tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post1699902935189457005..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Reducible Complexity: reply to the IDeologsAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-536071061305938932012-02-10T15:11:24.810-05:002012-02-10T15:11:24.810-05:00sorry for typo:
Hmm, I suppose that Behe also need...sorry for typo:<br />Hmm, I suppose that Behe also needs to consider if the intelligent designer of [flagella] was a different designer than the intelligent designer of the blood clotting cascade. After all, the blood clotting cascade sometimes fights off various potentially deadly flagella attacks. : -)James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43927125082532911292012-02-10T09:46:27.150-05:002012-02-10T09:46:27.150-05:00Ken,
In all fairness to the leading ID advocates,...Ken,<br /><br />In all fairness to the leading ID advocates, they say that they have yet to identify the intelligent designer. For example, Behe says that possible candidates for the intelligent designer of bacterial flagella include (1) God Almighty, (2) God who died after designing the flagella, or (3) an alien who left no other material evidence except the irreducibly complex bacterial flagella. Hmm, I suppose that Behe also needs to consider if the intelligent designer of blood clotting was a different designer than the intelligent designer of the blood clotting cascade. After all, the blood clotting cascade sometimes fights off various potentially deadly flagella attacks. : -)<br /><br />Concerning your comments about religious texts stating that humans are made in the image of God, there are lengthy philosophical discussions that explore what that means and does not mean.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-88461666571476358242012-02-09T15:32:27.079-05:002012-02-09T15:32:27.079-05:00There is of course the point that one may call arr...There is of course the point that one may call arrogance or presumptuousness on our part even to use the word 'intelligent', or try to infer about that, in the context of a God who is widely believed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Presumably God is smarter and less superficially crude than humans are, and why would we even expect God's thinking processes--if the word 'thinking' even applies--to resemble ours in any way at all.<br /><br />And we cannot be in any God's image and likeness given that we are so far from omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-71502573997885504352012-02-09T14:39:29.637-05:002012-02-09T14:39:29.637-05:00Thank you. I'm excited to get my first book un...Thank you. I'm excited to get my first book under my belt.<br /><br />Back to the main topic, perhaps Behe could make some cases for unlikely complex molecular tinkering, but he has no case for the intelligent design of irreducibly complex biochemical systems.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-19011288017401554932012-02-08T20:42:29.453-05:002012-02-08T20:42:29.453-05:00Far be it from us to attempt to dissuade anyone fr...Far be it from us to attempt to dissuade anyone from what they have personally experienced! The idea of deism or theism, that there is a God who started it all is, of course, ancient. But that doesn't come with any evidence other than it is easy to imagine it and hard to imagine there being no existence of any kind etc., or to imagine how the universe could be.<br /><br />But that's a far cry from the idea of a personal God who, in the vastness of the same universe would care about us measly blobs of protoplasm. Or one who would tolerate, much less be responsible for, the cruelty and injustice, a full share of which is done by believers.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll certainly want to read your book! I know you have been giving very thoughtful attention to these subjects for many years. If I had any kind of personal experience that convinced me, or that I could not just as easily attribute to illusion, of course I'd be very happy.<br /><br />But none of it would relate to the topic du jour, the false reasoning of IDers, and the little appreciated fact that there isn't any particular need for evolutionary explanations of 'partial' traits because Complexity is clearly reducible even in our own time, so obviously isn't a problem over evolutionary time.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43766660793699680532012-02-08T20:03:00.080-05:002012-02-08T20:03:00.080-05:00You bring up many important points. There's en...You bring up many important points. There's enough concepts in this topic to write an entire book or more about it, which I hope to do in the future. In short, to begin with, I reject scientific explanations or any "proofs" of God while some scientific discoveries can add support to philosophical "conjectures" of a personal creator of the spacetime continuum (God) who has a long-term plan for reconciling with all humans.<br /><br />You ask, "So in what way can you say it is 'likely' that such an entity exists?"<br /><br />A good starting point with conjecturing the "likeliness" of a personal Creator of the spacetime continuum involves analyzing the beginning of time, which involves a debate that goes back to the sixth century AD. This is a type of cosmological argument that is typically presented as a formal proof such as William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument, but I reject formal proofs of God and use similar concepts to defend a reasonable conjecture of God, for example, my blog article "First Quasi-Cause: Uncaused Timeless Nature." And if you think that I made a reasonable conjecture of an originally dimensionless personal Creator with that article, then opens many more questions that would take at least one book to cover, especially for nonbelievers.<br /><br />On the more existentialist end of my conjecture is my believe that I enjoy a personal relationship with God.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-58644576032338102142012-02-08T16:12:42.587-05:002012-02-08T16:12:42.587-05:00Well, I don't see how science can show that th...Well, I don't see how science can show that there is a 'personal' deity of the kind envisioned by sacred texts. In that sense, there isn't any material evidence for such a deity. So in what way can you say it is 'likely' that such an entity exists?<br /><br />If faith or experience with personal communication is evidence, then for whatever reason only some people experience the evidence.<br /><br />If the deity wanted fealty, He (if that's an appropriate term) could have made it plain and clear that He exists and soon. Ambiguous counter-factual scriptures don't help, if one takes a scientific view about the material world.<br /><br />I'm saying nothing new. Either we're the 'salt of the earth' literally, or there is room for interpreation. If the latter, than there is no way to get what would count as a scientific explanation, since the facts as stated don't fit material reality.<br /><br />I personally would love to be the scientist who could prove the existence of a benign deity, of an afterlife, and so on. But I don't see the evidence, and if we're not to ask for evidence, then it's hard to know where to turn except to personal subjective judgment about what life and how to live it.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-3463849738696111482012-02-08T16:05:05.122-05:002012-02-08T16:05:05.122-05:00Ken, I agree with your above paragraphs one, two, ...Ken, I agree with your above paragraphs one, two, four, and five, but I'm unsure of what you mean in paragraph three. In any case, the scientific method will never find any deity. But when you say that it's unlikely that there's a personal deity as taught in say sacred Christian texts, then I disagree with you. However, there are various interpretations of the texts that I reject. Also, I'm unsure what you mean when you say, "That deity could have provided more materially consistent truths."<br /><br />Does that mean the the deity could have left material evidence that unequivocally points to his existence?<br /><br />Or are you making a statement about inconsistent truths in the sacred texts?<br /><br />Or something else?<br /><br />Yes, this is going off the original post, but you started in that direction. : -)James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-90967144032817771532012-02-08T10:22:28.881-05:002012-02-08T10:22:28.881-05:00It's too bad, because bad science distracts fr...It's too bad, because bad science distracts from the important aspects of religion, the value of accepting something 'on faith' (which can be edifying, if it is not necessary for it to be factual in the usual material sense).<br /><br />We have many mysteries about Nature yet to understand. Dark matter and parallel universe ideas, perhaps string theory, indicate that. We don't know how our understanding will come out, or when.<br /><br />Whether or what form any kind of 'higher power' will be found, it is unlikely to be the kind of personal deity that sacred texts proclaim, because that deity could have provided more materially consistent truths.<br /><br />But whether any higher power, or higher level of organization, whatever it may be (if anything) provides comfort and edification, is one of the important questions. It's been asked by thinkers, poets, scientists, mystics, and just plain folks since time immemorial.<br /><br />Each must find his/her own answer. But intentionally sloppy claims about the material world, like Behe's, do a great disservice to those who are seeking truly to understand life, what it means, and how to live it.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-69268814235303958182012-02-08T10:00:23.492-05:002012-02-08T10:00:23.492-05:00I remember when I thought that Behe was on to some...I remember when I thought that Behe was on to something constructive. I recall an interview where another scientist pointed out that one of his articles missed important counter data in the academic literature. Behe replied that his choice of search terms did not bring up those articles. I recalling feeling confident that Behe would then meticulously work on following up of all old and new research related to his proposed cases of irreducible complexity. Hmm, that never happened with a single case.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-45240983278717588012012-02-08T09:39:59.889-05:002012-02-08T09:39:59.889-05:00Well, it's certainly true that IDers are deaf ...Well, it's certainly true that IDers are deaf to the information (often intentionally, I think). But while I agree that faith-based claims are outside the realm of science, and without any scientific support that I know of, they aren't really 'mythology'. To those with strong beliefs, they are simply a different kind of truth and reality.<br /><br />As to who wants to bother, when nearly half the country not only accepts religious-experience as a form of truth, but also denies the material evidence for evolution, I think one needs to keep asserting the strength of the evidence for evolution--while fully acknowledging that science is about trying to figure out those aspects of it that we don't yet understand.<br /><br />I would not want to try to refute ID, but this post was intended simply to say that there is nothing to refute, since complexity is demonstrably reducible in the here-and-now.<br /><br />I won't dispute the fear element, if you mean in this case the extension of fearful predisposition to fear of death and yearning for eventual justice.<br /><br />Thanks for the links and quote. Economists have (for the moment) started to accept that 'rational' is as rational does. For most of us, probably, rationality ends when self-interest begins, or something like that.<br /><br />Oh, to be a gnat, without knowledge that soon a bird or bat will come along and this wonderful world will just disappear. Of course, it was how not-so-wonderful it is that Darwin found so moving.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-53955362524459709192012-02-08T09:05:24.935-05:002012-02-08T09:05:24.935-05:00Thanks for another great post -- well-articulated ...Thanks for another great post -- well-articulated responses to the IDers. But IDers ears are deaf to this kind of information. I sometimes wonder if it isn’t more useful to critique rather than to defend. It would be easy to do; faith-based creationism and ID are basically mythology.<br /><br />But who wants to bother figuring out the details of their stories! And unfortunately, in the human mind opinion often comes first and “evidence” is then gathered to support it. Conservatives tend to be more fearful, and fear can reinforce this behavior. I bet it’s comforting to have a simple world view!<br /><br />Jonah Lehrer on human “reasoning”:<br />http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/we-are-all-talk-radio-hosts/<br />“So here’s my new metaphor for human reason: our rational faculty isn’t a scientist – it’s a talk radio host. That voice in your head spewing out eloquent reasons to do this or do that doesn’t actually know what’s going on, and it’s not particularly adept at getting you nearer to reality. Instead, it only cares about finding reasons that sound good, even if the reasons are actually irrelevant or false.”<br /><br />fear and political views:<br />http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-findsHollishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788942181934895493noreply@blogger.com