When the fire examiner is initially presented with a
fire scene the class of possible causes are:
(a) law of nature (lightning strike),
(b) random chance (accident),
(c) by design (intentional), or
(d) indeterminate.

3. [ID THEORIST] When the ID Theorist is initially presented with an
object for examination the class of possible causes are:
(a) law of nature,
(b) random chance,
(c) combination of (a) and (b), or
(d) by design.


4. Similarities between the fire examiner and ID Theorist
(a) the methods of their respective disciplines are used principally to
determine whether an event was by design or not.
(b) their methods are not applicable to nor are they used to reduce the
size of the class of possible designers (or identify the specific
designers).
(c) any reduction in the size of the class of possible designer come from
methods outside their respective disciplines. Databases containing
previously identified arsonists is not evidence that the identifications
resulted from the fire examiner's methods. Most assuredly they were
identified by surveillance cameras, forensic evidence placing the
arsonist at the scene or good old fashion eye witnesses or other related
methods.


5. Differences between the fire examiner and the ID Theories:
(a) If a fire examiner opines design then it is certainly true that the
class of possible designer is reduced to humans with time and
opportunity. This is by convention and out of practicality, and not
dictated by necessity. Why the practicality? Supernatural causes can
mimic human ones, supernatural agents can't be prosecuted and miracle-
like causes are likely to end up in the fire examiner's "indeterminate"
category.
(b) In ID Theory there is no indeterminate category. If an ID Theorist
cannot definitively eliminate law and chance then he/she finds in favor
of law/chance.


The analogy holds as illustrative of ID Theory. Attempts to smear ID
Theory as a religion rather than actually finding flaws in ID Theory's
use of probability and complexity theory fail miserably---again and again
and again.

[Bill Rogers]

I'm not making an argument to smear ID theory as religion. It's just not a scientific theory. Since it says nothing about the characteristics, motives, or capacities of the designer, it's just not specific enough to make any predictions.

>
> 2. [FIRE EXAMINER] When the fire examiner is initially presented with a
> fire scene the class of possible causes are:
> (a) law of nature (lightning strike),
> (b) random chance (accident),
> (c) by design (intentional), or
> (d) indeterminate.
>
> 3. [ID THEORIST] When the ID Theorist is initially presented with an
> object for examination the class of possible causes are:
> (a) law of nature,
> (b) random chance,
> (c) combination of (a) and (b), or
> (d) by design.
>
>
> 4. Similarities between the fire examiner and ID Theorist
> (a) the methods of their respective disciplines are used principally to
> determine whether an event was by design or not.

No - the fire examiner knows how arsonists generally start fires - accelerants, multiple ignition sites, etc, and he looks to see whether he finds evidence of an arsonist having started the fire. The ID theorist says - I cannot figure out how non-intelligent causes could have caused this, therefore, an unsecified intelligence did it.

> (b) their methods are not applicable to nor are they used to reduce the
> size of the class of possible designers (or identify the specific
> designers).

The arsonist only works with a specified class of designers, human arsonists. He does not declare, "Well, I found neither an electrical fault, nor a lightning strike, nor accelerants, so it must have been caused by a non-human intelligence."

> (c) any reduction in the size of the class of possible designer come from
> methods outside their respective disciplines. Databases containing
> previously identified arsonists is not evidence that the identifications
> resulted from the fire examiner's methods. Most assuredly they were
> identified by surveillance cameras, forensic evidence placing the
> arsonist at the scene or good old fashion eye witnesses or other related
> methods.

You're trying to blur the identification of a specific human arsonist, which, indeed, the fire examiner rarely gets by examining the scene, with the characteristics of the arsonist (ie that it's a human), which is what the examiner uses to identify arson in the first place.

>
>
> 5. Differences between the fire examiner and the ID Theories:
> (a) If a fire examiner opines design then it is certainly true that the
> class of possible designer is reduced to humans with time and
> opportunity.

You've got the order wrong. The fire examiner opines design (well, not really design, actual fire examiners opine arson), because he finds evidence of a human arsonist.

>This is by convention and out of practicality, and not
> dictated by necessity. Why the practicality? Supernatural causes can
> mimic human ones, supernatural agents can't be prosecuted and miracle-
> like causes are likely to end up in the fire examiner's "indeterminate"
> category.
> (b) In ID Theory there is no indeterminate category. If an ID Theorist
> cannot definitively eliminate law and chance then he/she finds in favor
> of law/chance.
>
>
> The analogy holds as illustrative of ID Theory. Attempts to smear ID
> Theory as a religion rather than actually finding flaws in ID Theory's
> use of probability and complexity theory fail miserably---again and again
> and again.

ID Theory's crucial flaw is not in its criticism of the ToE (though that's certainly flawed). ID's crucial flaw is that it utterly lacks the detail required to make a specific prediction about anything. Simply claiming that science will never explain abiogenesis is not a prediction that supports ID. And in the absence of any specific characteristics of a designer, a designer of possibly infinite capacity and unknown motives can do anything at all, and can thus explain absolutely any observation. It's too vague to be a theory.

[Alex]

On 21-Feb-18 14:40, T Pagano wrote:
> 2. [FIRE EXAMINER] When the fire examiner is initially presented with a
> fire scene the class of possible causes are:
> (a) law of nature (lightning strike),
> (b) random chance (accident),
> (c) by design (intentional), or
> (d) indeterminate.

Nope. Proximate causes are

(a) random chance (lightning strike),
(b) bad design (firepit in thatched cottage)
(c) poor maintenance (wrong fuse)
(d) human error, process failure or oversight (vibrator sex toy left on)
(e) arson (matches set fire to curtains)
(f) consequential (house next door was already ablaze)
(g) combined (lightning set fire to the arsonist while s/he was using a
vibrator next door)
(h) indeterminate (when source of fire can't be identified, unusual)

Add to which, evidence is collected;

1) where the fire started (firepit, bedroom, next door)
2) if accelerants were present ("There was a propane cylinder in the
bedroom")
3) witness testimony ("I thought a bomb had gone off and then a huge
dildo flew past my head")
4) other relevant persons such as fire fighters & neighbours ("we'd
warned them about storing propane under the bed")
5) missing or unusually expensive items destroyed ("Two Renoir's and my
dildo's gone missing")
5) the insurance claim ("I'd like to insure my thatched cottage with
soft play area dungeon for $20billion please, shit it's caught fire,
please pay up")

As an analogy, it's pretty crap.

--
Alex

[Burkhard]

That is at best one of the jobs of a fire examiner. If they conclude it
was intentional, they will establish how exactly it was done, as this
will be the basis of evidence against a specific suspect. So determining
e.g. if, and if so which , accelerant was used is important to then
look for the same compound on any suspect.

Similarly, they will try to narrow down the time of the fire if not
known, to enable testing for alibis later. etc etc

Conversely, if they decide it was an accident, they will equally aim to
identify the precise reason, to then allow better warning, prohibition
of materials in the future or attribution of negligence responsibility
for insurance and tort law purposes.

> (b) their methods are not applicable to nor are they used to reduce the
> size of the class of possible designers (or identify the specific
> designers).

Of course they are. They identify relevant trace evidence that is then
processed by SCOs. They will also give their expert opinion of the
method needed special skill or training, or was something possible for
every person.

> (c) any reduction in the size of the class of possible designer come from
> methods outside their respective disciplines. Databases containing
> previously identified arsonists is not evidence that the identifications
> resulted from the fire examiner's methods. Most assuredly they were
> identified by surveillance cameras, forensic evidence placing the
> arsonist at the scene or good old fashion eye witnesses or other related
> methods.
>
>
> 5. Differences between the fire examiner and the ID Theories:
> (a) If a fire examiner opines design then it is certainly true that the
> class of possible designer is reduced to humans with time and
> opportunity. This is by convention and out of practicality, and not
> dictated by necessity. Why the practicality? Supernatural causes can
> mimic human ones,

but not natural ones, to the degree they could foiled a mere human
investigator? Your supernatural entities are pretty pants at what they
are doing.

[freon96]

T Pagano wrote:

...

>
> 5. Differences between the fire examiner and the ID
> Theories: (a) If a fire examiner opines design then it is
> certainly true that the class of possible designer is
> reduced to humans with time and
> opportunity. This is by convention and out of
> practicality, and not
> dictated by necessity. Why the practicality? Supernatural
> causes can mimic human ones, supernatural agents can't be
> prosecuted and miracle- like causes are likely to end up
> in the fire examiner's "indeterminate" category.
> (b) In ID Theory there is no indeterminate category. If
> an ID Theorist cannot definitively eliminate law and
> chance then he/she finds in favor of law/chance.
>
>
> The analogy holds as illustrative of ID Theory. Attempts
> to smear ID Theory as a religion rather than actually
> finding flaws in ID Theory's use of probability and
> complexity theory fail miserably---again and again and
> again.

Since it has been established by most here that there is no
Designer and there can, therefore be no design, design can
never be an explanation. Having an answer means we don't
don't have to ask the question. This is why people can claim
knowledge without knowing anything.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

We have some rather detailed explanations and some people
who do not like those explanations. When asked to provide
some alternative explanation then mumble "dsgn" through
teeth. "ID theory" is indistinguishable from simple and often
ignorant denial.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:40:22 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

[...]

> Attempts to smear ID
>Theory as a religion rather than actually finding flaws in ID Theory's
>use of probability and complexity theory fail miserably---again and again
>and again.
>

Phillip E. Johnson is co-founder of the intelligent design movement,
author of the "Wedge strategy" and co-founder of the Discovery
Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) . He has described
himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement"

He has said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get
the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
God, before the academic world and into the schools."

and

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its
about religion and philosophy."

Was he attempting to *smear ID Theory as a religion* when he made
those statements?

[Martin Harran]

Jeepers, Bill you have posted some utter nonsense here but that is a
new standard for you.

'Tis a pity we no longer have Chez Watt, you would win this month's
hands down..

[erik simpson]

Naah. Almost all of Bill's insights resemble this one. The first time you see
one, you might be impressed, but seen one, seen 'em all.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:06:36 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

The above, especially the first sentence, is "not even
wrong". The only thing "established", and that was *not*
done here, but everywhere, is that there is no objective
evidence that a designer (or "Designer") exists; that
existence is a matter solely of faith, religious or
otherwise.

I realize you're a scientific illiterate, but even in
standard English usage "we have no evidence regarding the
existence of X" and "we know X doesn't exist" are not
synonymous, and only those whose only capability is the
generation of straw and/or red herrings claim they are.

And as an aside, there is no "ID Theory", at least as a
scientific theory, or even as a testable hypothesis. It's a
conjecture based on faith, nothing more.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Martin Harran]

BTW, I find you language as a Christian rather odd, I certainly
wouldn't regard something being accused of being religious as a
smear.

Are you ashamed of your religious beliefs?

[freon96]

As I said, when you have your answer, there's no need to ask
the question In that case knowledge isn't something you
acquire but something you confirm.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:49:25 -0600, the following appeared

No need for you to have confirmed what I wrote; the facts
have been clear almost since your first post here. But
thanks for the additional evidence that you are adept at
neither science nor logical thought. Nor, apparently, the
ability to follow a discussion*.

*Just to be clear, *nothing* I posted was addressed by your
"response".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:44:15 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Don't be silly; Tony has no shame whatsoever. "Smug
superiority" is his only schtick; a bit like The Good DrDr.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:ceKdnZ40mN8u5RHH...@ptd.net...

Is there a theory of ID, and if so, what does it say?
Seriously, I have yet to learn what the theory if ID is, and who invented
it? (Dembski?)
AFAICT, there ain't no theory of ID.

The well established Theory of Evolution is known as having been discovered
by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace at around the same time.

>
>
>
>
>

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 2:40:04 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:

> These attempts to link ID Theory to God, Creationism or Religion in
> general are misbegotten, flawed and failed. They don't even get off the
> ground.

It might help you to pay attention to people in your own camp
From an LA times article:
Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

And before you start down the path of 'creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories'

In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."

At what point are you going to extract your head from your ass?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:35:11 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

You have addressed the Torg Pagorg. Prepare to be ignored.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:ceKdnZ40mN8u5RHH...@ptd.net...

OTOH, you're flying high.
Higher than God, where you find that even higher deity, Stupidity.

BTW, what is the theory of ID?
How could it be falsified?

>
>
>
>
>
>