On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:40:43 PM UTC+2,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's nice to see something from you again, Burkhard. Before I get around to your
> words, I make a comment that segues rather easily into my reply to what you wrote.
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:35:41 AM UTC+1,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
> > >
> > > I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
> > > of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
> > > > On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10,
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
> > > > > > > You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
> > > > > > > origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
> > > > > > > relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
> > > > > > > denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
> > > > > > > where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
> > > > > > > religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
> > > > > > > anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
> > > > > > > IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
> > > > > > > they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to
> > > > > > > understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
>
> > > > > > Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
> Positive statements have been made by Michael Behe: a practicing Roman Catholic; he's rather
> a traditionalist, as one might guess from him and his wife having had 8 children. I do believe
> quite a few others are upfront about their personal religious beliefs. As to how they impact
> their attitudes towards naturalistic OOL, I'll have to check to be sure. Behe has actually
> argued in two of his books in favor of common descent, but that only makes sense
> after OOL of life as we know it.
> > > Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent
> > > answer to these questions would entail.
> > >
> > > If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
> > > > > Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things happen. They then stop.
> > > That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
> > > deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or
> > > Lennox or Meyer are like this.
>
> > Can you give a single example where Behe goes beyond finding "gaps" in either ToE or OOL research and makes a positive counterproposal with testable characteristics, or at least points to a roadmap that will eventually lead to such theories?
> I'll have to do some checking on that, but I have explained several times in the past
> how directed panspermia (DP) [1] could be tested some time in the future.
But you did not claim that Bill Rogers misrepresent "you", but Behe, Lennox or
Meyer. So to give evidence for this, you'd need any one of these three offers some
positive claims about the designer
> If the evidence for it turns out to be strong, their science could be the
> starting point for the theory of the source of some characteristics of life
> as we know it [2] and their evolution vs. design.
>
> [1] This is the theory that OOL took place on an exoplanet and was sent here by intelligent species
> who evolved there ca. 4 gigayears ago in the form of microorganisms. This is the brainchild
> of world-class biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, and I've been carrying the torch
> for them here in talk.origins since I first read about it in 1996.
>
> Behe wrote briefly about this in DBB, but he didn't show much interest in it.
Well, that should tell you something, shouldn;t it? Even though there are some
obvious candidates for a theory of the designer, Behe, in your own words,
"does not show much interest in it".
Which is of course exactly what Ron, or Bill, have been saying. So it's difficult
to see why you claim above that Bill "is deluding himself about Behe " when right
here, you essentially confirms his claim.
> As to why, I'll have to ask him. The whole ID-OOL connection might have
> gotten a lot farther than my summary above, had he shown more interest.
>
> [2] "The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
> microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
> conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
> combine all the desirable properties within one single type
> of organism or to send many different organisms is not
> completely clear."
> --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
> Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
> Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
>
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > If he doesn't believe it, he is knowingly knocking
> > > down a straw man below.
>
> > > > A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups evolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,
> > > The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,
> > > at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
> > > are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
> > >
> > > And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
> > > only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
> > > be capable of within a few centuries.
> > >
> > > As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
> > > > and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.
> > > Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimes
> > > wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
> > > is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea
> > > about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
> > > > Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.
> > > Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
> > >
> > > If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
> > > I congratulate you.
>
> > > > It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.
>
> > > I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
> > > have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia,
> > > and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
>
> > > > And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.
>
> > > I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
> > > know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
> > >
> > > "The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL"
> > >
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
> > >
> > > I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,
> > > but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
> > >
> > > On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something you
> > > showed some curiosity about:
> > >
> > >
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ
> > > Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
> > > Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
> > > > I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific beliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.
>
> > > Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before
> > > going on to express your skepticism.
> > > > >
> > > > > But as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
>
> > > Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no need
> > > for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about
> > > the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > >
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos