THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
of Darwin's magnum opus.

Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
observations and repeatable experimentation.

Statements by me like this have been met with widespread skepticism, so I was delighted
to see how clearly they were stated In a 2001 essay by Michael Behe,
the top exponent of modern ID theory, with the title,
"The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules."
The first paragraph, split here in two for easier reading, summarizes the
situation quite well.

__________________________________________________________________
In this paper I will argue that some biological systems at the molecular level appear to be
the result of deliberate intelligent design (ID). In doing so I am well aware that arguments for
design in biology have been made before, most notably by William Paley in the 19th century. So
I think it is important right at the beginning to clearly distinguish modern arguments for
intelligent design from earlier versions. The most important difference is that my argument is
limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a
benevolent God, as Paley’s was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and
I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument.

But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design,
the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer
include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new
age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent
being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on
information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer,
modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton’s phrase, *hypothes[e]s non fingo.*
=====================================================

"I frame no hypotheses" -- this is the first time I have come across
this phrase, and one can read about various takes on it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

One listed possibility seems implausible on the basis of the science of astronomy.
Alpha Centauri is a poor candidate for an abode of intelligent beings,
because its two main stars, A and B, are too close together and their
orbit around a common center is quite eccentric.

But that's an insignificant quibble. The thesis that some ID on earth organisms
was carried out by beings that evolved on some exoplanet is not out of the question,
and I have talked about it many times on t.o.


I will be giving more details tomorrow and next week, including more quotations
from Behe's essay tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> of Darwin's magnum opus.
>
> Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> observations and repeatable experimentation.
>
> Statements by me like this have been met with widespread skepticism, so I was delighted
> to see how clearly they were stated In a 2001 essay by Michael Behe,
> the top exponent of modern ID theory, with the title,
> "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules."
> The first paragraph, split here in two for easier reading, summarizes the
> situation quite well.

Looking this up, it would appear to be 2003, not 2001. And interestingly
it's in a book with the title "Philosophia Christi", i.e. a book of
explicitly Christian philosophy.

But looking further, I see that this book is a reprint of some articles
that appeared earlier, and the true source is indeed 2001, in a journal
of the same title published by BIOLA University for the Evangelical
Philosophical Society. That doesn't on the surface seem much like
science. So not a good beginning.

You should start by quoting the parts that actually display a scientific
theory of intelligent design. It seems odd that Behe would explain the
scientific theory in a journal of Christian philosophy but not in his books.

[jillery]

Your quote above well illustrates a fundamental problem with arguments
from cdesign proponentsists. Claiming to show how some biological
systems have similarities to human designed systems, logically doesn't
show how these biological systems are *intelligently* designed.

At the same time, cdesign proponentsists conveniently ignore how
natural selection of random variations also produces biological
systems with similarities to human designed systems, without any need
for intelligence.

If your details tomorrow don't address that fundamental problem, then
they will be no different than all the other unresponsive repetitions
of mindless PRATTs posted by other cdesign proponentsists.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Burkhard]

That's a rather long-winded way to admit what I said all along: that there is no ID theory. Mere discontent with one theory does not lead in itself to a new and different theory.

>
> "I frame no hypotheses" -- this is the first time I have come across
> this phrase, and one can read about various takes on it here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

Interesting that Behe should cite it - and if I say interesting, "tragic-comic" would be probably more accurate. One has to be a bit careful with the quote, as "hypothesis" did not mean for Newton and his contemporaries quite the same what it means in modern theory of science, and "fingere" has a very wide semantic field in Latin - it can mean "to form" "invent" "represent", "touch deftly" , "dream up" or "fake". As from a modern perspective, Newton did most certainly invent and posit what we would call hypotheses, it is probably best translated as "I don't posit fake hypotheses" or "I don't posit unfounded hypotheses" rather than simply "I don't posit hypotheses" (so also Helmut Pulte. "From axioms to conventions and hypotheses: The foundations of mechanics and the roots of Carl Neumann’s ‘principles of the Galilean-Newtonian theory’." The significance of the hypothetical in the natural sciences (2009): 77-98 - Pulte also wrote what is arguably the most comprehensive analysis of this expression, Hypotheses (non) fingo? Das Wissenschaftsverständnis der Aufklärung im Spiegel ihrer Newton-Rezeption. In: Ryszard Różanowski (ed.): Aktualität der Aufklärung, 2001)

The original is helpful in this respect:

"Rationem vero harum Gravitatis proprietatum ex Phænomenis nondum potui deducere, et Hypotheses non fingo. Quicquid enim ex Phænomenis non deducitur, Hypothesis vocanda est; et Hypotheses seu Metaphysicæ, seu Physicæ, seu Qualitatum occultarum, seu Mechanicæ, in Philosophia Experimentali locum non habent. In hac Philosophia Propositiones deducuntur ex Phænomenis, et redduntur generales per Inductionem. Sic impenetrabilitas, mobilitas, et impetus corporum et leges motuum et gravitatis innotuerunt."

Newton justifies here to his contemporaries the introduction of the theoretical term "gravity" - which was of course a hypothesis in modern parlance. His justification is twofold, one positive and one negative: The positive justification is that the posited new entity, gravity, causes observable and testable phenomena. These then allow inductively to make general statements about the new theoretical entity. With other words, "gravity" is legitimate because it leads to new observations. The negative part is "that this is all that is needed to justify that new concept". In particular, it is not necessary to give an "essence" of gravity beyond its observable consequences, nor is it necessary to account for where gravity comes from. Both would have been for the more old-fashioned among his peers requirements for a scientific concept to be legitimate. For him, that is not science but metaphysics or "occultism". In modern "structuralist" parlance from Quine to Sneed-Stegmueller to Fraasen, the meaning of "gravity" is fully explained by the totality of laws where it is used with predictive power.

Behe, and the ID crowd in general, pretty much base their entire approach on violating that principle. Behe funnily does this in the very paragraph where he invokes it. OF course he is positing hypothesis, in the Newtonian sense. At the every least, that is the concept of "designer". Id' say he adds five more, Plato’s demi-urge; etc. That he does not commit to any of them is neither here nor there and just shows that paucity of his theory. For Newton, even mentioning them in this way or the less specific "designer", violates scientific standards and is also entirely unnecessary. IF a concept like "designer" is used in a legitimate way, then one has to inductively infer properties of that designer from the phenomena that he/she/them/it causes, otherwise the word is bereft of any meaning and can be replaced without loss by "plrffstz", it is literally meaningless.

The second prong of Newton's argument works more against cosmological ID arguments, and also abiogenesis-based ones: it is for scientific theories not necessary to account for the origin or cause of a concept, unlike philosophy or theology, it is not necessary to trace back causal chains to a "first ground". But IF one asks for a given concept or entity what in turn was its cause, that has to be done again through statements that inductively describe testable properties of that new cause.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Picking up Behe's essay from where I left off above,
with additional paragraph breaks not in the original:

The fact that modern intelligent design theory is a minimalist argument for design itself,
not an argument for the existence of God, relieves it of much of the baggage that weighed down
Paley’s argument. First of all, it is immune to the argument from evil. It matters not a whit to the
scientific case whether the designer is good or bad, interested in us or disinterested. It only
matters whether an explanation of design appears to be consistent with the biological examples I
point to.

Second, questions about whether the designer is omnipotent, or even especially
competent, do not arise in my case, as they did in Paley’s. Perhaps the designer isn’t omnipotent
or very competent. More to the point, perhaps the designer was not interested in every detail of
biology, as Paley thought, so that while some features were indeed designed, others were left to
the vagaries of nature. Thus the modern argument for design need only show that intelligent
agency appears to be a good explanation for some biological features.

Thus compared to William Paley’s argument, modern ID theory is very restricted in
scope. However, what it lacks in scope, it makes up for in resilience. Paley conjoined a number
of separable ideas in his argument—design, omnipotence, benevolence, and so on—which made
his overall position quite brittle. For example, arguments against the perceived benevolence of
the design became arguments against the very existence of design.

Thus one got the seeming non sequitur stating that because biological feature A appears malevolent, therefore all biological
features arose by natural selection or some other unintelligent process. With the much more
modest claims of modern ID theory, such a move is not possible. Attention is kept focused on the
basic question of whether unintelligent processes could produce the complex structures of
biology, or whether intelligence was indeed required.
=====================================================

In all of the above, Behe exemplifies the first half of Jesus's adage,
"Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

Note carefully: NOT "cunning as serpents." After seeing the first
responses to my OP, I expect a concerted attack on Behe's innocence
in what he is doing. Such critics should keep in mind the great
financial sacrifice he made in his second and third books,
_The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_, by openly
and intelligently arguing for common descent. With this he risked
alienating everyone whom I call a "creationist," both YECs and OECs.
But his integrity as a scientist cannot be maligned unless one ignores this.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Burkhard]

Well, first problem right here. What makes "designer" a unique category of concept (as opposed to "gravity" or "weak force" etc is that it supports teleological explanations. With other words, what design brings to the table, and where it gets explanatory value, is its ability to link knowledge about the motives of the designer to the predicted design features (or inversely explains this features from the motives) . That's of course how all existing disciplines that make design inferences work, anthropology, history, sociology etc. We can explain the design feature of ordinary handcuffs by the negative attitude of the designer to the person who'll wear them, and the ones that are easy to open, with silk lining and pink fluff by their benign attitude to the person who'll wear them. And with an Iron Maiden (and yes I know, they are ma myth) we can infer the evil intent of the designer. So right from the start Behe takes a lot of features of a design argument that make it scientifically useful off the table.

>
> Second, questions about whether the designer is omnipotent, or even especially
> competent, do not arise in my case, as they did in Paley’s. Perhaps the designer isn’t omnipotent
> or very competent. More to the point, perhaps the designer was not interested in every detail of
> biology, as Paley thought, so that while some features were indeed designed, others were left to
> the vagaries of nature.

And then follows with the same theme. In anthropology, forensic sciences, history etc we use of course our knowledge of the skills and limitations of the designer to explain design features, or, in cases of known design but unknown designer, infer properties of the designer(s), their skills, knowledge and tools, from the features of the object. So we can falsify the claim that Iron Maidens are designed with evil intent towards a victim by pointing out that all the extant examples show techniques, skill and knowledge in their design that place them in the 18th century or later, not in the middle ages as per the "evil intent" hypothesis.

Again, Behe renders the design inference pointless, the concept empty

Thus the modern argument for design need only show that intelligent
> agency appears to be a good explanation for some biological features.
>
> Thus compared to William Paley’s argument, modern ID theory is very restricted in
> scope. However, what it lacks in scope, it makes up for in resilience. Paley conjoined a number
> of separable ideas in his argument—design, omnipotence, benevolence, and so on—which made
> his overall position quite brittle.

If Behe had been honest here, he'd used the modern term: "Falsifiable". Sure, his theory is "resilient": because it says nothing, it can't be tested and falsified. We do no consider this these days a desirable

> For example, arguments against the perceived benevolence of
> the design became arguments against the very existence of design.
>
> Thus one got the seeming non sequitur stating that because biological feature A appears malevolent, therefore all biological
> features arose by natural selection or some other unintelligent process. With the much more
> modest claims of modern ID theory, such a move is not possible.


Attention is kept focused on the
> basic question of whether unintelligent processes could produce the complex structures of
> biology, or whether intelligence was indeed required.

Which then leads to his final problem, the position is not consistent on its own terms. It is pretty straightforward to give an explanation that does not invoke any designer (natural or nor not) for all the candidate features that he gives elsewhere, e.g. in Edge of evolution, that have at least as much empirical content as the design inference. With other words he can't possible show that a designer is "required", there are always empirically equivalent theories without a designer

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> of Darwin's magnum opus.
>
> Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> observations and repeatable experimentation.

No, it does not. The things you are claiming are ID research existed without
any hypothesis of design. None of these experiments require a design
hypothesis, or answer questions about how anything was designed,
or who designed them.

One of your favorite claims, not made yet here, is that the knock-out
mutations performed by Minnich on flagella are somehow ID research.
Explain how the work he did is ID research. How is it different from
the work he was doing before he was thinking about ID? How it is
different from very similar work others do to examine biological
systems where they are not making claims of ID?

What is it about your category of ID research that is distinct from,
for example, the work of Arthur Kornberg, or Roger Kornberg?

In essence, what is it, specifically, about any of these asserted bits of
ID science that distinguish them from non-ID science? They don't
attempt to determine who did any designing. They don't attempt to
determine anything about why anyone did any designing. They don't
attempt to determine how anyone did any designing. Where? When?
Where's the beef?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'd rather say "it entails teleology." Full stop.

> With other words, what design brings to the table, and where it gets explanatory value,

There isn't much explanatory value in things that fall into the latter half of the
famous simplification, "Everything in science is either physics or stamp collecting."
The latter includes astronomical observations and descriptions of fossils and
meteorites and strata in the earth, unaccompanied by theorizing about why they
are what they are. Yet these are more informative for the typical layman
or amateur than the kind of theorizing you write about below.

>is its ability to link knowledge about the motives of the designer

...which we totally lack in the modern theory of ID, and are left
with radically different possible motives which then have to
have radically different conclusions drawn from them.


> to the predicted design features (or inversely explains this features from the motives). That's of course how all existing disciplines that make design inferences work, anthropology, history, sociology etc.

Except when they lack knowledge of motives -- and all of these disciplines suffer greatly
from their lack. Of course, their "experts" are quite happy with that ignorance, since the
number of publishable papers is multiplied many-fold by the number of plausible speculations
about motives. More importantly perhaps, it allows them to exercise their powers of imagination.

> We can explain the design feature of ordinary handcuffs by the negative attitude of the designer to the person who'll wear them, and the ones that are easy to open, with silk lining and pink fluff by their benign attitude to the person who'll wear them. And with an Iron Maiden (and yes I know, they are ma myth) we can infer the evil intent of the designer. So right from the start Behe takes a lot of features of a design argument that make it scientifically useful off the table.

On the contrary, we have plenty of plausible speculations. Crick and Orgel, in their
seminal paper on directed panspermia (DP) gave one about motives, but I'd rather
save talk about that until after we see what comes of a certain person's repeated
claim that if I don't ask DIG to ban me from talk.origins by Wednesday of next
week, he will do it "for me."

In the meantime, I'd rather talk about the various possible physical makeups of DP designers
and the effect that would entail for the amount of design they went through
before sending microorganisms to "seed" earth.

I dealt with two extremes in the following reply to Öö Tiib,
and I will try to dig up where I gave others:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/FkNJHDauBQAJ
Re: The IDiocy that never existed
May 10, 2023, 11:00:19 PM

I'll wait to discuss these things until Monday, because I will be done with posting earlier than
usual today, and I never post on weekends except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Our State Museum downtown has an astronomy night starting at 7pm,
and it includes a program in the planetarium about discoveries made possible by
the James Webb space telescope. They are sure to be of first rate interest.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later today if time permits.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Burkhard]

I'm allowing for the possibility that a designer sometimes choses random methods as a design tool, hence the more limited expression.

> > With other words, what design brings to the table, and where it gets explanatory value,
> There isn't much explanatory value in things that fall into the latter half of the
> famous simplification, "Everything in science is either physics or stamp collecting."
> The latter includes astronomical observations and descriptions of fossils and
> meteorites and strata in the earth, unaccompanied by theorizing about why they
> are what they are.

Well, first, these are necessary parts of a theory, but not a theory. So if ID had done nothing else but provide new observations, commensurable to that collected by radio-telescopes, or for that matter what Darwin collected and documented on his travels, my point would still stand, that there is no ID theory

But I'd doubt this anyway. As far as I can make out, Behe has only ever authored 40 or so technical papers, almost all long before he got involved with ID. In the "Edge" as far as I can see he cites almost exclusively observations made by others that he then interprets within his ID framework. Neither is there a dataset associated with his name that is used by other researchers, at least as far as I can make out. If you think he contributed a significant amount of novel observations, observations that we would not have made but for ID. So pretty much the opposite of what you describe here. Feel free to point me in the direction of any contribution he made to the data sets that we have, I myself can't see any.

Yet these are more informative for the typical layman
> or amateur than the kind of theorizing you write about below.
> >is its ability to link knowledge about the motives of the designer
> ...which we totally lack in the modern theory of ID,

indeed, hence there is no theory of ID, as I keep saying. You are essentially insisting that one can have an "ID theory" without "I" or "D", or any program to say anything about either. That's not a theory, that's just a meaningless string of letters.

>and are left
> with radically different possible motives which then have to
> have radically different conclusions drawn from them.

which should leat to different observations, tests, and through this new knowledge - that is if it were a scientific theory.

>
>
> > to the predicted design features (or inversely explains this features from the motives). That's of course how all existing disciplines that make design inferences work, anthropology, history, sociology etc.
>
> Except when they lack knowledge of motives -- and all of these disciplines suffer greatly
> from their lack. Of course, their "experts" are quite happy with that ignorance, since the
> number of publishable papers is multiplied many-fold by the number of plausible speculations
> about motives. More importantly perhaps, it allows them to exercise their powers of imagination.

Sure, and why not, as long as their proposals are explicit and specific enough to then allow others to test them. What you describe there is how all science works. Start with the data, use your imagination to explain it, test the explanation with through further observations. Design sciences are a subgroup of this that uses intentions, motives and goals, otherwise the same thing.

ID does indeed not fit into this scheme, hence there is no science of ID

> > We can explain the design feature of ordinary handcuffs by the negative attitude of the designer to the person who'll wear them, and the ones that are easy to open, with silk lining and pink fluff by their benign attitude to the person who'll wear them. And with an Iron Maiden (and yes I know, they are ma myth) we can infer the evil intent of the designer. So right from the start Behe takes a lot of features of a design argument that make it scientifically useful off the table.
> On the contrary, we have plenty of plausible speculations.

But Behe cites here Netwon, so rejects that speculation - on your own terms that is.

Crick and Orgel, in their
> seminal paper on directed panspermia (DP) gave one about motives,

and what observations do they suggest to test if that hypothesis is true?

>but I'd rather
> save talk about that until after we see what comes of a certain person's repeated
> claim that if I don't ask DIG to ban me from talk.origins by Wednesday of next
> week, he will do it "for me."

absolutely nothing of course. That threat has no basis in reality whatsoever, and will as likely come true as my prediction that by next Wednesday, he will only post prayers, in Istriot, eulogising the sacred heart

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> > of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> > to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> > of Darwin's magnum opus.
> >
> > Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> > observations and repeatable experimentation.
> >
> > Statements by me like this have been met with widespread skepticism, so I was delighted
> > to see how clearly they were stated In a 2001 essay by Michael Behe,
> > the top exponent of modern ID theory, with the title,
> > "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules."
> > The first paragraph, split here in two for easier reading, summarizes the
> > situation quite well.

> Looking this up, it would appear to be 2003, not 2001. And interestingly
> it's in a book with the title "Philosophia Christi", i.e. a book of
> explicitly Christian philosophy.
>
> But looking further, I see that this book is a reprint of some articles
> that appeared earlier, and the true source is indeed 2001, in a journal
> of the same title published by BIOLA University for the Evangelical
> Philosophical Society.

Yes, Philosophia Christi 3(1): 165-179.

> That doesn't on the surface seem much like science.

After this finely nuanced sentence comes a polemical non sequitur:

>So not a good beginning.

Reality is different from what it seems to you on the surface. Read on.

They are in negative form in what I have posted so far, making clear
what it is NOT. Someone as tight-lipped thru post after post as you
are, only to show that you had been playing possum the whole time,
should be able to appreciate the pedagogical aspects of Behe's approach.

> It seems odd that Behe would explain the
> scientific theory in a journal of Christian philosophy but not in his books.

That's because you have no clue as to the widespread hostility towards ID
in Christian, and specifically Catholic, circles. Thomists, and those
popularizers who fancy themselves to Thomists, are especially hostile
because they are committed to a concept of a God who is omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In particular, they are under the delusion that
that it would be beneath the dignity of an omniscient God to intervene in his creation after
the moment of creation itself.

They thus do atheists an enormous favor, enabling them to successfully
attack what would be a straw man in the ID setting that Behe works with.


One such popularizer is Stacy Trasankos, who did a hatchet job on ID in the
magazine _Catholic_Answers_, September-October 2018.

The huge type on the cover proclaims: FAITH & SCIENCE and then, still in caps but in smaller letters,
A FALSE OPPOSITION. The irony is that they put faith in false opposition to ID theory and science.

Stacy's hatchet job is in the article, "Evangelizing Through Evolution." After giving plenty of space
to the YECs Victor Warkulwiz and Hugh Owen, Tracy claims that ID theory "also has its root in fear."
After presenting something by Jay Richards to give some idea of what ID is all about, she
goes on the offensive with: "Just like Young Earth Creationists, ID theorists cannot
fathom how God could have created matter and energy to produce the diversity of life today,
so they conjure up miracles as needed to complete their stories."

Kenneth Miller couldn't have done it more poisonously!

Dembski's idea of God working on the subatomic level via quantum indeterminacy
is dismissed with "This reasoning is not only speculative and untestable, it is theologically flawed.
We do not need to sneak God in the back door of nature."

[Except, of course, in the miracles of Jesus and his Resurrection, and perhaps some OT
miracles as well. The great philosopher Hans Jonas has called this kind of thinking
"Split-personality theorizing."]

Her treatment of Behe is peculiar, to say the least. After revealing that she had
interviewed Behe at the 2016 Fellowship of Catholic Scholars 39th Convention
on Science and Faith in DC, she talks about one isolated question she asked Behe there:


After his talk about irreducible complexity, I asked him
why he stopped with bacterial flagellum as evidence
of design.

"Why don't intelligent design theorists see everything
as designed?" I asked. "I am a chemist, and I see the
entire periodic table as designed. Why not go bigger?
Why not teach people that all of nature is evidence of
a designer?"

He threw his hands up and replied, "I do!"

Those two words are all she quoted from Behe. Those two words were immediately followed
by rank editorializing, even misinformation:

"But ID theorists do not. They teach that we humans can
make up an intelligence test and decide what is the work of
nature and what is the work of an unembodied designer
who intervenes where nature fails. Their theories miss
the bigger picture.

"For the believer, science is the study of the handiwork of God.
All of it. Evolution must be seen in its entire context."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Stacy gives the impression above and elsewhere that she thinks ID should be a forum
for 19th and 20th century rhapsodizing about the order all around us.
In the fractured word salad with which jillery and so many others are hopelessly in love,
they ought to be cdesign proponentsists in the World According to Stacy Trasankos.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 12:12:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> > of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> > to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> > of Darwin's magnum opus.
> >
> > Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> > observations and repeatable experimentation.

> No, it does not. The things you are claiming are ID research existed without
> any hypothesis of design.

I claimed nothing like that in this thread.

If you must drag in things from other threads, please do
everyone the courtesy of providing documentation, with urls
or Subject lines and dates and times, if possible.


The time between now and the special State Museum exhibit of
which I told Burkhard grows short, so I have deleted the rest of your
thread-irrelevant babble. Once you provide better information, I will
deal with it some time next week.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

... is nothing resembling anything I've quoted from Behe on this thread.

So, you get the same treatment I gave Daggett a few minutes ago.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Well, that was a lot, and most of it seems just an exercise in
describing the goodness or badness of various people or their writings.
And then it ends up in tangential criticism of another person who isn't
involved here. Very little of it seems like a reply to what I said, if
any is.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Burk, the way you keep repeating the premature formula "no science of ID" below
reminds me of the way Cato the Elder kept adding, at the end of every speech of his
to the Roman Senate, "And furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed."

Unlike with jillery and your admirer Daggett, I leave the rest of your
comments intact so that people can see what I am talking about,
but because the time till the special program grows ever shorter, I won't
comment on anything except the closing off-topic comment.

That depends on whether DIG is at all aware of the goings-on in the thread
where the threats are being made. If Ron O is pigheaded enough to go to
DIG like he did against Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and his trumped-up charges
are the first inkling DIG has of what is going on, we may well be treated
to a spectacle of DIG barging into the thread, and a lot of fallout from that.

Note, I said "see what comes of" and that scenario is included. It will probably
have to occupy a lot of attention of people here.

>That threat has no basis in reality whatsoever, and will as likely come true as my prediction that by next Wednesday, he will only post prayers, in Istriot, eulogising the sacred heart

I think Ron Okimoto is demented enough to believe he will succeed. Can you give one argument
to the contrary?


Peter Nyikos

PS I have preserved everything that you left in below.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Below-70-IQ simulation by you noted.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Is a brief and vacuous insult in line with your new program of restraint?

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:20:33 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 12:12:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> > > of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> > > to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> > > of Darwin's magnum opus.
> > >
> > > Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> > > observations and repeatable experimentation.
>
> > No, it does not. The things you are claiming are ID research existed without
> > any hypothesis of design.

> I claimed nothing like that in this thread.

Do you ever read more past where your quibbling itch takes hold.
Let's see what you deleted.
*****

No, it does not. The things you are claiming are ID research existed without

any hypothesis of design. None of these experiments require a design
hypothesis, or answer questions about how anything was designed,
or who designed them.

One of your favorite claims, not made yet here, is that the knock-out
mutations performed by Minnich on flagella are somehow ID research.

*****

Imagine that. You delete where I explicitly write ***not made yet here***
and then go on to fantasize about how I am misbehaving after having
insinuated that I was misrepresenting you.

I might also note that I expect few others would consider it a
courtesy to dump in numerous cites to other posts. I'm pretty
sure the majority of those reading this have seen you cite
Minnich as one of your favorite examples of someone you
claim does ID research.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[quotes Behe:]

> But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design,
> the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer
> include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new
> age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent
> being.

Also possible candidates: Unexpected turns of natural evolution;
interference patterns of a previously unknown physical force;
confabulation on the part of the interpreter; some or all of the above.

Where does Behe define "design"? More important, *how* does he define
it? "The product of something whose motives and abilities are
completely unknown" does not narrow the field much.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[John Harshman]

On 5/26/23 8:09 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [quotes Behe:]
>> But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that
>> far. Thus while I argue for design,
>> the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible
>> candidates for the role of designer
>> include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s
>> demi-urge; some mystical new
>> age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some
>> utterly unknown intelligent
>> being.
>
> Also possible candidates: Unexpected turns of natural evolution;
> interference patterns of a previously unknown physical force;
> confabulation on the part of the interpreter; some or all of the above.
>
> Where does Behe define "design"?  More important, *how* does he define
> it?  "The product of something whose motives and abilities are
> completely unknown" does not narrow the field much.
>

One might also ask why we are restricted to a single designer (or, in
the case of aliens, a group acting in complete harmony). It would make
more sense if the designer of the wolf were not the designer of the rabbit.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/26/23 6:51 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[again quoting Behe:]

> The fact that modern intelligent design theory is a minimalist argument for design itself,
> not an argument for the existence of God, relieves it of much of the baggage that weighed down

> Paley’s argument. First of all, it is immune to the argument from evil. [...]

A problem Behe doesn't face is that the problem of evil is not immune to
ID. The designer of ID is, by definition, intelligent, and by
implication of works attributed to it, has been around for at least
hundreds of millions of years and is capable of creating arrangements of
life. That makes it fit a reasonable definition of "god". Like it or
not, at least 95% of ID supporters view it as being THE God (and
probably the number is closer to 99.9999%).

So ID says that natural evil was deliberately created by god, probably
by the one and only God. Many would find that a not particularly
praiseworthy aspect of God.

The fact that ID supporters don't want to look at that side of their
field does not make it cease to exist.

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:25:23 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<dishonest deletion restored>

>>Your quote above well illustrates a fundamental problem with arguments
>>from cdesign proponentsists. Claiming to show how some biological

>>systems have similarities to human designed systems, logically doesn't
>>show how these biological systems are *intelligently* designed.
>>
>>At the same time, cdesign proponentsists conveniently ignore how
>>natural selection of random variations also produces biological
>>systems with similarities to human designed systems, without any need
>>for intelligence.
>>
>>If your details tomorrow don't address that fundamental problem, then
>>they will be no different than all the other unresponsive repetitions
>>of mindless PRATTs posted by other cdesign proponentsists.
>

>... is nothing resembling anything I've quoted from Behe on this thread.

My comments above are an accurate paraphrase of what you quoted from
Behe on this thread. Apparently you rely on some unspecified means
for identifying "design itself". Quelle surprise.

>So, you get the same treatment I gave Daggett a few minutes ago.

Yes, that is the same treatment other trolls do, to dishonestly delete
comments so you can pretend you responded to relevant and substantive
criticism.

And your "details tomorrow" post made utterly no effort to address
that fundamental problem you dishonestly deleted. Quelle surprise.

Meanwhile, your enablers reply to your posts as if you're sincere
about discussing the issues you raise, while complaining about me
because I note your compulsive and dishonest trolling.

[Burkhard]

Yup, teams of competing designers, all with at best limited access to the industrial secrets and patents the competitor uses seems a good candidate. Rabbits are of course the totem animals of Hermes, while wolves are the favourites of Leto. Hermes and Leto stood on opposing sides at the Trojan war, so it all makes sense now :

"against Hera stood forth the huntress of the golden arrows, and the echoing chase, even the archer Artemis, sister of the god that smiteth afar; against Leto stood forth the strong helper, Hermes, and against Hephaestus the great, deep-eddying river, that god called Xanthus, and men Scamander."

Having said that, the design of weapons and armour in gladiatorial games came from a single source (well, for a certain value of single) and are optimised for balance, to make the fight exiting and prolonged. Modern computer game design has put this on scientific footing, there is a lot of psychology end engineering knowledge involved,, and also testing, computer modelling etc going into making sure that strength and weakness of equipment and NPCs is balanced

[Burkhard]

Petey, as long as you act as a poster boy for ID and repeat their claim they have a scientific theory, I will indeed repeat that the emperor is stark bollock naked. You have so far not only failed to adress the substance of a single point I made, you have also failed to give an account of anything that would even resemble a "theory" of ID, as has of course Behe. You or him can of course pony up and present something that has the features of a theory, but til then, then.

Not any more than the one I gave - that there is no reason whatsoever to believe it, it's pure fantasy. I wasn't around when Kleinman was barred, and don't think it was necessary, but I can see where DIG was coming from - he was becoming too disruptive, posting pre-formulated "replies" that had absolutely nothing to do with the posts they were attached to, only to the name of the poster (he may have automated this) quite literally swamping the board and making it difficult to find the messages one was interested in. Nothing even remotely similar going on now. The only candidate for a ban is Ron himself, and that he's still allowed to be around shows how forbearing DIG is.

[Lawyer Daggett]

The gaming theory of Olympian design was partially revealed in
the sacred texts, of which little remains but can be partially known
from the writings of Bullfinch e. al.. These of course are corrupted
as they were written as propaganda after the guild wars. There's
the ludicrous story that Prometheus stole the secret of fire but
what he did was to steal technology for cross-species hybridization
from Typhon and Echidna.

My research program involves finding Prometheus and making him
confess. I will soon be submitting a travel grant.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Aeschylus could have told you where he went when he was unbound, but alas, the library was burnt.

[Gary Hurd]

There are occasionally an honest ID creationist;

In a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).

“…but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. Dembski, “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN version 1.1, April 14, 2004”

Phillip Johnson
"My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." 1996, "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" ARN

"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." American Family Radio (10 January 2003).

Paul Nelson,
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem." Touchstone Magazine interview, July/August 2004

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:34:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gary Hurd
<gary...@cox.net>:

>On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:31:40?AM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:07:01?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:07:37?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

Kudos to them for honesty of intent. But it's been an
additional ~20 years, and they *still* don't have such a
theory, nor even a defensible hypothesis (both in the
scientific sense, which *is* what they claim to be seeking).
The Razor, applied to current knowledge, continues to defeat
their efforts.
>
--

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]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:10:10 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ snip for focus]

>That's because you have no clue as to the widespread hostility towards ID
>in Christian, and specifically Catholic, circles. Thomists, and those
>popularizers who fancy themselves to Thomists, are especially hostile
>because they are committed to a concept of a God who is omnipotent,
>omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In particular, they are under the delusion that
>that it would be beneath the dignity of an omniscient God to intervene in his creation after
>the moment of creation itself.

Please give an example of a Catholic theologian or other writer
claiming that it would be beneath the dignity of an omniscient God to

intervene in his creation after the moment of creation itself.

[...]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
This is implicit in both of my first installments, but it is made very explicit
right after where the second installment left off:

________________________________________________________________

Another important point to emphasize right at the beginning is that mine is indeed a
*scientific* argument, not a philosophical or theological argument. Let me explain what I mean by
that without getting entangled in trying to define those elusive terms. By calling the argument
scientific I mean first that it does not rest on any tenet of any particular creed, nor is it a
deductive argument from first principles. Rather, it depends critically on physical evidence found in nature.

Second, because it depends on physical evidence it can potentially be falsified by other
physical evidence. Thus it is tentative, only claiming that it currently seems to be the best
explanation given the information we have available to us right now.
=================================================================


What Behe meant here was that each individual example of hypothesized design can
be falsified by physical evidence. His explanation continued:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I do acknowledge that the scientific argument for design may have theological
implications, but that does not change its status as a scientific idea. I would like to draw a parallel
between the modern argument for design in biology and the Big Bang theory in physics. The Big
Bang theory strikes many people as having theological implications, as shown by those who do
not welcome those implications. For example in 1989, John Maddox, the editor of *Nature*, the
world’s leading science journal, published a very peculiar editorial, entitled “Down with the Big Bang.” He wrote:

"Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple
view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead....
Creationists ... seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the
Big Bang." (Maddox 1989)

Nonetheless, despite its theological implications, the Big Bang theory is a completely scientific
one, which justifies itself by physical data, not by appeals to holy books. I think a theory of
intelligent design in biology fits in the same category: while it may have theological implications
it justifies itself by physical data.

===================================================================

The article by Maddox was a single page, and appeared on August 10, 1989.
The late date might seem like an anachronism, because the popular accounts ended
with the 1964 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation at ~3 degrees Kelvin
that gave the Big Bang theory a tremendous advantage over Hoyle's steady state theory.

However, for various technical reasons, the Big Bang theory was in real trouble when
Maddox wrote his one-page essay. He ended it with the words:

"The Big Bang itself is the pinnacle of a chain of inference which
provides no explanation at present for quasars and the source of the known
hidden mass in the Universe. It will be a surprise if it somehow survives the Hubble
telescope ."
John Maddox
*Nature* v, 340, p. 425

But even before Hubble was launched on April 24, 1990, the COBE satellite was launched
a few months after Maddox's essay: November 28, 1989. It took more than two years
for sufficient data to accumulate and be analyzed, but the outcome was that the main
problems that had bedeviled the Big Bang theory were resolved, and now the theory
reigns supreme. True, physicists have yet to resolve the actual origins of dark matter,
and its nature, but none of the alternative theories to the Big Bang theory try to explain these things either.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It is 100% compatible with the limited piece of restraint [1] that I actually promised [2].

And the word "vacuous" is just you doubling down on your low-IQ simulation. I suggest
you look more carefully to what happened between us two posts back and use the
brain that once got you a Ph.D. at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

[1] The words "new program of restraint" are far more applicable to our mid-2015 agreement to
use sci.bio.paleontology as a kind of embassy in which we (you and one other person besides myself,
later joined by long-gone Richard Norman) would lay aside our talk.origins grievances and behave
like the best of ambassadors. The resulting oasis of civility worked until early 2018,
when you supported that other person to put an end to it despite my strenuous efforts to keep it.

[2] I did forget my <cough> "program" [read: promise] momentarily in my last response to Burkhard,
because my mind was focused on DIG rather than on the person who says he will ask DIG to ban me on Wednesday:
I gave the name of that person despite my promise, but I did keep my promise above in the preceding footnote.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 12:35:33 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/26/23 6:51 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> [again quoting Behe:]

> > The fact that modern intelligent design theory is a minimalist argument for design itself,
> > not an argument for the existence of God, relieves it of much of the baggage that weighed down
> > Paley’s argument. First of all, it is immune to the argument from evil. [...]
>
> A problem Behe doesn't face is that the problem of evil is not immune to
> ID. The designer of ID is, by definition, intelligent, and by
> implication of works attributed to it, has been around for at least
> hundreds of millions of years and is capable of creating arrangements of life.

Behe made a big mistake in talking about the designer in the singular tense.
The only tenable ID theory is one that either posits a designer species for
OOL [like my directed panspermia] or has multiple species with different
origins altering the course of evolution on earth.


That said, I don't get what you mean by "creating arrangements of life."
The arrangements you think of may be completely beyond the powers of a hypothesized designer.
Don't forget about Ockham's Razor: an individual case of biological design
might need only a little tweaking, as in a passage from a celebrated popular
science book that I often find myself quoting:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_

Like me, Eiseley was an agnostic. Keep in mind that instead of "God" a much lesser being
could have altered the genome to make the cerebral hemispheres appear.

> That makes it fit a reasonable definition of "god". Like it or
> not, at least 95% of ID supporters view it as being THE God (and
> probably the number is closer to 99.9999%).

I don't like it, but the bottom line here is that Behe is not one of them
*qua* expositor of the modern scientific theory of ID. If he is the only
published person who treats ID that way, that is very sad, but I am here
to help give voice and my own contributed substance to that theory.

>
> So ID says that natural evil was deliberately created by god,
> probably by the one and only God. Many would find that a not particularly
> praiseworthy aspect of God.

Job certainly saw things that way, as shown in many parts of the Book of Job,
especially 9: 1 - 24 and 12: 4 - 10 and 21: 5 - 21 and above all, 24: 2 - 24.
The Jerusalem Bible translated that last verse as,
"Yet God remains deaf to their appeal!"
It would be difficult to find a more searing indictment of God by an atheist.

> The fact that ID supporters don't want to look at that side of their
> field does not make it cease to exist.

On the other hand, a designer hypothesized by ID may have been like ourselves in that its
powers of intelligence were far greater than its ability to direct human evolution to prevent
monstrous injustices.

Job's God is like that.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:45:36 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
> This is implicit in both of my first installments, but it is made very explicit
> right after where the second installment left off:

Behe is playing at a dishonest artifice that was publicly announced as
a strategy via the Wedge Document. 'Pretend we aren't talking about
our creator God.' Why would anyone take the pretense seriously after
it was essentially confessed that it is a pretense?

Are we supposed to admire the deceit?
Quote Behe: “The complex biological systems within each of us were
not assembled by happenstance. They work with dazzling precision,
because each one has been purposefully designed.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyqKpPVg4c

Quote Behe: "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the
extent to which one believes in the existence of God,"
Kitzmiller v Dover

You would have us believe in the artifice because you think it's clever?
Shall we believe Behe about Behe, or you?

[John Harshman]

Have you considered promising a more inclusive program of restraint? It
would be more compatible with your stance as a Christian.

Useful, too. Note how quickly that completely derailed the thread. We're
not long talking about the topic at all.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 18:22:56 UTC+3, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:45:36 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> > how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> > feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
> > This is implicit in both of my first installments, but it is made very explicit
> > right after where the second installment left off:
>
> Behe is playing at a dishonest artifice that was publicly announced as
> a strategy via the Wedge Document. 'Pretend we aren't talking about
> our creator God.' Why would anyone take the pretense seriously after
> it was essentially confessed that it is a pretense?
>

Hmm, but as methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science
then they have to clean it from any references to supernatural for to play
by rules. It is not dishonest to try to play by rules? After cleaning it up there
is no much left but that is then about how "embryonic" the result is.

> Are we supposed to admire the deceit?
> Quote Behe: “The complex biological systems within each of us were
> not assembled by happenstance. They work with dazzling precision,
> because each one has been purposefully designed.”
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyqKpPVg4c
>

That is what he hopes to but can not show. On the contrary, we often see
anything ... degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied systems sometimes
misused for to get barely well enough through one or other problem,
other times clearly crippled by ballast of such. That is not close at all
to "dazzling precision and efficiency".

> Quote Behe: "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the
> extent to which one believes in the existence of God,"
> Kitzmiller v Dover
>
> You would have us believe in the artifice because you think it's clever?
> Shall we believe Behe about Behe, or you?
>

Of course they want to show existence of their God with science, but
that is second step. First they want to use methodological naturalism
for to show design. I can not imagine how to do that when is unclear if
designer was God, Ancient Astronauts or SkyNet with time machine
from future. Perhaps no one can ... and so the "embryonic state" lasts
for decades.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:45:36 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> > how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> > feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.

There has also been a complete silence to something I wrote at the
end of my second installment:

"After seeing the first responses to my OP, I expect a concerted attack on Behe's innocence in what he is doing.
Such critics should keep in mind the great financial sacrifice he made in his second and third books,
_The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_, by openly and intelligently arguing for common descent.
With this he risked alienating everyone whom I call a "creationist," both YECs and OECs.
But his integrity as a scientist cannot be maligned unless one ignores this."
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RIc7ztkDTSI/m/rna2hkxFDAAJ

And here you are, Daggett, maligning Behe's integrity below while ignoring this.
In fact you are acting below as though my words above had never existed.

> > This is implicit in both of my first installments, but it is made very explicit
> > right after where the second installment left off:

> Behe is playing at a dishonest artifice that was publicly announced as
> a strategy via the Wedge Document.

Behe abandoned that strategy already in the 2001 article from which
I am quoting. This is evident in the entire 2007 book, his second,
_The Edge of Evolution_, where he even stopped talking about Irreducible Complexity (IC).
It's missing from the index at the back, which runs to over a dozen 2-column pages,
and I haven't seen any sign of relying on it anywhere in the book.

Instead, one of the pillars on which he put the theory of ID in that book
is something I wrote about to Burkhard in a post to which he still hasn't replied:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/b3QDSySsAAAJ
Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Apr 18, 2023, 10:20:25 PM

Burk's posts to this thread show no sign of his ever having seen it.

> 'Pretend we aren't talking about our creator God.'

Garbage in, making possible your "garbage out" that comes next:

> Why would anyone take the pretense seriously after
> it was essentially confessed that it is a pretense?
>
> Are we supposed to admire the deceit?

You may be admiring your deceit; I of course do not. It's too crass to
be artistic or even clever.

> Quote Behe: “The complex biological systems within each of us were
> not assembled by happenstance. They work with dazzling precision,
> because each one has been purposefully designed.”
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyqKpPVg4c

Note the passive voice. Even if Behe is talking about a designer WE
would think of as supernatural, it could have evolved naturally
in a parallel universe much older and grander than this one. I started a thread
about this last month:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QflrDHqlDD0/m/1p6NjO4TAgAJ
Designer of Our Universe by the Back Door?
Apr 12, 2023, 10:35:19 PM

> Quote Behe: "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the
> extent to which one believes in the existence of God,"
> Kitzmiller v Dover

Comparative "extent" noted. Even extent 0 *belief* is compatible with honest
admission that God *might* exist, as in the quote from agnostic Loren Eiseley
that I gave in my reply to Mark Isaak.

By the way, the "alt.atheists" try to swell the number of atheists by calling
agnostics like Eiseley and myself "soft atheists."

> You would have us believe in the artifice because you think it's clever?
> Shall we believe Behe about Behe, or you?

Future posts that are this mendacious and rude will be replied to in a separate thread
which I will set up for such replies. I'm fed up with your behavior on this thread.
There is one exception from you that is in the past, but it will only be
replied to next week on this thread.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.

A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
transdimensional metasubstantiators, pablid kibwieldacs, ectoplasm, and
other things (including supernatural entities) which are not defined.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:27:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/29/23 7:05 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:27:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/26/23 2:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/26/23 2:10 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> For several years now, I've been emphasizing that there is a scientific theory
> >>>>>>> of ID, albeit in a very embryonic form. But then, it has had only about 25 years
> >>>>>>> to develop, only half of the 50 years between Lamarck's theory and the publication
> >>>>>>> of Darwin's magnum opus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most essentially, it uses modern scientific methodology, rooted in empirical
> >>>>>>> observations and repeatable experimentation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Statements by me like this have been met with widespread skepticism, so I was delighted
> >>>>>>> to see how clearly they were stated In a 2001 essay by Michael Behe,
> >>>>>>> the top exponent of modern ID theory, with the title,
> >>>>>>> "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules."
> >>>>>>> The first paragraph, split here in two for easier reading, summarizes the
> >>>>>>> situation quite well.
> >>>>>

I have moved something from here to below, for reasons that will be clear below.

Footnote [1] below speaks volumes about your extreme shortage of commitment to any form of restraint
since early 2018. Your failure to acknowledge the existence of footnote [1] (see below) adds another
datum to those volumes.

By the way, a red flag has been going up for the half decade or more that
you have been using the word "considered" in replies to me
in a "do as I suggest, not as I do" brand of hypocrisy. Offhand
I can't think of a single other use by you of "consider" and its derivatives.

As I've often said, you are a polemicist first, a propagandist second,
and a reasoner a distant third. Next, you continue adding more data that reinforces
this observation:

> It would be more compatible with your stance as a Christian.

In my dealings with you, I follow Jesus's example wrt the scribes and pharisees.

> Useful, too. Note how quickly that completely derailed the thread.

You derailed the thread in your first post to this thread by completely ignoring Behe's article
and harping on where he had published it, in a typical *ad* *hominem* fallacy.
Here is how you did that in the part from your first post that I've moved down here.

[John:]

> >>>>>> Looking this up, it would appear to be 2003, not 2001. And interestingly
> >>>>>> it's in a book with the title "Philosophia Christi", i.e. a book of
> >>>>>> explicitly Christian philosophy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But looking further, I see that this book is a reprint of some articles
> >>>>>> that appeared earlier, and the true source is indeed 2001, in a journal
> >>>>>> of the same title published by BIOLA University for the Evangelical
> >>>>>> Philosophical Society.

[Peter:]

> >>>>> Yes, Philosophia Christi 3(1): 165-179.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That doesn't on the surface seem much like science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After this finely nuanced sentence comes a polemical non sequitur:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So not a good beginning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reality is different from what it seems to you on the surface. Read on.

> We're not long talking about the topic at all.

We never started talking about it, but there are three, perhaps four, participants on
to whom I *can* talk about it. I've already done so with two of them, and may
find the time to talk to the other two about it.

> > And the word "vacuous" is just you doubling down on your low-IQ simulation. I suggest
> > you look more carefully to what happened between us two posts back and use the
> > brain that once got you a Ph.D. at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

100 quatloos says you have no interest in removing the stigma of "playing dumb"
about this.

> > [1] The words "new program of restraint" are far more applicable to our mid-2015 agreement to
> > use sci.bio.paleontology as a kind of embassy in which we (you and one other person besides myself,
> > later joined by long-gone Richard Norman) would lay aside our talk.origins grievances and behave
> > like the best of ambassadors. The resulting oasis of civility worked until early 2018,
> > when you supported that other person to put an end to it despite my strenuous efforts to keep it.
> >
> > [2] I did forget my <cough> "program" [read: promise] momentarily in my last response to Burkhard,
> > because my mind was focused on DIG rather than on the person who says he will ask DIG to ban me on Wednesday:
> > I gave the name of that person despite my promise, but I did keep my promise above in the preceding footnote.

What I wrote to Lawyer Daggett earlier today on this thread applies to you too, despite your
contrasting styles:

"Future posts that are this mendacious and rude will be replied to in a separate thread
which I will set up for such replies. I'm fed up with your behavior on this thread."

Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

yup, hadn't planned to search through posts that accumulated while I was away, way too much noise these days, but can have a look at any pointed out to me, will do so now;.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> > how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> > feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.

> A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
> transdimensional metasubstantiators,

Are you making fun of the multiverses of theoretical physics?
They do not all require an extra physical dimension, and jillery never
tires of telling us that the belief of leading theoretical physicists in them
is NOT primarily due to a desire to evade supernatural explanations
for the "fine tuning" of many physical constants to
the existence of life, especially intelligent life [1] in our universe.

Fine tuning, meaning the extremely low tolerance to deviation that is compatible
with these two things, is something the modern scientific theory of ID
has wholeheartedly embraced. It makes the naive 20th century atheistic
notion that "our little observable universe is all there is or was or ever can be"
even more farfetched than Hoyle's steady state theory, what with all the evidence
for the Big Bang theory.

[1] The only known example that has made great scientific and technological
strides is ours. However, the continued enthusiasm of SETI supporters
over several decades just might pay off before the end of this century.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:07:19 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:45:36 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> > > how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> > > feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
> There has also been a complete silence to something I wrote at the
> end of my second installment:
>
> "After seeing the first responses to my OP, I expect a concerted attack on Behe's innocence in what he is doing.
> Such critics should keep in mind the great financial sacrifice he made in his second and third books,
> _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_, by openly and intelligently arguing for common descent.
> With this he risked alienating everyone whom I call a "creationist," both YECs and OECs.
> But his integrity as a scientist cannot be maligned unless one ignores this."
> -- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RIc7ztkDTSI/m/rna2hkxFDAAJ
>
> And here you are, Daggett, maligning Behe's integrity below while ignoring this.
> In fact you are acting below as though my words above had never existed.

How incredibly twisted.
I am directly addressing your claim about silence. I point out that your claim
is vacuous. It is inept. It is superficially flawed, and I explained why.

You asserting the claim does not make it valid nor lend it credibility, despite
whatever delusions of glory you may entertain for yourself.

> > > This is implicit in both of my first installments, but it is made very explicit
> > > right after where the second installment left off:
>
> > Behe is playing at a dishonest artifice that was publicly announced as
> > a strategy via the Wedge Document.

> Behe abandoned that strategy already in the 2001 article from which
> I am quoting. This is evident in the entire 2007 book, his second,
> _The Edge of Evolution_, where he even stopped talking about Irreducible Complexity (IC).
> It's missing from the index at the back, which runs to over a dozen 2-column pages,
> and I haven't seen any sign of relying on it anywhere in the book.

Any yet, in a video he published i 2022, he asserts that IC is evidence
that a system was designed,.

Quote Behe: “The complex biological systems within each of us were
not assembled by happenstance. They work with dazzling precision,
because each one has been purposefully designed.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyqKpPVg4c

I could quote from elsewhere in the same video to make the case more
explicit. You have been presented this evidence multiple times and
you ignore and deflect.

> Instead, one of the pillars on which he put the theory of ID in that book
> is something I wrote about to Burkhard in a post to which he still hasn't replied:

Do you want a listing of the posts you have not responded to?
It might be a good thing to create.

> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/b3QDSySsAAAJ
> Re: steady state theory of biological origin
> Apr 18, 2023, 10:20:25 PM
>
> Burk's posts to this thread show no sign of his ever having seen it.

Do be careful about that sort of accusation. It doesn't bode well for you.

> > 'Pretend we aren't talking about our creator God.'

> Garbage in, making possible your "garbage out" that comes next:

Empty accusation. Behe is demonstrably referencing his creator God
when he references a "designer". He occassionally admits as much.
That he sometimes pretends otherwise is an artifice. You should know this.

> > Why would anyone take the pretense seriously after
> > it was essentially confessed that it is a pretense?
> >
> > Are we supposed to admire the deceit?

> You may be admiring your deceit; I of course do not. It's too crass to
> be artistic or even clever.

But you seem to admire it. You don't seem to acknowledge that it
is an artifice. Behe had admitted it is an artifice. But within the
beginning of this thread, you appear to be admiring the pretense.

> > Quote Behe: “The complex biological systems within each of us were
> > not assembled by happenstance. They work with dazzling precision,
> > because each one has been purposefully designed.”
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyqKpPVg4c

> Note the passive voice. Even if Behe is talking about a designer WE
> would think of as supernatural, it could have evolved naturally
> in a parallel universe much older and grander than this one. I started a thread
> about this last month:

You invent excuses, again, and again, and again.
Behe admits he isn't thinking that way. You are simply attempting to
work hard at maintaining an illusion. You want to pretend that it is
intellectually robust according to your ability to craft an post hoc set
of rules that permit some suite of "not God" designers. Again, it is
a contrived artifice, and if you would be honest with yourself, you know it.

> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QflrDHqlDD0/m/1p6NjO4TAgAJ
> Designer of Our Universe by the Back Door?
> Apr 12, 2023, 10:35:19 PM
> > Quote Behe: "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the
> > extent to which one believes in the existence of God,"
> > Kitzmiller v Dover

> Comparative "extent" noted. Even extent 0 *belief* is compatible with honest
> admission that God *might* exist, as in the quote from agnostic Loren Eiseley
> that I gave in my reply to Mark Isaak.
>
> By the way, the "alt.atheists" try to swell the number of atheists by calling
> agnostics like Eiseley and myself "soft atheists."

Either you have a belief in god(s), or you don't.
If you don't, you're an atheist. If you think there's only a 10% chance that a
supernatural god exists, you are effectively an atheist.

I have not idea what significance you want to import into "the number
of atheists". It seems like a stupid consideration.

> > You would have us believe in the artifice because you think it's clever?
> > Shall we believe Behe about Behe, or you?

> Future posts that are this mendacious and rude will be replied to in a separate thread
> which I will set up for such replies. I'm fed up with your behavior on this thread.
> There is one exception from you that is in the past, but it will only be
> replied to next week on this thread.

There is nothing mendacious about my post. Neither was it rude.
I presented you with Behe's own words. They seem to discomfort you.
I have presented you with these words before. You deleted them and
accused me of malfeasance.

The fact is that you are asserting views to Behe that are in contrast with
his own declarations. He does not distance himself from the fact that
the designer he refers to is his personal God. He admits that the hypothesis
of design is largely predicated on an a priori belief in a creator god. The
quote is there above.

You want there to be some neutered theory of design, and such a theory
can be contrived in a post hoc manner but it is an artifice. The construction
of that artifice was contrived to be a way to fight against naturalism, as
was expounded upon in the Wedge Strategy.

Pretending it isn't contrived because you like the contrivance is a rather
piss-poor position to defend. But you keep defending it. And wear it
around your neck.

[John Harshman]

It's really impossible to take you seriously.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:40:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
>> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
>> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
>
>A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
>transdimensional metasubstantiators, pablid kibwieldacs, ectoplasm, and
>other things (including supernatural entities) which are not defined.
>

They may actually be defined (or at least described, some of
them), but the fact that they've never been demonstrated to
exist is good enough for me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 29 May 2023 13:04:57 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:07:19?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:22:56?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

Precisely as that rainwater *exactly* fills the pothole,
holding *exactly* its shape, so the pothole *must* have been
designed for that purpose.

Oy...

>
>I could quote from elsewhere in the same video to make the case more
>explicit. You have been presented this evidence multiple times and
>you ignore and deflect.
>
>> Instead, one of the pillars on which he put the theory of ID in that book
>> is something I wrote about to Burkhard in a post to which he still hasn't replied:
>
>Do you want a listing of the posts you have not responded to?
>It might be a good thing to create.
>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/b3QDSySsAAAJ
>> Re: steady state theory of biological origin

>> Apr 18, 2023, 10:20:25?PM

>> Apr 12, 2023, 10:35:19?PM

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 May 2023 15:35:05 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/29/23 12:29 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:27:55?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/29/23 7:05 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:27:17?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/23 2:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:46:54?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/26/23 2:10 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

One might wonder if the above is an example of what Athel alluded to
when he wrote:

"we are increasingly seeing fights between people who are in most
respects quite sensible."

Oh wait... Athel would never killfile Harshman or Nyikos... they can
never do any wrong in his eyes... silly me.

[Mark Isaak]

Others have addressed the more important parts of your post, but I have
not yet seen a response to this:

On 5/29/23 11:00 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> "After seeing the first responses to my OP, I expect a concerted attack on Behe's innocence in what he is doing.
> Such critics should keep in mind the great financial sacrifice he made in his second and third books,
> _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_, by openly and intelligently arguing for common descent.
> With this he risked alienating everyone whom I call a "creationist," both YECs and OECs.
> But his integrity as a scientist cannot be maligned unless one ignores this."
> -- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RIc7ztkDTSI/m/rna2hkxFDAAJ

Before we keep something in mind, perhaps we should know whether it is
real. I have seen no evidence that Behe is suffering economically.
There is a demand, in the US, for the promotion of scientific evidence
for God, and Behe is pretty much the only one filling that demand in the
area of biology. (There are a handful of others working the cosmology
angle.) Religion can easily be an effective road to riches, more easily
than than science, at least for the practitioner. Behe may suffer in
his scientific reputation (deservedly), but, first, I have seen no
evidence that his lesser reputation has reduced his salary, and second,
even if it has, I have seen no evidence that such reduction is not fully
compensated, or more, by the alternate source of income he has established.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/29/23 1:00 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
>>> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
>>> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
>
>> A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
>> transdimensional metasubstantiators,
>
> Are you making fun of the multiverses of theoretical physics?

No. Perhaps you should read the original post. And if you leave
sentences intact, their meanings are easier to discern.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'll give you two men: Edward Feser and the well known Behe nemesis, biologist Kenneth Miller.
Feser is a Catholic philosopher, and I leave it up to you to decide whether
he fits your idea of a theologian.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> Others have addressed the more important parts of your post, but I have
> not yet seen a response to this:
> On 5/29/23 11:00 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > "After seeing the first responses to my OP, I expect a concerted attack on Behe's innocence in what he is doing.
> > Such critics should keep in mind the great financial sacrifice he made in his second and third books,
> > _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_, by openly and intelligently arguing for common descent.
> > With this he risked alienating everyone whom I call a "creationist," both YECs and OECs.
> > But his integrity as a scientist cannot be maligned unless one ignores this."

> > -- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RIc7ztkDTSI/m/rna2hkxFDAAJ
> Before we keep something in mind, perhaps we should know whether it is
> real. I have seen no evidence that Behe is suffering economically.

He isn't suffering economically; in fact I think he is doing better financially
than me -- but I'm not suffering either.

> There is a demand, in the US, for the promotion of scientific evidence
> for God, and Behe is pretty much the only one filling that demand in the
> area of biology.

There are many others in Uncommon Descent and Evolution News, but
as far as authors of books go, I can name one other whom you seem
to have forgotten: Stephen C. Meyer, author of _Signature in the Cell_,
which dealt with abiogenesis, and _Darwin's Doubt_, which is much more than
just a book on the Cambrian explosion. Maybe you forgot Meyer because he
is not a professional biologist.

> (There are a handful of others working the cosmology
> angle.) Religion can easily be an effective road to riches,

Not for books as technical as _The Edge of Evolution_
and _Darwin Devolves_. In fact, the really lucrative religious topics
are far removed from the hard sciences. "Christian Science"
is a huge misnomer, but it's a big money making cult for those
who don't know what a misnomer it is.

> more easily
> than than science, at least for the practitioner. Behe may suffer in
> his scientific reputation (deservedly)

That parenthetical comment ignores the way his own colleagues
wrote a statement distancing themselves from him, and the way
he suffers from the lie at the beginning of the Wikipedia entry
on ID that calls it a "pseudoscience".

It also ignores how Behe is misrepresented in the big outside world.
It wouldn't surprise me if widely disseminated misrepresentations sink to the
level of Daggett's. One that sinks pretty darn far is one I've posted about in reply
to Harshman, only to have him criticize me for mentioning it without acknowledging its unfairness.

> but, first, I have seen no
> evidence that his lesser reputation has reduced his salary, and second,
> even if it has, I have seen no evidence that such reduction is not fully
> compensated, or more, by the alternate source of income he has established.

I suspect that the negative effect on his salary is trifling when compared to what he very likely
loses in the way of purchases by creationists.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I used to think Harshman was sensible on the whole, but his behavior
has seriously deteriorated this year; the above is an example.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of setting up that thread.

>
> Oh wait... Athel would never killfile Harshman or Nyikos... they can
> never do any wrong in his eyes... silly me.

I'm not sure how far your sarcasm is mean to extend. Athel has at least put me
in a *de facto* killfile, never responding to me. I have no idea how he
treats Harshman.

By the way, that does not break a promise I made about not naming people:
what I wrote is not meant to be negative. There are legitimate reasons
for ignoring people, such as lack of time.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:12:06 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> > It seems odd that Behe would explain the
> > scientific theory in a journal of Christian philosophy but not in his books.

> That's because you have no clue as to the widespread hostility towards ID
> in Christian, and specifically Catholic, circles. Thomists, and those
> popularizers who fancy themselves to Thomists, are especially hostile
> because they are committed to a concept of a God who is omnipotent,
> omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In particular, they are under the delusion that
> that it would be beneath the dignity of an omniscient God to intervene in his creation after
> the moment of creation itself.
>
> They thus do atheists an enormous favor, enabling them to successfully
> attack what would be a straw man in the ID setting that Behe works with.
>
>
> One such popularizer is Stacy Trasankos, who did a hatchet job on ID in the
> magazine _Catholic_Answers_, September-October 2018.
>
> The huge type on the cover proclaims: FAITH & SCIENCE and then, still in caps but in smaller letters,
> A FALSE OPPOSITION. The irony is that they put faith in false opposition to ID theory and science.
>
> Stacy's hatchet job is in the article, "Evangelizing Through Evolution." After giving plenty of space
> to the YECs Victor Warkulwiz and Hugh Owen, Tracy claims that ID theory "also has its root in fear."
> After presenting something by Jay Richards to give some idea of what ID is all about, she
> goes on the offensive with: "Just like Young Earth Creationists, ID theorists cannot
> fathom how God could have created matter and energy to produce the diversity of life today,
> so they conjure up miracles as needed to complete their stories."
>
> Kenneth Miller couldn't have done it more poisonously!

By the way, there is an audio on Catholic Answers with the same title, "Evangelizing Through Evolution,"
but I can see that it does not coincide with the article. It's a recording of a radio interview
with Stacy Trasankos as a guest of honor, with phone-in people asking questions:

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/cal-8681

The interview ends shortly after Stacy takes a condescending attitude towards
a very intelligent phone-in participant who thinks there was insufficient time
for humans to evolve without outside help. At one point she accuses ID theorists
of trying to disprove evolution. You can click onto a highlighted 44:30
on the above page to skip to this travesty, without going through the preliminaries.

With an attitude like hers, atheism is going to have no trouble winning over rational people
who have been dissuaded from taking a look at ID theory, including not just biological matters
but the fine tuning of the physical constants. As the old saying goes: there is no need to refute anything
if you can persuade people not to listen to the person who utters it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

If I recall, Miller thinks that God does intervene in creation, just in
ways that exactly mimic natural mutations, and possibly by tweaking
quantum interactions here and there. Can you find an example of him
saying what you claim here?

[Ron Dean]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> [quotes Behe:]

>> But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that
>> far. Thus while I argue for design,
>> the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible
>> candidates for the role of designer
>> include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s
>> demi-urge; some mystical new
>> age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some
>> utterly unknown intelligent
>> being.
>

> Also possible candidates: Unexpected turns of natural evolution;
> interference patterns of a previously unknown physical force;
> confabulation on the part of the interpreter; some or all of the above.
>
> Where does Behe define "design"?  More important, *how* does he define
> it?  "The product of something whose motives and abilities are
> completely unknown" does not narrow the field much.
>

I have not been involved in Talk Origins for several months, however,
I just decided to revisit the site. I observed the subject of design
being
discussed; Intelligent Design is a subject of considerable interest for
me.

The question of Behe's definition of design - I don't know whether or
not he delved into definitions. But I think in any discussion of design,
a commonly acceptable definition is important even crucial.
I think real design is a product of a conscience mind starting with a
predetermined objective, followed by conceptional planing with an
end goal such as constructing objects, such as an electronic circuit,
control system, building, highway bridge, a painting, statue or any
art form. or virtually any complex system or object.

The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
"apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
restrict, confine
and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
are not subject to one's vision.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:55:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 1:00 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
> >>> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
> >>> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
> >
> >> A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
> >> transdimensional metasubstantiators,
> >
> > Are you making fun of the multiverses of theoretical physics?

> No. Perhaps you should read the original post.

I did. You listed three very different things. The second was intentional nonsense.
[I "googled" it to make sure, and besides, it was a rather un-linguistic string of letters.]
The third one was something I've read about many times, "ectoplasm," an
alleged substance, supposedly manipulated during seances.

The first, above, seemed to fall well in between the two, so I asked the question.
I decided to start on a simpler level and work up to a more complicated question if the answer was No.

>And if you leave
> sentences intact, their meanings are easier to discern.

Not sufficiently so. And here is my second question, with a preamble to make it simpler
to understand.

I have often speculated about a "godlike" creature, evolved naturally in a vastly older
and grander universe than ours. I speculated that it might have manipulated the
"stuff" of one of their black hole analogues in one act of *design* to make its basic constants be just right
for intelligent life to have a nonzero probability to evolve within a few billion years [breathtakingly
shorter than it took to evolve one of THEIR species]. The resulting "stuff" then underwent
the Big Bang that produced our own universe.

My question: if this designer also had the power to intervene periodically in OOL and evolution,
via some "avatar" or special mode of manipulation while staying in its own universe,
might you be tempted to call it a "transdimensional metasubstantiator"?

If the answer is yes, I could live with that. It does seem to have an etymological affinity
for the object of my speculation.

I've learned to live with the word "Xordaxians," which was chosen by someone else
to designate my hypothesized Directed Panspermists of the time. These were
hypothesized to share our genetic code or one very similar to ours. I quickly
hypothesized two other, very different kinds, and gave them my own preferred
names: Golians and Throomians.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 8:50:37 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:

Welcome back. Last we heard you were awaiting some medical
treatment. Seemingly, you have come through and thrived.
May you continue to thrive.

[Ron Dean]

Yes, I did - thank you.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/30/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:55:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 1:00 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/23 6:40 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>> So far, there has been a complete silence by other participants about
>>>>> how Behe's stance gives an absolutely necessary [though far from sufficient]
>>>>> feature of any science: a complete lack of reliance on any supernatural entities.
>>>
>>>> A feature (not a bug) of science is a complete lack of reliance on
>>>> transdimensional metasubstantiators,
>>>
>>> Are you making fun of the multiverses of theoretical physics?
>
>> No. Perhaps you should read the original post.
>
> I did. You listed three very different things. The second was intentional nonsense.
> [I "googled" it to make sure, and besides, it was a rather un-linguistic string of letters.]
> The third one was something I've read about many times, "ectoplasm," an
> alleged substance, supposedly manipulated during seances.
>
> The first, above, seemed to fall well in between the two, so I asked the question.
> I decided to start on a simpler level and work up to a more complicated question if the answer was No.
>
>> And if you leave
>> sentences intact, their meanings are easier to discern.
>
> Not sufficiently so.

They are all things that, as the sentence pointed out, are not defined.
Transdimensional metasubstantiation is undefined because I made it up
out of the first sciencey-sounding morphemes that came to mind.
Probably, though, "metasubstantiation" was inspired, at least in part,
by "transubstantiation," brought to liminal consciousness by the
"trans-" prefix. Not that that adds any meaning.

> And here is my second question, with a preamble to make it simpler
> to understand.
>
> I have often speculated about a "godlike" creature, evolved naturally in a vastly older
> and grander universe than ours. I speculated that it might have manipulated the
> "stuff" of one of their black hole analogues in one act of *design* to make its basic constants be just right
> for intelligent life to have a nonzero probability to evolve within a few billion years [breathtakingly
> shorter than it took to evolve one of THEIR species]. The resulting "stuff" then underwent
> the Big Bang that produced our own universe.

Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question"?

> My question: if this designer also had the power to intervene periodically in OOL and evolution,
> via some "avatar" or special mode of manipulation while staying in its own universe,
> might you be tempted to call it a "transdimensional metasubstantiator"?

I would not find that name objectionable, but I might prefer something
shorter.

[jillery]

Welcome back.

If your description above is in fact how you define/identify real
design, then that is the answer to your question.

For those things you can document a conscious mind and a predetermined
objective and conceptual planning and an end goal, then you can be
confident you have an example of real design, by your definition.

For those things you can't document these things, then you have no
objective basis for such confidence.

Easy peasy.

[Öö Tiib]

Other source of illusion of design is that lot of manufactured objects
are made without inventing and designing, but as result of been taught
to do that, copying in "cargo cult" manner or just instinctively.

> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
> restrict, confine
> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> are not subject to one's vision.
>

The real question is why does not "Discovery Institute" research any of
that? It is impossible to take them seriously if they research nothing
but only post political denial articles about science that others do.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:50:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not aware of either of those gentlemen claiming that it would be

"beneath the dignity of an omniscient God to intervene in his creation

after the moment of creation itself". Can you point me to where they
claimed it?

I would be curious in particular to learn how they dismiss the
Incarnation or the Resurrection or other miracles as God intervening
in his creation.


>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

That misunderstands Feser's Thomism. Yes, he is very critical of Behe's theology, and some modern forms of ID more generally, but the criticism is about the form the intervention takes with them, and their frequency, not intervention as such. He has for instance an extensive discussion of how to understand miracles, for instance in his Natural and Supernatural. (in: Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature,): not as breaking laws, but by enhancing or diminishing temporarily their nature, which in turn resides in them) I've used the analogy to the way a violin players may sometimes play crescendo or decrescendo - they remain in all three modes the main causal ground for the music, just vary the intensity of their involvement with it

I'm not a fan of his at all, or this type of neo-thomism in general, but some of his criticism of forms of ID I find very sound, and have made similar points here, for instance to Ray at the time. Paley can in this view only be understood within a Newtonian model of the world, where the world is a clockwork mechanism that almost always works on autopilot, without divine intervention, just requires the occasional tweaking - the way Newton evoked God to compensate for flaws in his model of the solar system that then required God to occasionally rewind it. In Paley, that leads to the position that while God is involved with biological "machines", he did not create pebbles on the beach - if you think his analogy through.

Both aspects, so Feser, diminish God: they remove him from "almost all" of what happens, and when He is forced to intervene, then for things he should have got right first time round, with better engineering.

Instead, God is involved with/intervenes with his creation all the time, and without this intervention it would collapse into nothing again, So this leaves room for miracles, but :

"When God brings about a miracle, this involves his either adding to physical substances powers the natural order would
not suffice to give them or subtracting from physical substances powers they would naturally have, by simply temporarily ceasing his ordinary
conservation of and concurrence with these substances and their powers"

Feser supports natural philosophy and claims God's existence can (also) be inferred from the physical attributes of his creation he simply thinks that the Paley-to-Behe axis does it incompetently, theologically speaking


>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:50:37 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 5/25/23 5:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > [quotes Behe:]
> >> But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that
> >> far. Thus while I argue for design,
> >> the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible
> >> candidates for the role of designer
> >> include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s
> >> demi-urge; some mystical new
> >> age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some
> >> utterly unknown intelligent
> >> being.
> >
> > Also possible candidates: Unexpected turns of natural evolution;
> > interference patterns of a previously unknown physical force;
> > confabulation on the part of the interpreter; some or all of the above.
> >
> > Where does Behe define "design"? More important, *how* does he define
> > it? "The product of something whose motives and abilities are
> > completely unknown" does not narrow the field much.
> >
> I have not been involved in Talk Origins for several months, however,
> I just decided to revisit the site. I observed the subject of design
> being
> discussed; Intelligent Design is a subject of considerable interest for
> me.

well come back Ron ! I hope all is well, and the doctors found a more long-term solution to your health?

>
> The question of Behe's definition of design - I don't know whether or
> not he delved into definitions. But I think in any discussion of design,
> a commonly acceptable definition is important even crucial.
> I think real design is a product of a conscience mind starting with a
> predetermined objective, followed by conceptional planing with an
> end goal such as constructing objects, such as an electronic circuit,
> control system, building, highway bridge, a painting, statue or any
> art form. or virtually any complex system or object.
>
> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
> restrict, confine
> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> are not subject to one's vision.

I'm struggling with this paragraph. First, there are many more than five senses - we've come quite a bit since Aristotle suggested that number. There is e.g. also Thermoception, Nociception (the perception of pain), Equilibrioception (balance) and Proprioception - the perception of body awareness that tells you were your nose relative to your hands is even in the dark. How many is contested, and also depends on how you define "sense", but 21 at least I'd say

Second, "If so, does this not restrict, confine

and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
wherever the evidence leads"

No, of course not, quite on the contrary. "Evidence" comes also etymologically ultimately from e+video, i.e. "seen" or "visible", so by definition I'd say "evidence" are things we perceive through the senses. So far from restricting the scientific enterprise or preventing to go where the evidence leads, "following the senses" seems to be exactly what is demanded here. But maybe your "this" has a different referent?

Then we have "Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> are not subject to one's vision." Now I think I start to get what you try to argue here. If you define "design" as a mere mental operation, we may not be able to "see" it. And that would then remove "design" from the field of science altogether. But as this is plainly absurd - after all you can go to university, study design and take a degree in it - that would be a good reason to reject your definition.

So in reality, of course the process of designing something creates evidence that can be perceived with the senses: designers draw sketches, make plans and models, write down instructions, explain (verbalise) what they do to others etc etc. Just go to the office of an architect, and there you'll be able to see and observe lots of design going on

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I also hope all is well, and that Ron can stay with us for a good long time.
There is no one else like him of whom I know: civil to a fault,
yet having a very different POV than almost anyone else here.
It's quite different from mine, for instance.

> > The question of Behe's definition of design - I don't know whether or
> > not he delved into definitions. But I think in any discussion of design,
> > a commonly acceptable definition is important even crucial.
> > I think real design is a product of a conscience mind starting with a
> > predetermined objective, followed by conceptional planing with an
> > end goal such as constructing objects, such as an electronic circuit,
> > control system, building, highway bridge, a painting, statue or any
> > art form. or virtually any complex system or object.
> >
> > The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
> > "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
> > Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
> > restrict, confine
> > and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> > wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
> > Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> > are not subject to one's vision.

> I'm struggling with this paragraph. First, there are many more than five senses - we've come quite a bit since Aristotle suggested that number. There is e.g. also Thermoception, Nociception (the perception of pain), Equilibrioception (balance) and Proprioception - the perception of body awareness that tells you were your nose relative to your hands is even in the dark. How many is contested, and also depends on how you define "sense", but 21 at least I'd say

That's quite an ambitious number. The only other one of ours that I can think of offhand is usually classed
under vision: the perception of movement where there had been none before. This is widespread among the
vertebrates; it's a huge feature in frogs, for instance. And just today, on my morning walk, I saw a bluebird perched
on the pillar of a mailbox. It seemed to take no note of me as I kept walking, nor when I paused my
walk (which had been on the opposite side of the street) for at least a minute. But once I started
walking again, at the same pace and direction as before, it flew off.

I have to go to other vertebrates for three more senses: the sophisticated
sonar of bats (and perhaps some cetaceans); the infrared sensing of pit vipers;
and the lateral line of fishes that was abandoned by their terrestrial descendants.

>
> Second, "If so, does this not restrict, confine
> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> wherever the evidence leads"

> No, of course not, quite on the contrary. "Evidence" comes also etymologically ultimately from e+video, i.e. "seen" or "visible", so by definition I'd say "evidence" are things we perceive through the senses.

Your use of "we" is ambiguous. As a keen student of the philosophy of mind, I know that
the precise expression is "I perceive through the senses, and I assume others do,
based on the natural assumption that they are NOT unconscious zombies."

Descartes told Mersenne in a letter that all "brute animals" were "like automatons,"
giving only humans the benefit of the doubt that almost everyone gives them.
I shudder to think of the incredible amount of suffering inflicted on mammals and birds
on account of the words he wrote to Mersenne.

> So far from restricting the scientific enterprise or preventing to go where the evidence leads, "following the senses" seems to be exactly what is demanded here. But maybe your "this" has a different referent?
>
> Then we have "Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams

Psychology once gave great weight to introspection, with Wundt its chief proponent.
But that was swept away in the tremendous onrush of behaviorism, led by James B. Watson.

Watson, too, has much to answer for, if there is a hereafter.
He dissuaded mothers from hugging their children, and to refrain from kissing them in any way
but occasional pecks on the cheek. I've read part of a book by one of his
granddaughters about the baleful effects her mother, daughter of James B,
had on her by sticking to the role demanded by James.

> > are not subject to one's vision." Now I think I start to get what you try to argue here. If you define "design" as a mere mental operation, we may not be able to "see" it. And that would then remove "design" from the field of science altogether. But as this is plainly absurd - after all you can go to university, study design and take a degree in it - that would be a good reason to reject your definition.
>
> So in reality, of course the process of designing something creates evidence that can be perceived with the senses: designers draw sketches, make plans and models, write down instructions, explain (verbalise) what they do to others etc etc. Just go to the office of an architect, and there you'll be able to see and observe lots of design going on

Mark Isaak's question, far above, remains unanswered, so I will answer it now. Behe does not define design *per se*,
only intelligent design: purposeful design by intelligent beings, of a form believed to be beyond
the capability of forces lacking it. Consciousness does not necessarily enter into it: a sleepwalker
can indulge in it without knowing it. I can personally attest to two such sleepwalking episodes in my life.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

You may include electrical senses, as in sharks, various teleosts, and
platypodes. Should one include the sense of humor, and perhaps the
sensus divinatis? Or would that not be good sense?

[Burkhard]

As I said, there is considerable spread in the numbers - it depends on how you define "sense", and also if you are lumper or splitter. I always prefer my ontologies rich and elaborate, so tend to go with a wide definition and splitting.

So you get e.g. the sense that your bladder is full to bursting. Some group this into a group of " interoception" toegther with sensing your heartbeat, hormone levels etc (sense of danger...), hunger, thirst.... others split it into a number of different groups. Sense of heat would be another candidate, the perception of the day and night cycle as the basis for circadian rhythms etc, sense of speed....

I think I've seen some go as high as 53

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 20:47:48 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good to see you back, I hope your health issues are and continue to be
managed successfully.

I think that those other senses are important in that science cannot
tell us the answer to everything but we need to be aware that our
senses can get things wrong and often does. Where we have answers - or
at least strong pointers to answers - based on scientific research,
that should be our starting point with other senses used to
*supplement* what science is telling us or figure out its implication,
not *replacing* science which is what many if not most ID proponents
seek to do.

[Mark Isaak]

If you count by distinct types of sensory receptors, smell alone could
be divided into (as I recall) hundreds of different senses (and five for
taste, two for vision, at least three for touch). But yes, it's all the
interoception senses that miss the publicity. (And don't forget
kinesthesia.)

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/31/23 8:20 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Mark Isaak's question, far above, remains unanswered, so I will answer it now. Behe does not define design *per se*,
> only intelligent design: purposeful design by intelligent beings, of a form believed to be beyond
> the capability of forces lacking it.

Then, since the designer's motivations and capabilities are unknown, we
can never know, even in principle, whether or not something was the
product of the designer. We appear to be done with the subject.

Strange that Behe was able to write three books on a subject that can be
covered exhaustively in five or six lines.

[Ron Dean]

..
Thanks, Jill

>
> If your description above is in fact how you define/identify real
> design, then that is the answer to your question.
>

I did, in fact, pose the question, how does one distinguish between
_real_assert design and Richard Dawkins assertions of, "apparent
design for a purpose" or the "illusion of design"?
I suspect that there are other factors at play here, such as, what I
see, as the philosophical position that _nature_is_all_there_is_.
So. the only possible answer has to fall within the scope of nature
or natural processes.
Over the past several decades this philosophy has become
entrenched within modern science: but this was not the position
of the fathers of modern science.

>
> For those things you can document a conscious mind and a predetermined
> objective and conceptual planning and an end goal, then you can be
> confident you have an example of real design, by your definition.
>
> For those things you can't document these things, then you have no
> objective basis for such confidence.
>

Any attempt to document design apart from nature is automatically
disqualified on philosophical grounds.

> Easy peasy.
>

[Ron Dean]

OK, you have a point: but even if an object is manufactured then copied,
would the copied object not be recognized as a design? For example:
If I find a recognizable electronic circuit board in a system I
purchased with a printed circuit board set with transistors, SCRs
triacs, resistors, capacitors etc. It's certainly a copy, since the the
origional
is not likely part of the system. Nevertheless, the circuit board is a
design. It did not just happen as a random process.

>
>> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
>> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
>> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
>> restrict, confine
>> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
>> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
>> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
>> are not subject to one's vision.
>>
> The real question is why does not "Discovery Institute" research any of
> that? It is impossible to take them seriously if they research nothing
> but only post political denial articles about science that others do.
>

I know virtually nothing about the "Discovery Institute". I have had no
dealings with this organization.

[Ron Dean]

Thank you. I hope so.

>>
>> The question of Behe's definition of design - I don't know whether or
>> not he delved into definitions. But I think in any discussion of design,
>> a commonly acceptable definition is important even crucial.
>> I think real design is a product of a conscience mind starting with a
>> predetermined objective, followed by conceptional planing with an
>> end goal such as constructing objects, such as an electronic circuit,
>> control system, building, highway bridge, a painting, statue or any
>> art form. or virtually any complex system or object.
>>
>> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
>> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
>> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
>> restrict, confine
>> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
>> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
>> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
>> are not subject to one's vision.
>
> I'm struggling with this paragraph. First, there are many more than five senses - we've come quite a bit since Aristotle suggested that number. There is e.g. also Thermoception, Nociception (the perception of pain), Equilibrioception (balance) and Proprioception - the perception of body awareness that tells you were your nose relative to your hands is even in the dark. How many is contested, and also depends on how you define "sense", but 21 at least I'd say
>

Isn't feeling one of the senses. So feeling heat, pain, balance etc is
one of our senses. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Ron Dean]

Thank you.

>
> I think that those other senses are important in that science cannot
> tell us the answer to everything but we need to be aware that our
> senses can get things wrong and often does. Where we have answers - or
> at least strong pointers to answers - based on scientific research,
> that should be our starting point with other senses used to
> *supplement* what science is telling us or figure out its implication,
> not *replacing* science which is what many if not most ID proponents
> seek to do.
>

I can only answer for myself. I arrived at my position independent from
other ID advocates. In that, what I see as clear evidence of design in
nature. Who or what caused the design I know of no direct
or empirical _evidence_ as to who or what steered or planned any design.
Nor is it necessary to identify the designer in order to recognize design.
I may _believe_ the designer could be the Bible God, some space entities
or a magician. There is a difference between evidence and belief
I think one can recognize design in and of itself alone, without identifying
a designer.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 May 2023 23:41:54 -0400, Ron Dean

I know. I read your post. Did you think otherwise?

>I suspect that there are other factors at play here, such as, what I
>see, as the philosophical position that _nature_is_all_there_is_.
>So. the only possible answer has to fall within the scope of nature
>or natural processes.
>Over the past several decades this philosophy has become
>entrenched within modern science: but this was not the position
>of the fathers of modern science.
>>
>> For those things you can document a conscious mind and a predetermined
>> objective and conceptual planning and an end goal, then you can be
>> confident you have an example of real design, by your definition.
>>
>> For those things you can't document these things, then you have no
>> objective basis for such confidence.
>>

>> Easy peasy.

>
>Any attempt to document design apart from nature is automatically
>disqualified on philosophical grounds.

??? Your expressed description/definition of real design is based on
nature. If you think your complaint above is legitimate, you need to
provide a description/definition of real design that's "apart from
nature".

[Ron Dean]

Thank you, Peter. I hope so, I had very serious heart and kidney
problems. My Doctor, a general practioner seemed to think that
heart and kidney problems go hand in hand. He first began treating
my kidneys with drugs, with some improvement. But about six weeks
later, l had to go back into the hospital. After testing it was decided
that an operation on my heart was needed - which they did.
After recovery, I began feeling better and over time my kidney
function started improving. Today I feel well and I believe i'm
good to reach 100 years of age.

[Öö Tiib]

I meant way simpler designs like person throwing a log over brook to
form a bridge or bird making its nest, or badger excavating its
complex system of tunnels.

Circuit boards are bad example of guaranteed design. Those are
manufactured by robotic construction lines almost exclusively (even
prototypes). Doing anything by hand will get reaction like "Wow you
manually soldered those LEDs?". Even if electronics engineer
plagiarises some idea on his board then he must produce rather
formal specification anyway. So that process is very clear very
formal and has no analogies in biologic systems.

> >
> >> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
> >> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
> >> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
> >> restrict, confine
> >> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> >> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
> >> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> >> are not subject to one's vision.
> >>
> > The real question is why does not "Discovery Institute" research any of
> > that? It is impossible to take them seriously if they research nothing
> > but only post political denial articles about science that others do.
> >
> I know virtually nothing about the "Discovery Institute". I have had no
> dealings with this organization.
>

Odd. Majority pages of Internet mentioning "Intelligent Design" positively
are either directly made by that organisation or link to it. Most discussed
scientist in this thread Professor Michael Joseph Behe is member
("Senior Fellow") of that organization.

[Burkhard]

That's a bit like saying there is just one sense, "experiencing", so we experience blue light, a nasty smell etc etc. "Feeling" has a very similar logic, and is not one of the senses itself, it is more a term that defines what we mean with senses.

[Mark Isaak]

Do you recognize trial and error as a design process?

(And I also am glad for your recovery and reappearance here. I hope to
see your posts for a long time yet.)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

That is easily handled in almost all cases within archeology,
but the problem is central to Intelligent Design (ID),
which is about organisms and parts of organisms
and, on a far higher level, of universes such as ours.

> I suspect that there are other factors at play here, such as, what I
> see, as the philosophical position that _nature_is_all_there_is_.
> So. the only possible answer has to fall within the scope of nature
> or natural processes.

That depends on how you define these terms. If "nature" is "all there is"
you would have to include God, angels, demons, etc. if you believe they exist.
You would have to also include dark matter, and the entire multiverse.

> Over the past several decades this philosophy has become
> entrenched within modern science: but this was not the position
> of the fathers of modern science.

You obviously have a much more restricted idea of nature from
the one I have described.

> > For those things you can document a conscious mind and a predetermined
> > objective and conceptual planning and an end goal, then you can be
> > confident you have an example of real design, by your definition.
> >
> > For those things you can't document these things, then you have no
> > objective basis for such confidence.

Confidence, no; optimism, maybe.

> Any attempt to document design apart from nature is automatically
> disqualified on philosophical grounds.

See above for the problem of defining "nature."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Nor did I, when I returned to talk.origins 12.5 years ago. A t.o. regular
who was very well known at the time, and who has said he would
ask that I be banned from talk.origins no later than today, absolutely
refused to believe that I, too, had never heard of Discovery Institute (DI).
The idea that anyone could possibly have a well developed theory of ID
without being a "rube" of DI or a "perp" of DI went beyond the powers of his cramped mind.

Once he realized that my theory was confined to Directed Panspermia (DP) at
the time, he lost interest in it, but by that time he had gotten mired in getting
me to assent to a thoroughly imaginary "bait and switch" by the DI,
and so our adversarial relationship has festered to this day.

> Odd. Majority pages of Internet mentioning "Intelligent Design" positively
> are either directly made by that organisation or link to it.

I got interested in DP and its connection to OOL before I ever heard of
the ID movement, and had read the book that made it natural to
think of ID after reading the following statement in it:

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

The "senders" to which Crick refers are the hypothetical directed
panspermists: intelligent creatures of almost 4 billion years
ago who sent microorganisms to earth, which according to the
hypothesis that was popular in 1981, had an ocean rich in amino acids and various
other organic materials but no living things as yet. He developed
this DP hypothesis together with Leslie Orgel. They didn't claim
this is more likely or less likely than life arising here
spontaneously, precisely because neither of them knew,
nor does anyone living today know what the odds are.

>Most discussed
> scientist in this thread Professor Michael Joseph Behe is member
> ("Senior Fellow") of that organization.

It's an honorary title, and he has nothing to do with the running
of the organization; and he has hardly any influence on its direction.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Back when I took a year of psychology, what Burkhard calls " Equilibrioception (balance) and Proprioception"
were called "the labyrinthine sense" and "the kinesthetic sense," respectively.

By the way, the sense of taste has undergone some hard knocks,
and I don't think they are over. It does violence to my perceptions
to claim that all tastes are just mixtures of different proportions
of sweet, salty, sour, and bitter. [An exception is made for a fifth taste
for one chemical that some people have and some people don't.]
I have experienced hundreds of different tastes, but these are dismissed
as due to smells. I remain skeptical.

One thing I was long suspicious of is vindicated by the "hard knocks" I mentioned.
The old textbook claim was that sweet was experienced at the front of the tongue,
salty on the sides, sour in the middle and bitter in the back. It's now known that
the situation is more complicated than that.


I'm reminded of the way high school texts copied off each other for decades
that the brain has three parts: cerebrum, cerebellum, and medulla oblongata.
In fact, there are three more: midbrain, pons, and the all-important diencephalon,
home of the thalamus and the hypothalamus. All but one of the traditional
5 senses passes through the thalamus on the way to the cerebrum.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

But the point I was trying to address was the _issue_of copying a design.
I suppose this is reminiscent of Wm.Paley watch. So, when coming across
such a object one's impression is one of design, not of random processes.

>
Circuit boards are bad example of guaranteed design. Those are
> manufactured by robotic construction lines almost exclusively (even
> prototypes). Doing anything by hand will get reaction like "Wow you
> manually soldered those LEDs?". Even if electronics engineer
> plagiarises some idea on his board then he must produce rather
> formal specification anyway. So that process is very clear very
> formal and has no analogies in biologic systems.
>

It doesn't matter how a board came about, bottom line it's design
for a purpose.

>>>
>>>> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
>>>> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
>>>> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
>>>> restrict, confine
>>>> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
>>>> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
>>>> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
>>>> are not subject to one's vision.
>>>>
>>> The real question is why does not "Discovery Institute" research any of
>>> that? It is impossible to take them seriously if they research nothing
>>> but only post political denial articles about science that others do.
>>>
>> I know virtually nothing about the "Discovery Institute". I have had no
>> dealings with this organization.
>>
> Odd. Majority pages of Internet mentioning "Intelligent Design" positively
> are either directly made by that organisation or link to it. Most discussed
> scientist in this thread Professor Michael Joseph Behe is member
> ("Senior Fellow") of that organization.
>

I'm speaking personally, not for Behe. As I stated, I arrived at my
conclusions
independently. And this was before I ever heard of Discovery Institute or
Talk.Origins.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:50:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/31/23 8:20 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mark Isaak's question, far above, remains unanswered, so I will answer it now. Behe does not define design *per se*,
> > only intelligent design: purposeful design by intelligent beings, of a form believed to be beyond
> > the capability of forces lacking it.

> Then, since the designer's motivations and capabilities are unknown, we
> can never know, even in principle, whether or not something was the
> product of the designer.

The word "know" is the big equivocation here. We may never know,
even in principle, how many scientifically preferable words your
subconscious mind rejected before you picked that one.

However, we can make a good guess at your motivation for using it:
you wanted to be able to indulge in a one-line farce:

> We appear to be done with the subject.

The fact is, there are a number of possible hypotheses for the motivations
and capabilities of directed panspermists. The easy case is capabilities:
there is the obvious possibility that they have a level of understanding
of science very close to ours [recall Ockham's Razor] and a level of
technology attainable by ourselves in a century or two, if we keep
making progress at the rate we have attained in the past decade.

Motivations are a trickier subject, but it is natural to think that
the evolution of their species weeded out those who hated
life and wanted to die [with exceptions, like among humans]
with the ones most involved in the project having a "lust for life"
and wanting as many different species as possible to experience
the thrill of experiencing rich lives on the level they are leading

I seem to recall a burst of "you can't assume any such thing"
from you, but your one-line farce makes it hard for you to do it again.
It's too much like the simplistic way you thought you
had refuted IC by claiming that Behe got the definition of "part" wrong.

I countered with a parable that began with you going into the Parts department
of an automobile dealership and ordering a dozen molecules of plastic
and a hundred atom of iron. Remember?

> Strange that Behe was able to write three books on a subject that can be
> covered exhaustively in five or six lines.

It's bad form to pat yourself on the back like this without running
what you wrote by some critics. Remember how you told me that a good scientist
is his own most severe critic? And that was in a context where I
was *inviting* comments/criticism from others.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Your .sig makes a similar point to the one I made just now.

[Ron Dean]

it's more of a learning process. but, errors can and do occur.

> (And I also am glad for your recovery and reappearance here.  I hope to
> see your posts for a long time yet.)
>

Mark, I especially appreciate this.

[Ron Dean]

I assumed Dawkins was in reference to "design" in biological
organisms. Whether he was or not, it could be in reference to....

>
>> I suspect that there are other factors at play here, such as, what I
>> see, as the philosophical position that _nature_is_all_there_is_.
>> So. the only possible answer has to fall within the scope of nature
>> or natural processes.
>
> That depends on how you define these terms. If "nature" is "all there is"
> you would have to include God, angels, demons, etc. if you believe they exist.
> You would have to also include dark matter, and the entire multiverse.
>

I could be wrong, but I would think nature, in that when in discussions with
skeptics, naturally occurring complexities, structures or systems
automatically excludes God, angels, demons etc..

[Öö Tiib]

But if I think about origins of a calf then apparently some cow has given
birth and if I think about origins of a circuit board or clock then apparently
some such factory made it. Neither is a random process, but I disagree that
calf was designed for a purpose. I mean that some mother can talk to
kid such nonsense to avoid discussing animal reproduction but that does
not matter.

> >
> Circuit boards are bad example of guaranteed design. Those are
> > manufactured by robotic construction lines almost exclusively (even
> > prototypes). Doing anything by hand will get reaction like "Wow you
> > manually soldered those LEDs?". Even if electronics engineer
> > plagiarises some idea on his board then he must produce rather
> > formal specification anyway. So that process is very clear very
> > formal and has no analogies in biologic systems.
> >
> It doesn't matter how a board came about, bottom line it's design
> for a purpose.
>

But difference is that I know it. How life appeared on our planet I do not know.
How can I know it?

> >>>
> >>>> The question is: how does one distinguish between _real_design and
> >>>> "apparent design or the illusion of design". (Dawkins).
> >>>> Is it strictly through the 5 (five) senses? If so, does this not
> >>>> restrict, confine
> >>>> and limit the scientific enterprise? This rules out the ideal of "going
> >>>> wherever the evidence leads". But this is the realm of science,
> >>>> Certainly, mental concepts, imagination, thought, planning and dreams
> >>>> are not subject to one's vision.
> >>>>
> >>> The real question is why does not "Discovery Institute" research any of
> >>> that? It is impossible to take them seriously if they research nothing
> >>> but only post political denial articles about science that others do.
> >>>
> >> I know virtually nothing about the "Discovery Institute". I have had no
> >> dealings with this organization.
> >>
> > Odd. Majority pages of Internet mentioning "Intelligent Design" positively
> > are either directly made by that organisation or link to it. Most discussed
> > scientist in this thread Professor Michael Joseph Behe is member
> > ("Senior Fellow") of that organization.
> >
> I'm speaking personally, not for Behe. As I stated, I arrived at my
> conclusions
> independently. And this was before I ever heard of Discovery Institute or
> Talk.Origins.

OK.

[Burkhard]

Yes and no, I'd say. It's complicated. What counts as natural is a moving target. Newton was accused by some of his contemporaries to permit "ghost like" properties into the natural sciences - the fact that gravity works at a distance. We don't think of gravity any longer as even remotely "non-natural" because his theory allows us to test, quantify, work with it. Something similar happened with early proponent of the germ theory of diseases.

So it's not so much: "science can only study what is natural", rather, whatever science successfully studies counts as natural. There has been e.g. an off and on interest in the scientific study of ghosts, here an example involving also the institute for paranormal research at my own university:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/17/highereducation.education

What would happen if they really managed to observe, measure and identify ghosts? I'd say that after an initial shock, ghosts would just become "another natural thing" and depending on what properties our theories would ascribe to them, we could tax them, or use them as an energy source etc. People are more reluctant to carry out that sort of research when it comes to God, angels etc - but the net result would be the same - they would get "domesticated" and manipulated to do our bidding, as this is what science does.

One of the founding father's or modern science, Francis Bacon, saw this very clearly - The approach of the scientists to their domain is one of
domination and control: a good experimental design forces nature to give clear, binary answers. In Bacon's word, "to tweak the lion's tail".

So Gods, angles, demons could well be treated in a scientific theory - but in the process they'd lose their distinguishing feature, and become "just natural" . So if ID where to succeed, we could have a world where you get from your local gas station "1kiloBehe of God-juice" into your car in the morning, and it not only drives, but whenever there is an accident repairs itself in a way that increases its complexity.

Which is why more thoughtful theologians were always worried about natural theology, it inevitably debases the divine.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/1/23 7:11 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:50:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 8:20 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak's question, far above, remains unanswered, so I will answer it now. Behe does not define design *per se*,
>>> only intelligent design: purposeful design by intelligent beings, of a form believed to be beyond
>>> the capability of forces lacking it.
>
>> Then, since the designer's motivations and capabilities are unknown, we
>> can never know, even in principle, whether or not something was the
>> product of the designer.
>
> The word "know" is the big equivocation here.

No, it is a reference to epistemology. The data we have about the
designer is nil, with no prospect of that changing, at least not within
several generations, and even then with no likelihood of edification.
And even that refers only to your theory. For Behe's "theory", unknown
is the sum total of it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/1/23 7:23 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>

>> Do you recognize trial and error as a design process?
> >
> it's more of a learning process. but, errors can and do occur.

But the learning process, complete with errors, is an essential part of
how design is done, no? An early pyramid needed to have heavy timbers
brought in to shore it up, and even after that it was abandoned as a
failure. But later pyramids got better. And over time, other building
processes were learned: arches, concrete, steel reinforcement, etc. And
I guarantee none of those were complete successes the first time they
were tried.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:40:39 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/1/23 7:11 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:50:38 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 5/31/23 8:20 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Mark Isaak's question, far above, remains unanswered, so I will answer it now. Behe does not define design *per se*,
> >>> only intelligent design: purposeful design by intelligent beings, of a form believed to be beyond
> >>> the capability of forces lacking it.
> >
> >> Then, since the designer's motivations and capabilities are unknown, we
> >> can never know, even in principle, whether or not something was the
> >> product of the designer.

You seem to be in the habit of snipping the vast majority of lines I post.
All you left in this time was one sentence out of a series of arguments
that forcefully argued against what you wrote in the preceding paragraph.

Here is a link to the post to which you are replying, and to whose whole real
message Casanova (as well as three other people who might show up on
this thread later) will be completely oblivious UNLESS you leave in the
following reference in your reply, if any, to the post I am making now:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RIc7ztkDTSI/m/VIjb1BsrAgAJ
Re: THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID)
Jun 1, 2023, 10:15:39 PM


Here comes that one line:

> > The word "know" is the big equivocation here.

Unbeknownst to me, your use of the word "we" was an even greater
equivocation, as it turns out below.

> No, it is a reference to epistemology.

That hardly helps at all. Epistemology includes complete
skepticism about everything [Berkeley on the existence of matter,
Hume on the existence of causality, etc.] and this seemed to be the
tack you were taking before.

> The data we have about the
> designer is nil, with no prospect of that changing, at least not within
> several generations,

Huge backpedal, including the pusillanimous word "several," noted.

> and even then with no likelihood of edification.

Probably false if you allow a thousand years. I have given plenty of alternative outcomes,
covering all bases, in threads on directed panspermia. The last thorough one was about a
decade ago, but you were not only a witness, but an active participant.

> And even that refers only to your theory.

What do you know about scientific theories? A scientific theory is one that is testable
IN PRINCIPLE, and mine goes beyond that. It will almost certainly become testable
in the strictest sense, if human beings continue advancing in technology,
and endure for 10,000 years, to pick a nice round number. It's less than 1% of the time
that our genus *Homo* has been in existence, but ten times the figure I gave in the
preceding paragraph.

> For Behe's "theory", unknown is the sum total of it.

No, only the part that does not include mine, and mine keeps growing.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/1/23 7:23 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you recognize trial and error as a design process?
>>  >
>> it's more of a learning process. but, errors can and do occur.
>
> But the learning process, complete with errors, is an essential part of
> how design is done, no?  An early pyramid needed to have heavy timbers
> brought in to shore it up, and even after that it was abandoned as a
> failure.  But later pyramids got better.  And over time, other building
> processes were learned: arches, concrete, steel reinforcement, etc.  And
> I guarantee none of those were complete successes the first time they
> were tried.
>

Yes, you've provided more detail and what you wrote, as I see it, confirms
my expressed opinion.

[Ron Dean]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/1/23 7:23 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you recognize trial and error as a design process?
>>  >
>> it's more of a learning process. but, errors can and do occur.
>
> But the learning process, complete with errors, is an essential part of
> how design is done, no?  An early pyramid needed to have heavy timbers
> brought in to shore it up, and even after that it was abandoned as a
> failure.  But later pyramids got better.  And over time, other building
> processes were learned: arches, concrete, steel reinforcement, etc.  And
> I guarantee none of those were complete successes the first time they
> were tried.
>

[Ron Dean]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/1/23 7:23 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you recognize trial and error as a design process?
>>  >
>> it's more of a learning process. but, errors can and do occur.
>
> But the learning process, complete with errors, is an essential part of
> how design is done, no?  An early pyramid needed to have heavy timbers
> brought in to shore it up, and even after that it was abandoned as a
> failure.  But later pyramids got better.  And over time, other building
> processes were learned: arches, concrete, steel reinforcement, etc.  And
> I guarantee none of those were complete successes the first time they
> were tried.
>

[Ron Dean]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how anything you wrote above applies
to anything I wrote. I point to what I see as design. I make no
inference or conclusion as to how of design I do not introduced
refer to gods, theology or spirits to anything I write. To recognize
design, stands on its own "legs"
it needs nothing more.

[Ron Dean]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how anything you wrote above applies
to anything I wrote. I point to what I see as design. I make no
inference or conclusion as to how of design I do not introduced
refer to gods, theology or spirits to anything I write. To recognize
design, stands on its own "legs"
it needs nothing more.
>
>>>
>>>

[Ron Dean]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how anything you wrote above applies
to anything I wrote. I point to what I see as design. I make no
inference or conclusion as to how of design I do not introduced
refer to gods, theology or spirits to anything I write. To recognize
design, stands on its own "legs"
it needs nothing more.
>
>>>
>>>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:55:33 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:50:33 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:15:35 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:


> > > > but I'd rather save talk about [the motives for a directed panspermia project]
> > > >until after we see what comes of a certain person's repeated
> > > > claim that if I don't ask DIG to ban me from talk.origins by Wednesday of next
> > > > week, he will do it "for me."

> > >That threat has no basis in reality whatsoever, and will as likely come true as my prediction that by next Wednesday, he will only post prayers, in Istriot, eulogising the sacred heart

Unless Ron O is bluffing, you have been refuted. The following is the entre content thus far of the thread,
"email sent to David Greig" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/rpIkQn-ZztE

[blank avatar] RonO
Jun 1, 2023, 10:10:39 PM (20 hours ago)
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I sent in the request. I can post it if anyone wants to see it. It
isn't a personal letter, but a formal request.

Ron Okimoto

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:10:39 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> I sent in the request. I can post it if anyone wants to see it. It
> isn't a personal letter, but a formal request.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[blank avatar] peter2...@gmail.com
11:05 AM (7 hours ago)
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'd like to see it.

Peter Nyikos
========================================================== end of included thread

I suspect Ron O will fall back on his use of "can" as opposed to "will," until someone who
gets some respect from him requests to see it. I suspect he doesn't give you enough respect for that, Burk.


> > I think Ron Okimoto is demented enough to believe he will succeed. Can you give one argument
> > to the contrary?

> Not any more than the one I gave - that there is no reason whatsoever to believe it, it's pure fantasy. I wasn't around when Kleinman was barred, and don't think it was necessary, but I can see where DIG was coming from

In what way? The argument that precipitated the banning was an incredibly lengthy
and repetitious back and forth about Ron O's connection [never resolved] with
a university in Arkansas. At the end, probably frustrated because Kleinman
would not let him get in the last word, he began ranting about how people
shouldn't have to put up with that kind of harassment, and then said he would
ask that Kleinman be banned. Then Kleinman got in the last repetitious comment of the thread.


> - he was becoming too disruptive, posting pre-formulated "replies" that had absolutely nothing to do with the posts they were attached to, only to the name of the poster (he may have automated this) quite literally swamping the board and making it difficult to find the messages one was interested in.

I was away on an extended posting break, so I can't comment on this.
It was several weeks after I resumed posting that I finally learned that
Kleinman had been banned, but I hunted around until I found the thread
that I summarized above.


> Nothing even remotely similar going on now. The only candidate for a ban is Ron himself, and that he's still allowed to be around shows how forbearing DIG is.

I hope you are more correct about this than about your first prediction above.


Peter Nyikos

PS I won't have time until next week to talk about the possible motives of the panspermists
hypothesized by Crick and Orgel, but I gave one possibility to Mark Isaak yesterday.
This thread is quite fast paced, but this information should help you to find it quickly:

[Ron Dean]

Modern cows were bred, by man, the ancestor is extinct. You know this.

I think without knowing for a fact, anyone is subject to doubt and at
times skepticism.
Truth is, I have considerable doubts from time to time, and this is long
trm.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Ron is using "feeling" in the old simplified sense (!) of the word "senses".

> That's a bit like saying there is just one sense, "experiencing", so we experience blue light, a nasty smell etc etc. "Feeling" has a very similar logic, and is not one of the senses itself, it is more a term that defines what we mean with senses.

Even in our psychology text, the term "sense of touch" was used. I forget whether it
included pressure, warmth, or cold. IIRC it mentioned that we had distinct nerve endings
for all three of these "primary" sensations, and that "hot" was a compound of both cold and warm
nerve endings being set off simultaneously.


Peter Nyikos

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:05:40 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
<snip>

> I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how anything you wrote above applies
> to anything I wrote. I point to what I see as design. I make no
> inference or conclusion as to how of design I do not introduced
> refer to gods, theology or spirits to anything I write. To recognize
> design, stands on its own "legs"
> it needs nothing more.

<snip>

Very glad to see that your health is better. Welcome back.

It seems to me that if you want to identify design and then convince anyone else that your identification is correct, you need a set of criteria which distinguish designed from undesigned things. That does not mean that you need to give examples of things you think are designed, it means you need look at a large set of things that we all agree are designed (computers, lawn mowers, aircraft carriers, cathedrals,etc) and a large set of things we all agree are not designed (clouds, rivers, tornadoes, rocks, mountains, etc) and then come up with a set of characteristics that are found only in one or the other set. In the past you have either (1) just listed examples of things you think are designed or (2) given characteristics which, while they are found in some designed things, are also found in some things we generally agree are not designed. If you cannot find such criteria then you can always fall back on "I know it when I see it," but you won't be able to convince anyone else.

[Burkhard]

Leaving aside that this inference has no legs to stand on, my comments addressed a different question of yours, to wit if Gods, angles etc are as you put it "automatically excluded". My answer is they are not "automatically" excluded, but as soon as they get included, they become just another natural thing - to be controlled, dominated and if possible exploited by humans. So for anyone who believes i gods, demons, angels etc that putative success of an ID theory would be bad news for their faith.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 00:53:49 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Good to see you back, I hope your health issues are and continue to be
>> managed successfully.
> >
>Thank you.
>>
>> I think that those other senses are important in that science cannot
>> tell us the answer to everything but we need to be aware that our
>> senses can get things wrong and often does. Where we have answers - or
>> at least strong pointers to answers - based on scientific research,
>> that should be our starting point with other senses used to
>> *supplement* what science is telling us or figure out its implication,
>> not *replacing* science which is what many if not most ID proponents
>> seek to do.
>>
>I can only answer for myself. I arrived at my position independent from
>other ID advocates. In that, what I see as clear evidence of design in
>nature.

The problem is that you never tell us what form this "evidence" is
other than *looking* designed. Please explain the grounds on which you
would discount a snowflake as designed but conclude that some aspects
of biology are designed - pick your own example of the latter.