Doubting any "scientific consensus"- Why it is OK

In any debate about the theory of evolution someone always brings up "Well the vast majority of scientists accept it." But what is wrong with that?

First science is NOT a "majority rule" issue. Science is about reality and reality only. And reality does not heed to the majority.

Secondly if that alleged majority had some actual scientific data to support their PoV, they should be able to use it to beat back anyone who dissents. This is not the case with the theory of evolution. When debating the ToE, always and without fail, someone will bring up variations within a population in an effort to demonstrate that all of the diversity of living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms.

To me that is like showing me an automobile and saying "That is how we can go to the Moon." IOW the extrapolation is NOT warranted. But that is all the ToE is- unwarranted extrapolations which are entirely based on one's worldview.

And guess what? That is NOT how science should be conducted.

So yes, until any scientist can actually demonstrate the premise they support, it would be a good thing to doubt them.

Explaining the "I" in "ID" - Again

As you should know by now "ID" stands for "Intelligent Design". Therefore the "I" stands for "Intelligent". But why that adjective?

As Wm Dembski writes in Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design:

The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly. On the other hand, it can mean that an intelligent agent acted with skill, mastery, and eclat. Shermer and Prothero understood the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" to mean the latter, and thus presumed that intelligent design must entail optimal design. The intelligent design community, on the other hand, means the former and thus separates intelligent design from questions of optimality.

But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance.

"What is intelligence?" My answer is that intelligence is that which can create counterflow. "Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely."

Artifacts embody counterflow.

Now even with that clear and concise defintion along with that explanation, there are those who just refuse to understand. They are the same people beholden to sheer dumb luck all the while denying that reality.

"Good night, and good luck..."

Nick Matzke: How to erect a strawman

Over on Telic Thougts Mike Gene has started a blog titled Matzke and Davis on Creationism and ID. Nick is sticking by the bogus ID = Creationism meme even in the face of reasoned refutations of that premise.

Then Nick finally plays his cards:

But of course what the fight is actually about is the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology. This is what the ID movement was and is set up to promote and defend. This is creationism, whether old-earth or young-earth. This is what the courts ruled an unconstitutional religious view in scientific classrooms, and thus this is why the creationists came up with the "intelligent design" smokescreen to attempt to dodge the constitutional problems that creationism would inevitably have.

First the ID movement was NOT set up to promote and defend "the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology". Nick cannot substantiate that claim.

What ID does say is that if there was some intervention, then so be it. That is if science is interested in reality.

And in the end there should never be any constitutional issues with teaching reality.

But speaking of smokescreens, that appears to be all that Nick can muster. After all it is well known that ID AND Creation would go away if Nick could just find some way to scientifically substantiate his anti-ID and anti-Creation position.

Why is it that weak-minded fools think they can erect a strawman and really think it is indicative of reality?

ID and the Age of the Earth

On other blogs some people are asking about ID's position on the age of the Earth. Here I will atempt to answer that query.

ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.

Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.

First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An inteligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.

So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

Thought Provoking, or Bald Assertions? You decide

Exposing more nonsense found on Telic Thoughts.

Salvadore Crdova and Thought Provoker have this interesting exachnge (Sal in bold and Thought Provoker in italics):

If God exists and is deeply invovled in the workings of reality, I can think of no greater scientific discovery.>

This gets into semantics. I make a distinction between science and philosophy. I believe many others do this too when they make a distinction between science and religion.

If you define science as simply the search for truth, then religion is the ultimate science. This is why I use the term "knowledge" in an attempt to explain the distinction. The existance of a supernatural being might be the ultimate philosophical truth but it wouldn't be a great scientific discovery any more than declaring 2+2=5 would be a great mathimatical discovery.

If a big booming voice was heard all over the world (in all different languages) commanding us to prepare for the events descibed in the Book of Revelation, it would hardly be a great scientific discovery.

Did you get that?! First who says that religion is interested in the truth?

Next the existence of a supernatural being, if true, would be much more than philosophical. It would be reality. Science deals with reality.

And if a big booming voice did what you said, it would again be reality and science would deal with it. But you are right it wouldn't be a scientific discovery because it wasn't discovered by science. It wouldn't really be discovered at all. It would be presented.

As an engineer (me) to a fellow engineer (you), I can only say I'll respect your belief system and right to follow your conscience. God only wants people who have chosen him of their own free will, not because they were indoctrinated. That of course is the personal side of ID.

If however, you are interested in the commercial money making side of ID, I have suggested that the Dembki's EF will help us uncover and reverse engineer the hidden codes of life and help us make breakthroughs in the pharmaceutical industry.

You may have a wrong impression of what I am saying at multiple levels. This is neither about my beliefs nor my financial well-being, at lest not directly. However, Indirectly it is influenced be my determined belief in exploration and learning, to challenge and to be challenged, to think. And yes, my ability to think does put money in my pocket.

Speaking of thinking… I am interested to learn how you rationalize simultaneously rejecting and accepting a naturalist approach to the same subject. If (and it is a big "if") Dembki's EF can be repeatably applied and tested in real world applications, then it is naturalistic. We can reverse engineer why it works and gain insight in the mechanisms behind it. That would be useful knowledge.

However, if the EF is equivalent to the Oracle at Delphi we can have a philisophical argument about who is wiser than whom, but it wouldn't be very useful.

In conclusion, if you want to have a philosophical and religious discussion, that's fine. I could and would participate and we could have a lively discussion as to why your beliefs are any more valid than Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Mohamed, etc. However, please don't pretend that you are simply telling like it is.

Provoking Thought

As I have stated many times now, the EF is just a process and is only as good as the people who use it and the data and knowledge they have.

But I will tell it like it is:

We exist. There is a reality behind that existence. Science is to help us find and understand that reality. And reality still says that the materialistic anti-ID position is sheer dumb luck.

Alan Fox, Intellectual Coward, Resorts to Spreading Nonsense

I just caught the following while chasing down more of Zachriel's stupidity

David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.

Transalted I take that to mean it is pointless to debate me because I will expose your nonsense for what it is- unscientific baloney.

I don't have any political motivation. My SOLE motivation is exactly as I have stated from the beginning-> to find out the reality behind our existence and anything we choose to investigate.

That Alan Fox has to spread baseless nonsense just further exposes his anti-science dogma pushing agenda.

To Alan, please get in line right behind Lenny. Not only are you an intellectual coward you are a coward on all levels.

Nick Matzke and Biological Information- He just refuses to "get it"

Over on Telic Thoughts Nick Matzke is again buthchering the biological information debate and it appears he does so out of ignorance. IOW he does NOT understand what is being debated. (see Sober and ID: Part II)

In order for anyone to say anything about biological information they must demonstrate how it originated. Because if it did NOT originate via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker type, processes there would be no reason to infer those proceeses can account for its increase.

And for a clear understanding of the debate once living organisms appear then one must first read Dr Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance". Why? Because the argument is spelled out in detail (in that book).

However if one reads that book then one will realize that gene duplications cannot salvage the anti-IDists' calims. Why? Because only point mutations caused by copying errors can be rightfully claimed to be the product of a blind watchmaker. Other genetic movements do exist but to claim them for the blind watchmaker means one has to demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker type, processes.

Nick also confuses "evolution" with the blind watchmaker. Apparently Nick refuses to understand that ID is NOT anti-evolution and that the debate is all about the mechanisms- designed to evolve or evolved via culled genetic accidents.

But Nick is part of the NCSE and we know that they are NOT interested in ID reality.

Oh well. And that is why I can hardly wait to be part of a Court case involving ID. I will give them a heavy dose of ID reality.

Good luck and good day...

KeithS- Time to Buy a Vowel

Amazing but true- this guy is totally clueless:

No, I'm arguing that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then this world must be the best of all possible worlds. That means that all of the evil and suffering we find in the world must somehow be essential in order to bring about a greater good, if God possesses the three omni-characters. The obvious problem is that nobody can explain why evil and suffering are somehow essential to the greater good of the world. The leading explanatory candidate is the free will defense, which I find questionable. And even if you accept the free will defense, natural evil is still a problem.

Earth to KeithS: "God" is NOT beholden to man-made words with man-made definitions.

And no, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then this world can be whatever "God" wanted it to be. Perhaps "good", "evil" and "suffering" are only in the eyes and minds of the beholder.

KeithS's argument is just as bad as the "If "God" can do anything then "God" can create a rock so big that "God" couldn't move it." Sheer stupidity, but that is all that ilk really have.

PZ Meyers, professor and table pounder

It is rather odd that PZ would take the following position:
Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer

When in reality all he has to do is to substantiate his position. Do THAT PZ and both ID and Creation will go away.

"When you have the facts on your side, pound them with the facts."

"When you have the law on your side, pound them with the law."

"When you have neither, pound the table."

PZ's song(to the tune of Todd Rundgren's "Bang on the drum all day")

I don't have the facts
I'm going to pound on the table all day
I don't have the law
I'm going to pound on the table all day

Ever since I was a little boy
I don't need a "God",
I just need my toys
I took some wood and made me a table
and I pound on that thing
As much as I am able
Because

I don't have the facts
I'm going to pound on the table all day
I don't have the law
I'm going to pound on the table all day


You rock PZ. Thanks to people like you ID is getting more and more attention. Soon people like me are going to rumble right over your sorry rhetoric. In the meantime please keep up the good work.

KeithS: How NOT to argue against "God"

As I was checking out Telic Thoughts this morning I read a few very laughable entries by KeithS. The following can be read in this thread- The Proper View of a Teleologist trackback :

I certainly don't pretend to know what God must do with his powers. I only claim that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the world he has created must be the best of all possible worlds. This is a logical deduction, and God is subject to logic (e.g. not being able to make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it). You're free to disagree, of course, but most theologians and philosophers do not. This is not an idiosyncratic position.

That is just plain stupidity talking. If "God" is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent then "God" can do as "God" pleases. That is the ONLY logical deduction one can make. I disagree and I would love to hear from ANY theologians and philosophers who feel the opposite.

Ya see I don't know of anyone who said "God's" Creation had to be perfect. And even if it started out that way there isn't anything that says it should remain that way.

Ya see in a "perfect" world we couldn't learn anything. We wouldn't experience anything but the best "God" had to offer.

Why make scientific discoveries in a "perfect" world?

In the same thread KeithS also stated:

If ID ever became a science, and if it actually led to the conclusion that a supernatural designer existed, then sure, I think such a discussion would be appropriate in science class.

I would love to know his definition of science. I will also note that even his position requires something either beyond nature or the metaphysical "the universe 'just is'". IOW EVERYTHING leads to either the metaphysical or to something beyond nature. It can't be avoided.

And THAT is why the debate is NOT "natural vs, supernatural". It is intelligence vs. sheer dumb luck. But just remember those on the side of sheer dumb luck will deny that fact all the way to their grave.

BTW KeithS- Science does NOT care if the designer is "God". That is because science is interested in the reality behind what we are observing.

That is another fact that you cannot change.