|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. June 2007 05:02
Daniel quote:
I used the term "fine-tuning" as a general description of the close correspondence of the laws of nature to the parameters and limits within which life can exist - as in "The universe seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life".
Could it also be that life came into existence naturally because of the environment? The way I understand it is that there are chemical combinations that occur naturally and that can't replicate in their environment and there are some that can, therefore those that can "survive"!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. June 2007 08:28
Quote: I used the term "fine-tuning" as a general description of the close correspondence of the laws of nature to the parameters and limits within which life can exist - as in "The universe seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life".
This ‘fine-tuning’ aspect of living systems has been studied rather extensively. If you are going to design a system to produce a protein or walk or talk or fly or any of thousands of other behaviors associated with intelligent living systems, you find the process have to be fine-tuned. For all such complex operations, even relatively small deviations or departures from fine-tuning, if not corrected or adjusted for, will result in failure of the process.
If as an engineer or systems analyst or manufacturer, you expect to simulate any of the fine-tuned biological processes, you have to control or limit the environment in which the process occurs, and you need to build in sophisticated goal directed feedback processes that correct for even minor variations from the required or fine- tuned process.
The volume of ‘information’ required to achieve fine tuning is huge. The incredible level of information required to achieve fine tuning is the primary demonstrated reason that silly theories like genetic determinism or RM&NS are so completely incompatible with the available scientific evidence and why such theories (and those who support them) do not qualify as science (or scientists).
This huge volume of information required to achieve fine tuning, and thus this vast volume of information that makes it possible for intelligent goal directed systems to achieve goals, is what constitutes and defines intelligent causation.
Whether you define intelligent causation in terms of complex fine tuning, or large volumes of information required to achieve fine tuning or complex problem solving or sophisticated adaptive goal directed behavior, you are always dealing with the same phenomenon.
Once you recognize the various behaviors that qualify as intelligent causation, the next essential step is to develop methodologies for performing formal hard science analysis of the phenomenon. (The next step is NOT explaining where all the vast information required to produce intelligent causation comes from.) The key to a methodology for performing hard science analysis is finding a method of expressing current or existing knowledge as a testable predictive theory. The solution to this problem, and apparently the only solution, is the intelligence based teleological theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. June 2007 08:47
In order to understand ‘intelligent causation’ as the concept is used in formal scientific analysis, it is useful to consider both the similarities to and the differences from the scientific concept of gravity.
To begin with, science deals with the currently observable and testable impacts or effects of both gravity and intelligent causation. Again, science deals with the currently observable and testable effects. Science does not address (at least not directly) unobservable and untestable causal events that occurred in the distant past. Note that science can not observe gravity and it does not need to know how gravity works. All that scientific analysis requires is the ability to formulate testable predictive theories addressing the effects of gravity. The same criteria apply to intelligent causation.
The major difference, or major apparent difference, between gravity and intelligent causation, is that gravity is believed to be a single type or form of phenomenon, and intelligent causation is believed to be a class or set of phenomenon. There is, or is believed to be, a single physical phenomenon or force that produces all observed gravitational effects. With intelligent causation, there are clearly different physical phenomenon or forces that can produce the same effect of intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. June 2007 03:51
miosim:
quote:
quote:p. 30
“Remarkable, the very high surface tension, because it tends to draw water into the narrow cracs and fissures, assists in the process of weathering and washing chemicals from the rocks. Also when it freezes, the rocks are fragmented, which in turn also assists the weathering process and the formation of soils”.
What is so REMARKABLE in this banal weathering process? Do you think that the weathering process is unique to our planet?
Name another planet in which the type of weathering process Denton describes here occurs.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 26. June 2007 07:01
quote:
Daniel:
We know and observe that life flourishes on this planet, yet nowhere at any time have we observed life self-organizing from non-life. Why is that? If "congeniality" to life is all that is necessary for the random processes to produce life, then we should see life popping into existence everywhere - since this planet is the most congenial to life of any we know of…
… Random processes can not produce the fine tuned universe or fine tuned biological life.
I do expect some sort of Abiogenesis “popping into existence” in the thermodynamically unstable environment having diversity of chemical ingredients that subjected to all sorts of fluctuations that may push chemical systems out of thermodynamic equilibrium causing processes similar to Bifurcations. However, these systems may not be able developing into more complex forms, because of short life cycle, or because they are getting caught into existing food chains. Scientists may even have observed these new forms, but probably consider them as artifact or remnants of other living organisms.
Regarding our “planet is the most congenial to life” it may be for the life forms we are familiar with, but for other forms it could be a harsh environment. For example Hyperthermophile bacteria thrive at temperature 80 – 120 °C, but cannot survive at room temperature.
quote:
Daniel:
… Random processes can not produce the fine tuned universe or fine tuned biological life.
I do not belief that random processes can produce any sort of life. Natural Sciences have been searching in this direction for a long time without noticeable success. Chance, in my opinion, is nothing to do even in case of microbial mutations resulted from a harsh treatment. Instead, this is a goal–directed adaptive process in which microbes demonstrate their superior ability to create defensive mechanisms in which, by the way, DNA may play only a secondary role of “archiving recipes” for the new proteins invented by microbial cell to execute a complex chain of reactions in microbe’s defense strategy.
quote:
Daniel:
It seems that you are not impressed at all that the universe, this world, and life's systems are just as they are. You're taking a lot for granted, in my opinion.
Let me ask you this: Do you find anything about life or the universe "remarkable", "amazing" or "incredible"?
I do. In the past I was intrigued with “intelligent” behavior of single cells, but now I more interested in the intelligence that don’t “show up” - plants for example. I also “respect” them because plants “earn” their living and not “stilling” it like animals do.
quote:
miosim:
What is so REMARKABLE in this banal weathering process? Do you think that the weathering process is unique to our planet?
Daniel:
It's not just the weathering process -- (in fact it's not the weathering process at all!) -- it's all the properties of water he finds so "remarkable".
Nature’s Destiny, p. 30, Section: Surface Tension.
“Of cause, the thermal properties of water are by no means the only physical characteristics which make this REMARKABLE fluid so SUPREMELY fit for its biological role. Yet another is its very high surface tension. … It is the high surface tension of water which draws water up through the soil within reach of the roots of plants …
Large terrestrial plants would probably be a physiological impossibility if surface tension of water was similar to that of most liquids …
REMARKABLE, the very high surface tension, because it tends to draw water into the narrow cracks and fissures, assists in the process of weathering and washing chemicals from the rocks. Also when it freezes, the rocks are fragmented, which in turn also assists the weathering process and the formation of soils. Here is another instance where physical property of water is adapted for a role in fashioning the planetary environment for life while at the same time being adapted for a number of specific biological functions”
Let me ask again: Is above paragraph demonstrates that water, so REMARKABLE and SUPREMELY fits to life, that the only (or the best) explanation is ID who “tuned” these properties of water to fit a life?
quote:
Daniel:
To negate his argument, you must show that water is essentially unremarkable and not any more fit for life than some other chemical.
Water indeed fits for life forms that originated in water, because these form, by definition are an adaptive systems. It is why fish fit to water (but no water to fish), terrestrial animals fit to air (but not air to terrestrial animals), Hyperthermophile fit to boiled water (but not boiled water to Hyperthermophile), and Endolith fit to Iron/Potassium/Sulfur (but not Iron/Potassium/Sulfur to Endolith).
quote:
Daniel:
Name another planet in which the type of weathering process Denton describes here occurs.
Try internet search using “Space Weathering”, for example: Interplanetary Weathering: Surface Erosion in Outer Space http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/EISclark.html
In general, weathering is caused by number of physical and chemical factors among which water (Frost Wedging ) is a last on the list.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/weathering.htm
By the way, about 50% of earth terrains, that never reaches frozen temperature, do not experienced “frost wedging” at all.
Conclusion: By describing the high surface tension of water and claiming that this an indications of ID, Michael Denton greatly diminishes the standards for critical thinking.
P.S.
I need more time to respond to your post from 23 June 2007 15:32
[ 26. June 2007, 07:04: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. June 2007 09:39
It is interesting to sit back for a minute and take a high level look at the discussion here. First, despite the efforts of people like IF and aiguy to distort and confuse the issue, there is little doubt that not only ID supporters, but all sorts of scientists from many different fields have developed reasonable scientific definitions of intelligence. Intelligence is definable as the force or forces responsible for complex problem solving and complex goal directed behaviors. The problem is not with defining intelligent causation. The problem is with the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. The problem of scientific analysis can in turn be subdivided into the following three components:
1. OBSERVING INTELLIGENT CAUSATION- Scientific analysis of intelligent causation requires that we observe intelligent causation, or more precisely that that we observe impact or effect of intelligent causation and that we measure the values of causal variables and the values of effect variables.
There are at least two major components to the ‘problem’ of scientific observation of intelligent causation or intelligent behaviors. The first part of the problem is technical. Despite the fact that the subject is taught in science classes, only a very tiny percentage of individuals with academic training actually have the technical skills and knowledge to define variables, define quantification rules, and actually record values of variables. Of those with the skills and technical knowledge to define and measure simple variables, only a tiny percentage will have the ability to deal with the more complex technical aspects of defining variables and recording values. [The general rarity of basic elementary scientific analysis skills is surprising given the very large number of people who claim to be scientists or who claim to be qualified to discuss scientific analysis is a meaningful and productive manner. Note that it would not be difficult to design relatively simple tests to evaluate basic scientific skills. I predict that if you applied a test for basic ‘define, qualify and measure variables’ test to peer reviewers in most fields of science, you would find that 90% plus of reviewers lack the ability to deal with complex variables.]
The second problem associated with ‘observing intelligent causation’ involves identifying an acceptable type or class of behavior to be observed. Most people appear unwilling to accept the fact that intelligent causation is a relatively common phenomena, at least a relatively common phenomena associated with living systems. Most people seem to accept the ideological blither preached by the likes of aiguy, and want to insist that intelligent causation is some type of rare magical phenomenon not subject to traditional scientific observation and study. Most armchair and academic experts are only willing to recognize a phenomenon as involving intelligent causation if we don’t know how to model and simulate it. Chess playing and voice recognition were accepted as examples of intelligent causation, by these experts, only as long as computer designers couldn’t build computer systems to perform the tasks. Once it was shown that computer systems could perform these intelligent behaviors as well or better than humans, the definition of intelligent causation was changed.
The reality is that there are lots of types of intelligent causation that are readily observable and subject to traditional scientific analysis. There are lots of forms of intelligent causation that have been successfully simulated on computers. The problem is not finding examples of intelligent causation that can be and have been studied. The problem is getting armchair and academic experts to recognize and accept the scientific analysis that is being performed regularly.
2. THE MEANING OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS- Possibly the biggest or most fundamental problem with the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is the meaning of scientific analysis. It would appear that for the majority of academics and armchair experts, the purpose of science or scientific analysis is to provides alternatives to the magical explanations provided by pre-science and religion. Rather than the religious explanation that God created the universe, people want science to provide the explanation that the ‘Big Bang’ created the universe. To most academics, scientific buzz words appear to be simple and direct substitutes for the names in the pre-scientific and religious explanations. There really is no other explanation for continued support for such meaningless buzz words as genetic determinism, genetic drift, or RM&NS.
The engineers and systems designers and believers in ‘science as a source of innovative solutions to problems’ is probably a much better explanation of the meaning of science. Unfortunately, the pragmatic view of science has never been particularly popular in academia or with the people interested in the concept of design by intelligence.
The meaning of ‘science’ and the meaning of the ‘scientific paradigm’, as taught in all the basic textbook explanations, is that science is analysis centered on the ‘testable predictive theory’. It is interesting, and on some days amusing, to note that essentially all of the academic fields calling themselves life sciences have rejected or at least perpetually deferred the formulation of true testable predictive theory.
The only way to produce true scientific theories in any of the life sciences is to use the teleological theory. But apparently there is an extreme shortage of academics or scientists with the technical skills and knowledge needed to understand and evaluate teleological theories.
3. LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE/BEHAVIOR- Human beings are capable of solving extremely complex problems, but in order to solve complex problems, humans 1)must work cooperatively and 2)must be willing and able to utilize the specialized skills possessed by a very small portion of the population. Humans appear to be quite good at building complex social structures that allow complex cooperative behavior. Where the problem arises is in utilizing the specialized skills needed to make the complex social structures work.
Complex human problem solving, like the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, fails when the social structure fails to identify or recognize and place people with required specialized skills in positions that require those specialized skills. Generally this is characterized as the problem of accountability. Systems or social structures lacking in adequate accountability mechanisms, lack appropriate mechanisms to eliminate incompetent individuals from key positions. Academia and peer review processes are classic ‘bureaucratic’ examples of inadequate accountability. Academics began to fill key ‘scientific’ positions without having to demonstrate competence in basic scientific skills. Over a period of time, these individuals changed the standards and requirements applicable to key positions in the scientific problem solving structure so that today, scientific competence is not a relevant factor is determining who can or should fill key positions in most academic scientific problem solving structures.
Interestingly, many of the problems that are viewed as unsolvable by academic scientific areas like AI, are routinely solved by commercial systems designers.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. June 2007 13:31
miosim:
quote:
Try internet search using “Space Weathering”, for example: Interplanetary Weathering: Surface Erosion in Outer Space http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/EISclark.html
In general, weathering is caused by number of physical and chemical factors among which water (Frost Wedging ) is a last on the list.
From that website:
quote:
The term "weathering" is borrowed from the geological processes of erosion and degradation caused by air and water. As used here it means surface alteration in outer space. In this environment, ions and micrometeorites take the place of air and water.
Do you see what you are doing here? You are postulating that all "weathering" is somehow equal. But it isn't - not when it comes to supporting life. Plants need soil, rich in minerals and water and sunlight and carbon dioxide. Now you can make wild suppositions about non-water, non-carbon based life and even more wild hypotheses about how these "life-forms" survive without soil, water, oxygen, etc., but until you have any actual evidence that such "life" is possible, you're no different from any other "tabloid scientist" - pontificating about aliens and UFOs and such.
quote:
Let me ask again: Is above paragraph demonstrates that water, so REMARKABLE and SUPREMELY fits to life, that the only (or the best) explanation is ID who “tuned” these properties of water to fit a life?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
quote:
Conclusion: By describing the high surface tension of water and claiming that this an indications of ID, Michael Denton greatly diminishes the standards for critical thinking.
How so? You have not in any way refuted his argument. You have not even really attempted to refute it. All you have done is proclaim it to be unconvincing to you. Obviously, that is just a subjective opinion and not any kind of scientific analysis or criticism. I'll repeat: If you are going to scientifically refute Denton's argument, you must show it wrong, not just pronounce it so.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 27. June 2007 08:01
quote:
Daniel:
Do you see what you are doing here? You are postulating that all "weathering" is somehow equal. But it isn't - not when it comes to supporting life.
I do think that all "weathering" are somehow equal even they caused by different physical or chemical factors. In this case the material of rock probably more important that what causes its weathering. But regardless what type of soil eventually was resulted from weathering, life accommodated all of them, including deserts, because life is EXTREMELY and REMARKABLY adaptive phenomenon. It is why water, air, and soil fit so well to life.
Sorry for my bad grammar in my previous comment. This is what I meant:
“So let me ask: Does the paragraph below demonstrate that water is so REMARKABLY and SUPREMELY fit to life, that the best explanation of this fitness is an ID who “tuned” these properties of water to fit for life?”
Nature’s Destiny, p. 30, Section: Surface Tension.
“Of cause, the thermal properties of water are by no means the only physical characteristics which make this REMARKABLE fluid so SUPREMELY fit for its biological role. Yet another is its very high surface tension. … It is the high surface tension of water which draws water up through the soil within reach of the roots of plants …
Large terrestrial plants would probably be a physiological impossibility if surface tension of water was similar to that of most liquids …
REMARKABLE, the very high surface tension, because it tends to draw water into the narrow cracks and fissures, assists in the process of weathering and washing chemicals from the rocks. Also when it freezes, the rocks are fragmented, which in turn also assists the weathering process and the formation of soils. Here is another instance where physical property of water is adapted for a role in fashioning the planetary environment for life while at the same time being adapted for a number of specific biological functions”
quote:
Daniel:
It's not just the weathering process -- (in fact it's not the weathering process at all!) -- it's all the properties of water he finds so "remarkable". This is one sentence out of a whole chapter about water. Isolating one particular property of water and proclaiming it (in your opinion) "unremarkable" does not alter the fact that water has many, many unique properties that are uniquely fit for life on this planet. It also does not in any way negate his argument.
You are saying that each particular property of water may not be remarkable, but collectively these properties demonstrate uniqueness of water. However in this case using the word “remarkable” or “unique” is inappropriate while describing each individual property, but should be used only after combining all properties of water, like Michel Denton did on page 40:
“What is so remarkable about the various physical properties of water cited above is not each is so fit in itself, but the astonishing way in which, in many instances, several independent properties are adapted to serve cooperatively the same biological end.”
However, Michel Denton contradicts to himself by characterizing each properties of water, as unique and remarkable and in the same time admitting that “not each is so fit in itself”. This contradiction is not a result of typo error. The same methodology “of glorification” is applied in describing of individual properties of Light, Carbon, and Air. By repeatedly calling “remarkable” the property that “is not each is so fit itself” I see an attempt to influences a reader’s final conclusion. I think that this is more that just uncritical thinking.
quote:
Daniel:
You have not even really attempted to refute it. All you have done is proclaim it to be unconvincing to you. Obviously, that is just a subjective opinion and not any kind of scientific analysis or criticism. I'll repeat: If you are going to scientifically refute Denton's argument, you must show it wrong, not just pronounce it so.
Denton's argument that life remarkably fits to its environment is correct, but we do not have to invoke ID to explain this fact – life’s adaptive mechanisms is a sufficient explanation.
And this is indeed my subjective opinion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 27. June 2007 13:25
IF:
quote:
Could it also be that life came into existence naturally because of the environment? The way I understand it is that there are chemical combinations that occur naturally and that can't replicate in their environment and there are some that can, therefore those that can "survive"!
I believe, if you look into what constitutes "life" at it's most basic level (self replicating cell), you will quickly see that there are too many conditions and coincidences required for it to come into being "naturally".
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 27. June 2007 13:47
miosim:
quote:
You are saying that each particular property of water may not be remarkable, but collectively these properties demonstrate uniqueness of water. However in this case using the word “remarkable” or “unique” is inappropriate while describing each individual property, but should be used only after combining all properties of water, like Michel Denton did on page 40:
I disagree. Each of these properties is "unique" in that no other liquid possesses them and is "remarkable" in that they are uniquely fit for life. What Denton is saying in his conclusion is that, while you might be able to isolate one or two properties and declare them "unremarkable" (as you did), taken as a whole there is no disputing the remarkable and unique fitness of water for life.
Now you want to believe that life somehow "adapted" itself to water. There's not a whole lot of "adapting" necessary is there? Water is already fit for life!
quote:
“So let me ask: Does the paragraph below demonstrate that water is so REMARKABLY and SUPREMELY fit to life, that the best explanation of this fitness is an ID who “tuned” these properties of water to fit for life?”
Taken by itself, just that paragraph is not enough to convince anyone that the only explanation is ID. When you look at the totality of Denton's argument (which you refuse to do: quote 6-24-07 - "I finally got the book “Nature’s Destiny” and after few chapters of reading I couldn’t force my self to continue, but instead read only the conclusion of each section and some selective paragraphs related to those conclusions."), no other explanation readily presents itself.
It seems to me that your main disagreement with Denton's book is his use of adjectives such as "remarkable" and "unique". I find it odd that such a small thing would cause you to be unable to read the book. It makes me wonder if you are really open minded - since it's easy enough to ignore such adjectives and focus on the "meat" of his arguments.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. June 2007 18:59
Daniel,
quote:
I believe, if you look into what constitutes "life" at it's most basic level (self replicating cell), ...
At just a little more of a basic level, doesn't the existence of viruses suggest that in the right chemical mileu the right chemicals can "replicate" themselves?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 27. June 2007 21:58
quote:
Daniel:
I disagree. Each of these properties is "unique" in that no other liquid possesses them …
SURFACE TENSION VALUES (γ in (mN•m–1)
Mercury – air 486.5
NaCl – air 115
KClO3 – air 81
Water - air 72.86
Methylene iodide – air 67.00
If in the table above, “water – air” surface tension would occupy first place, I would start paying attention to the rest of Michael Denton’s arguments. I do not have to eat entire dish to find its taste – few bytes are enough.
quote:
Daniel:
It seems to me that your main disagreement with Denton's book is his use of adjectives such as "remarkable" and "unique". I find it odd that such a small thing would cause you to be unable to read the book.
These inappropriately used adjectives are indications that author have no intention for a thoughtful discussion but for a “cheerful brainwash” instead. Sorry, I have no time for that.
quote:
Daniel:
It makes me wonder if you are really open minded - since it's easy enough to ignore such adjectives and focus on the "meat" of his arguments.
I think that I am open-minded, but we all have limitations. I am interested in any nontrivial ideas including Religion or ID theory. I may try to read Behe’s Darwin's Black Box.
I wonder how much freedom is for an“open-minded” person within Christianity?
I would like to take a brake for a week to concentrate on your post from 23 June 2007 15:32 below:
quote:
Daniel:
I'm trying to follow your logic, but I am having a hard time grasping some of it. You are positing that basically everything is intelligent - correct? Is this "intelligence" anything like human intelligence? For instance, you say that intelligent "elementary particles" "collectively established and follow laws of Nature". How were these laws of Nature "collectively established"? Were they agreed upon? Voted upon? What system exists which provides any evidence of "particle intelligence"?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. June 2007 08:00
WINNING AND LOSING
Ultimately, science is a competitive game or form of human behavior. As with any human social game, the determination of winners and losers depends as much on the judges and the rules of the game as it does upon ‘true’ relative merit.
The vast majority of academics (at least in the life sciences) and almost all ID supporters are advocates of what I label the soft science approach or game. For advocates of new and unconventional ideas, the soft science game has two major advantages. First, and foremost, the soft science approach does not impose any substantive technical limits on participation. Anyone, even people with little or no knowledge of the technical aspects of the science being considered, can present or propose a theory. Second, soft science does not contain any objective or indisputable criteria for rejecting a proposed theory.
Because of these two features, individuals and groups can present and promote factually dubious and logically inconsistent theories. Soft science is a great approach if you wish to make claims for a new diet pill or if you wish to make scientific claims based on your religious beliefs.
The fatal drawback to the soft science approach is that unless you are a tenured professor at Harvard or Duke and unless you theory/beliefs are very close to current politically dominant beliefs, your ‘theories’, no matter how scientifically sound have no chance of ever being accepted. The ‘judges’ in the soft science arena are always individuals within the existing power structure and they always make soft science decisions based on their personal subjective beliefs and on the status of people presenting ideas.
Outsiders, like supporters of intelligence based theories or teleological theories not only have no chance of ‘winning’ in the soft science game, but they don’t even have a chance to have their ideas and theories presented for review. Most ID supporters, apparently, have determined that they would rather be players in the soft science game, even if it means they are destined to always loose. Even if they can’t ‘win’ in the bigger soft science game, the argument appears to go, they might be able to set up their own small cadre of soft science advocates that supports their particular set of beliefs.
The hard science approach or game is very different than the soft science game. Hard science is like a game of ‘king on the hill’ where only one set of logically consistent theories can control the top of the hill at any one point in time. In the hard science game, any outsider willing and able to comply with the very rigorous technical requirements can enter the game and challenge the current ‘king of the hill’. The ‘winner’ of any dispute is the theory that best stands up to open and objective testing.
ID, intelligence based theories and teleological theories will always win out over anti-teleological, anti-intelligence theories using the hard science approach. However, rather than win be hard science rules, most ID supporters are apparently willing to accept perpetual defeat playing the soft science game.
The explanation for ID supporters choosing soft science and losing over hard science and winning, appears to be the same as the explanation for academics choosing the soft science approach despite the risk of being seriously embarrassed by their anti-science beliefs. It is, apparently, very difficult to play in the hard science game, and very few ‘scientists’ have both the inherent ability to participate and the willingness to acquire the required technical skills.
As the discussion here has demonstrated, we know how to define intelligence and we know how to formulate intelligence based hard science theories. What is lacking is scientists and/or ID supporters willing and able to evaluate hard science theories using the rules of the hard science game.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. June 2007 13:07
IF:
quote:
At just a little more of a basic level, doesn't the existence of viruses suggest that in the right chemical mileu the right chemicals can "replicate" themselves?
Since viruses need a host (a living entity more complex than themselves), I don't see how this applies.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. June 2007 13:21
miosim:
quote:
SURFACE TENSION VALUES (γ in (mN•m–1)
Mercury – air 486.5
NaCl – air 115
KClO3 – air 81
Water - air 72.86
Methylene iodide – air 67.00
If in the table above, “water – air” surface tension would occupy first place, I would start paying attention to the rest of Michael Denton’s arguments. I do not have to eat entire dish to find its taste – few bytes are enough.
You misunderstand Denton's argument. It's not that water has the highest surface tension, it's that the surface tension of water is exactly what it needs to be to support life. Your rush to dismiss his arguments without even really thinking about them shows me your mind is mostly made up.
quote:
I may try to read Behe’s Darwin's Black Box.
You seem to place a lot of importance on the "reviews" of Denton's book that recommended Behe's as a better representation of ID theory. Did you happen to read Behe's review of Denton's book (on the back cover)?
quote:
I wonder how much freedom is for an“open-minded” person within Christianity?
It depends on the person now doesn't it?
quote:
I would like to take a brake for a week to concentrate on your post from 23 June 2007 15:32 below:
Fair enough. Take a break and get back to me. I'm interested in your hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
