Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The Teleological Threat to Atheistic Evolution (AE)!

Expand Messages
  • ringwraith259
    ... Paul, thanks for the Dembski snips! Dembski, in this article, makes a practical appeal to the difference between design and designer in science. This
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 1, 2006
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Paul <pk4_paul@y...> wrote:
      > Paul: Here are some comments from Dembski's blog about
      > the book 'The Plausibility of Life.' and shared
      > features between biological systems and engineering
      > designs.
      >
      > 'January 31, 2006
      > The Plausibility of (ID) Life'
      > "Here are some excerpts from The Plausibility of Life,
      > by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart. While
      > reading the book, I find that along the way the types
      > of statements which follow are to be found almost
      > everywhere .
      >
      > One of the objections (disingenuous, in my opinion)
      > that the Darwinists have to ID is that "we don't know
      > who the designer is; therefore, how can we possibly
      > identify his designs?" Well the following quotes make
      > it quite clear that the designer's designs are easily
      > identified. All's you have to be to detect the design
      > is be a graduate of an engineering school. No wonder
      > lots of ID proponents have engineering backgrounds
      > (including myself.).

      Paul, thanks for the Dembski 'snips!'

      Dembski, in this article, makes a 'practical' appeal to the
      difference between design and designer in science. This is very
      helpful in understanding what is so fallacious about the
      overwhelmingly number one 'atheistic' objection to intelligent
      design! Ultimately if I got 50 cents for every, article, post or
      comment that confused the distinction between design and designer, I
      could retire on the interest alone! The distinction between design
      and designer is a philosophical one, and it is an excellent reason
      why understanding philosophy is essential to the evolution debate, I
      think.

      While I like Dembski's 'practical' appeal, there is a variation of
      Dembski's argument that I like better; however, a person has to be
      committed to learning at least two 'vocabulary' words!

      The first term is ontological, the other is teleological. An
      ontological argument is an argument of 'being,' whereas a
      teleological argument is an argument of 'purpose.' Any argument of
      being deals with the fundamental questions of 'who,' whereas any
      argument of purpose deals with the fundamental questions of 'how,'
      or 'what for.'

      Now anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of cause and
      effect can immediately see there MUST be a relationship between
      ontology and teleology, because the moment there is a claim of
      purpose, then this has a direct inference that someone or something
      with a quality of 'BEING' must have created with the purpose of the
      thing designed. In a nutshell, just as the purpose of a vase is not
      the same thing as the person who conceived of the vase, so too the
      observation of the design of the vase is NOT an observation of the
      BEING that designed the vase. The philosophical distinction is just
      this simple, and just that essential to rational views of cause and
      effect.

      A classical example of the ontological/teleological distinction is
      when a paleontologist finds a vase in the dirt. Clean it up, and you
      can observe that it is made of silver; it has a jewel, maybe a crest;
      you observer, catalog and examine, cross correlate, and notice all
      you can about the object directly. Is all of this direct observation
      legitimate observation of material facts? Are they direct
      observations? Are they still in the domain of methodological
      materialism, or the scientific method? These are important questions
      about teleological observations.

      In my opinion the fundamental question concerning problems with
      teleology should not be the distinction between ontology and
      teleology, rather it is the question of 'how far' can you go with a
      teleological argument before you cross the line into ontological
      concerns! This is where the real live fire-breathing dragon lays in
      wait for all who seek truth!

      Let's going back to the hypothetical vase for a just a moment. Would
      a scientist be crossing the line between ontology and teleology if
      they made some inferences about the designer from the vase - like say
      his wealth because it is made of silver, or his power because it has
      a crest, or his 'cast' because of a particular physical design, or
      his class or position because of some physical characteristic? All of
      these questions are the concern of teleological observations - but
      the real nagging problem about the inferences is simple: is it
      SCIENCE? If not, why not?

      In fact, I would love it if someone would take up the challenge of
      demonstrating HOW a true teleological observation CANNOT be
      scientific! As I see it, if an atheist is tired of paper tigers, then
      this is a sure path to defeating Intelligent Design (ID).

      Ultimately one cannot defeat ID with the irrational and illogical
      confusion of ontology and teleology - this is childish and silly.

      Now there are some rules for such an endeavor! A person has to
      understand the distinction between teleology and ontology, and then
      they must demonstrate that there is an something about teleology that
      make a teleological observations inconsistent with the scientific
      method, because this is the essential issue that ID either stands or
      rests upon philosophically.

      I would love to find an AE advocate willing to honestly discuss this
      issue!!

      Until then, sweet dreams to you all as you ponder the wonders of the
      Philosophy of Science.

      RW



      > Here are just some quotes:
      >
      > "In this turtle, males are produced at lower
      > temperatures 78° F (26° C) and females at higher, 88°
      > F (31° C), the opposite of the alligator. In a
      > flip-flop circuit, not unlike a thermostat that would
      > gratify any engineer, a small difference in the level
      > of a regulator of estrogen synthesis can be amplified
      > into one of two states, a high-estrogen state (female
      > development) or a low-estrogen state (male
      > development). . . .The result is a bistable switch
      > driven one way or the other by the temperature
      > dependence of the production of SF-1 protein." (p. 94)
      > . . . .
      >
      >
      > "In the end, several major refinements had to be added
      > to the bacterial model to explain gene regulation in
      > the much more complicated eukaryotic cells, including
      > humans. . . . A second refinement was the linkage of
      > several transcriptional regulators and genes into
      > complex circuits, including circuits in which certain
      > regulators control the expression of genes encoding
      > other regulators. These circuits can have logical and
      > operational features like those in computers. . . .
      > The logical structure of these circuits is only now
      > being worked out, but they bear strong resemblance to
      > logic circuits in engineering." (p. 119)"
      >
      > http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/745
    • pk4_paul
      ... I ... I think. ... something ... the thing designed. Paul: The being responsible for the arising of the first cell according to advocates of A E would be
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 1, 2006
        > Paul, thanks for the Dembski 'snips!'
        >
        > Dembski, in this article, makes a 'practical' appeal to the
        > difference between design and designer in science. This is very
        > helpful in understanding what is so fallacious about the
        > overwhelmingly number one 'atheistic' objection to intelligent
        > design! Ultimately if I got 50 cents for every, article, post or
        > comment that confused the distinction between design and designer,
        I
        > could retire on the interest alone! The distinction between design
        > and designer is a philosophical one, and it is an excellent reason
        > why understanding philosophy is essential to the evolution debate,
        I think.
        >
        > While I like Dembski's 'practical' appeal, there is a variation of
        > Dembski's argument that I like better; however, a person has to be
        > committed to learning at least two 'vocabulary' words!
        >
        > The first term is ontological, the other is teleological. An
        > ontological argument is an argument of 'being,' whereas a
        > teleological argument is an argument of 'purpose.' Any argument of
        > being deals with the fundamental questions of 'who,' whereas any
        > argument of purpose deals with the fundamental questions of 'how,'
        > or 'what for.'
        >
        > Now anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of cause and
        > effect can immediately see there MUST be a relationship between
        > ontology and teleology, because the moment there is a claim of
        > purpose, then this has a direct inference that someone or
        something
        > with a quality of 'BEING' must have created with the purpose of
        the thing designed.

        Paul: The 'being' responsible for the arising of the first cell
        according to advocates of A\E would be an unspecified series of
        chemical reactions. I would argue that this is too vague to have
        any scientific meaning. AEers would try to put some meat on the
        bones by pointing to descriptive pathways envisioned in an RNA
        World, for example, but the paths are still too undefined to
        identify a thing for ontological purposes IMO.

        In a nutshell, just as the purpose of a vase is not the same
        > thing as the person who conceived of the vase, so too the
        > observation of the design of the vase is NOT an observation of the
        > BEING that designed the vase. The philosophical distinction is
        just this simple, and
        > just that essential to rational views of cause and effect.
        >
        > A classical example of the ontological/teleological distinction is
        > when a paleontologist finds a vase in the dirt. Clean it up, and
        you
        > can observe that it is made of silver; it has a jewel, maybe a
        crest;
        > you observer, catalog and examine, cross correlate, and notice all
        > you can about the object directly. Is all of this direct
        observation
        > legitimate observation of material facts? Are they direct
        > observations? Are they still in the domain of methodological
        > materialism, or the scientific method? These are important
        questions about teleological observations.

        Paul: If a molecular biologist maps out a new genome for a species
        not yet mapped is he able to draw inferences about a
        mutation/selection being based on the DNA configuration?
        >
        > In my opinion the fundamental question concerning problems with
        > teleology should not be the distinction between ontology and
        > teleology, rather it is the question of 'how far' can you go with
        a teleological argument before
        > you cross the line into ontological
        > concerns! This is where the real live fire-breathing dragon lays
        in wait for all who seek truth!

        Paul: Are ontological concern crossovers an issue only when the
        being is a who rather than an it?
        >
        > Let's going back to the hypothetical vase for a just a moment.
        Would
        > a scientist be crossing the line between ontology and teleology if
        > they made some inferences about the designer from the vase - like
        say
        > his wealth because it is made of silver, or his power because it
        has
        > a crest, or his 'cast' because of a particular physical design, or
        > his class or position because of some physical characteristic? All
        of
        > these questions are the concern of teleological observations - but
        > the real nagging problem about the inferences is simple: is it
        > SCIENCE? If not, why not?

        Paul: Would it be scientific of future astronauts on another planet
        in a diferent part of the galaxy to conclude that intelligence was a
        cause for carved images on a mountain resembling life forms?
        >
        > In fact, I would love it if someone would take up the challenge of
        > demonstrating HOW a true teleological observation CANNOT be
        > scientific! As I see it, if an atheist is tired of paper tigers,
        then this is a sure path to defeating Intelligent Design (ID).

        Paul: What is interesting to me is the contention of that side that
        Darwin's theory made Paley's argument irrelevant (it did not)
        because a natural cause was identified. Yet the charge leveled
        against ID differs in that it seeks to rule it out of bounds at the
        outset. Don't to run the old counter-Paley argument against ID is a
        different approach which I believe to be grounded in a lack of
        confidence that an 'it' ontology is sufficient to stand against well
        grounded biochemical arguments.
        >
        > Ultimately one cannot defeat ID with the irrational and illogical
        > confusion of ontology and teleology - this is childish and silly.
        >
        > Now there are some rules for such an endeavor! A person has to
        > understand the distinction between teleology and ontology, and
        then
        > they must demonstrate that there is an something about teleology
        that
        > make a teleological observations inconsistent with the scientific
        > method, because this is the essential issue that ID either stands
        or
        > rests upon philosophically.
        >
        > I would love to find an AE advocate willing to honestly discuss
        this
        > issue!!
        >
        > Until then, sweet dreams to you all as you ponder the wonders of
        the
        > Philosophy of Science.
        >
        > RW
        >
        >
        >
        > > Here are just some quotes:
        > >
        > > "In this turtle, males are produced at lower
        > > temperatures 78° F (26° C) and females at higher, 88°
        > > F (31° C), the opposite of the alligator. In a
        > > flip-flop circuit, not unlike a thermostat that would
        > > gratify any engineer, a small difference in the level
        > > of a regulator of estrogen synthesis can be amplified
        > > into one of two states, a high-estrogen state (female
        > > development) or a low-estrogen state (male
        > > development). . . .The result is a bistable switch
        > > driven one way or the other by the temperature
        > > dependence of the production of SF-1 protein." (p. 94)
        > > . . . .
        > >
        > >
        > > "In the end, several major refinements had to be added
        > > to the bacterial model to explain gene regulation in
        > > the much more complicated eukaryotic cells, including
        > > humans. . . . A second refinement was the linkage of
        > > several transcriptional regulators and genes into
        > > complex circuits, including circuits in which certain
        > > regulators control the expression of genes encoding
        > > other regulators. These circuits can have logical and
        > > operational features like those in computers. . . .
        > > The logical structure of these circuits is only now
        > > being worked out, but they bear strong resemblance to
        > > logic circuits in engineering." (p. 119)"
        > >
        > > http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/745
        >
      • Phil Schuster
        Phil S: It seems to me that ID must make the ... Ringwraith: Once you find the boundary of science, that is where the boundary of impersonal forces lay. And
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 2, 2006
          Phil S:
          It seems to me that ID must make the
          > case that the source of apparent, or real, design in nature has to
          > be a personal agent who consciously plans the design ahead of time,
          > or else it can't be distinguished from impersonal forces of nature.




          Ringwraith:
          Once you find the boundary of science, that is where the boundary of
          impersonal forces lay. And the best 'proof' that the boundary exsits
          is in what you can infer from science that science CANNOT predict!



          Phil S:
          I for one have no idea of where this boundary is supposed to be. You
          seem to believe you have found it, and I'm not at all convinced that
          you have. That's all I have to say for now.
        • ringwraith259
          ... time, ... nature. ... You seem to believe you have found it, and I m not at all convinced that you have. That s all I have to say for now. ... Dear Phil, I
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 2, 2006
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster" <prschuster@...>
            wrote:
            > Phil S:
            > It seems to me that ID must make the
            > > case that the source of apparent, or real, design in nature has to
            > > be a personal agent who consciously plans the design ahead of
            time,
            > > or else it can't be distinguished from impersonal forces of
            nature.
            >
            > Ringwraith:
            > Once you find the boundary of science, that is where the boundary of
            > impersonal forces lay. And the best 'proof' that the boundary exsits
            > is in what you can infer from science that science CANNOT predict!
            >
            > Phil S:
            > I for one have no idea of where this boundary is supposed to be.
            You seem to believe you have found it, and I'm not at all convinced
            that you have. That's all I have to say for now.
            >

            Dear Phil,

            I do appreciate your time and consideration, as always!

            Actually, the boundary is not ALWAYS very simple to find, I would
            agree to that - I had no intention of conveying the contrary. But
            while the shades of gray may be very broad, there are 'bounding
            limits' to material investigations. There are rational limits to the
            proper application of methodological materialism!

            For example, anytime the interpretation of science begins to either
            insist on, or extrapolate into questions of 'purpose' or 'being,'
            when the method specifically excludes those views BECAUSE post-
            Darwinian definitions for science allow ONLY "material"
            and "efficient" applications of cause and effect, then the claim that
            the interpretation is a scientific "Fact" is in Fact a bogus claim.
            The fact WILL be circular in logic and by default irrational, because
            the premise of the scientific method is violated in the conclusion
            (that is when the conclusion is either teleological or ontological ).
            EVERY claim of Evolution can be judged by this criterion – in fact
            EVERY scientific inquiry must be judged by this boundary.

            Now part of the fun of these list is grounded in the possibility of
            spending many hours arguing over the possibility of a teleological
            FACT existing, even hoping that there is a basis for that fact, but
            that is not MODERN science.

            Ironically, one of the reasons methodological materialism is so good
            in the physical sciences is because the very nature of each and every
            problem is actually confined by physical reality effected by an
            efficient cause - but the great debate that I think will probably
            ALWAYS exist, is the validity of strictly non-observational
            inferences when it comes to life and origins!

            I am also content to be done with this line too!

            Thanks for the chat, and peace to you,

            RW
          • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
            ... From: Paul To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:48 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Plausibility of Life Paul: Here are some
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 6, 2006
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Paul
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:48 PM
              Subject: [OriginsTalk] 'The Plausibility of Life'


              Paul: Here are some comments from Dembski's blog about
              the book 'The Plausibility of Life.' and shared
              features between biological systems and engineering
              designs.

              'January 31, 2006
              The Plausibility of (ID) Life'
              "Here are some excerpts from The Plausibility of Life,
              by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart. While
              reading the book, I find that along the way the types
              of statements which follow are to be found almost
              everywhere .

              One of the objections (disingenuous, in my opinion)
              that the Darwinists have to ID is that "we don't know
              who the designer is; therefore, how can we possibly
              identify his designs?" Well the following quotes make
              it quite clear that the designer's designs are easily
              identified. All's you have to be to detect the design
              is be a graduate of an engineering school. No wonder
              lots of ID proponents have engineering backgrounds
              (including myself.).

              Here are just some quotes:

              "In this turtle, males are produced at lower
              temperatures 78° F (26° C) and females at higher, 88°
              F (31° C), the opposite of the alligator. In a
              flip-flop circuit, not unlike a thermostat that would
              gratify any engineer, a small difference in the level
              of a regulator of estrogen synthesis can be amplified
              into one of two states, a high-estrogen state (female
              development) or a low-estrogen state (male
              development). . . .The result is a bistable switch
              driven one way or the other by the temperature
              dependence of the production of SF-1 protein." (p. 94)
              . . . .


              "In the end, several major refinements had to be added
              to the bacterial model to explain gene regulation in
              the much more complicated eukaryotic cells, including
              humans. . . . A second refinement was the linkage of
              several transcriptional regulators and genes into
              complex circuits, including circuits in which certain
              regulators control the expression of genes encoding
              other regulators. These circuits can have logical and
              operational features like those in computers. . . .
              The logical structure of these circuits is only now
              being worked out, but they bear strong resemblance to
              logic circuits in engineering." (p. 119)"

              Leon: Yup, engineers seek to adjust their designs to the real world out there. Likewise, natural selection favors organic design variations, which naturally occur, that are best adjusted to the organisms real world out there, NO CONSCIOUS DESIGNER REQUIRED! This is obviously VERY upsetting to designer creationists who deeply wish to believe in a BIG DESIGNER out there. But, please notice, the ONLY designers that we ACTUALLY OBSERVE have their designs generated by ORGANIC brains in ORGANIC bodies! There are NO invisible designers generating designs (or organisms or worlds) out of invisible brains in invisible bodies!

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Paul
              ... Paul: Sorry Leon but the existence of DNA must be presumed in order for there to be a base on which a selection mechanism would function. What is selected
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 6, 2006
                > 'January 31, 2006
                > The Plausibility of (ID) Life'
                > "Here are some excerpts from The Plausibility of
                > Life,
                > by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart. While
                > reading the book, I find that along the way the
                > types
                > of statements which follow are to be found almost
                > everywhere .
                >
                > One of the objections (disingenuous, in my
                > opinion)
                > that the Darwinists have to ID is that "we don't
                > know
                > who the designer is; therefore, how can we
                > possibly
                > identify his designs?" Well the following quotes
                > make
                > it quite clear that the designer's designs are
                > easily
                > identified. All's you have to be to detect the
                > design
                > is be a graduate of an engineering school. No
                > wonder
                > lots of ID proponents have engineering backgrounds
                > (including myself.).
                >
                > Here are just some quotes:
                >
                > "In this turtle, males are produced at lower
                > temperatures 78° F (26° C) and females at higher,
                > 88°
                > F (31° C), the opposite of the alligator. In a
                > flip-flop circuit, not unlike a thermostat that
                > would
                > gratify any engineer, a small difference in the
                > level
                > of a regulator of estrogen synthesis can be
                > amplified
                > into one of two states, a high-estrogen state
                > (female
                > development) or a low-estrogen state (male
                > development). . . .The result is a bistable switch
                > driven one way or the other by the temperature
                > dependence of the production of SF-1 protein." (p.
                > 94)
                > . . . .
                >
                >
                > "In the end, several major refinements had to be
                > added
                > to the bacterial model to explain gene regulation
                > in
                > the much more complicated eukaryotic cells,
                > including
                > humans. . . . A second refinement was the linkage
                > of
                > several transcriptional regulators and genes into
                > complex circuits, including circuits in which
                > certain
                > regulators control the expression of genes
                > encoding
                > other regulators. These circuits can have logical
                > and
                > operational features like those in computers. . .
                > .
                > The logical structure of these circuits is only
                > now
                > being worked out, but they bear strong resemblance
                > to
                > logic circuits in engineering." (p. 119)"
                >
                > Leon: Yup, engineers seek to adjust their designs
                > to the real world out there. Likewise, natural
                > selection favors organic design variations, which
                > naturally occur, that are best adjusted to the
                > organisms real world out there, NO CONSCIOUS
                > DESIGNER REQUIRED!

                Paul: Sorry Leon but the existence of DNA must be
                presumed in order for there to be a base on which a
                selection mechanism would function. What is selected
                along the way to forming an initial genome and what is
                the scientific reason justifying the answer?
              • Laurie Appleton
                To All, ... From: Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret. To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk]
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 7, 2006
                  To All,
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:31 AM
                  Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] 'The Plausibility of Life'


                  Leon: Yup, engineers seek to adjust their designs to the real world out there. Likewise, natural selection favors organic design variations, which naturally occur, that are best adjusted to the organisms real world out there, NO CONSCIOUS DESIGNER REQUIRED!
                  >

                  LA> Once again it must be pointed out that; "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-back variations or similar instances of variations within a type." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)
                  >
                  LA> "The evolution-creation controversy is not about minor variations but about how things like birds come into existence in the firsrt place." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1997)

                  LA> Are we to assume that Prof. Leon has solved this important and essential problem of the ORIGIN of the "designs" on which natural selection operates? If that has NOT been solved, then how can anyone dogmatically declare that "NO CONSCIOUS DESIGNER [IS] REQUIRED?

                  LA> A highly respected evolutionist, A.G. Cairns-Smith has pointed out that;

                  "After all what impresses us so much about a living thing is its in-built ingenuity, its appearance of having been designed, thought out -- of having been put together with a purpose." (Seven Clues to the Origin of life, 1985, p.2)

                  LA> Perhaps Prof. Leon, would be prepared to accept the ideas of the famous atheistic evolutionist, Sir Francis Crick (recently deceased), that life on Earth might be best explained by Aliens and UFO,s! ["directed panspermia"]

                  >
                  Leon: This is obviously VERY upsetting to designer creationists who deeply wish to believe in a BIG DESIGNER out there. But, please notice, the ONLY designers that we ACTUALLY OBSERVE have their designs generated by ORGANIC brains in ORGANIC bodies! There are NO invisible designers generating designs (or organisms or worlds) out of invisible brains in invisible bodies!


                  LA> Sir Francis Crick (above) apparently thought that there might well be some "organic brains" out there and that might BETTER explain the facts of life on earth. Thus even other atheists are reasonable enough to consider the existence of "invisibe designers out there" which have NOT so far been seen! Crick was also wise enough and prepared to acknowledge that his proposition still left the problem of accounting for those "aliens"! Perhaps Prof. Leon might do well to do the same!


                  Laurie.

                  "We used to have an open mind, now we realise that the only
                  logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling."
                  (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheist scientist, 1981)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.