Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.

[Khandro]

Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?

I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.

[Khandro]

Hypo; I went to the onlineslangdictionary to spare you the journey to Manchester;

Gash
•Royal Air Force term for items of poor quality
Last edited on May 14 2011. Submitted by Lorraine F. on Apr 25 2009.

adjective
•bad or ill.
That film was gash.
Last edited on Jul 22 2012. Submitted by Al R. from London, Greater London, UK on Nov 10 1999.

•"terrible."
This place is gash.

Your mum's cooking is gash.
Last edited on Jul 22 2012. Submitted by J.Ward from Ipswich, Suffolk, UK on Dec 19 2001.
expression
•extra,spare
Last edited on Nov 12 2011. Submitted by Anonymous on Nov 12 2011.

[Hypognosis]

Heck, I didn't ask for chapter and verse. Just which one of good or bad would have done.

So, why do you associate the 2.2 degree with the 'terrible' job? Is this a common experience, or something?

[Hypognosis]

@OG

Well, that was going to be my punchline - it's sll a matter if timing.

It's still odd for K to have used the word, in the correct sense, first and looked it up in the dictionary second.

Unless the whole idea of the excess verbeage is about twisting the knife?

[Hypognosis]

* it's all a matter of timing

or, perhaps typing, in my case. ;-)

[Hypognosis]

Popcorn, anyone?


....
\_/

[Hypognosis]

Okay, Khandro, maybe I went into more detail about myself than was necessary, in a post to whiskeyron, on a thread by AOG.

You didn't contribute to that thread but you evidently read it and now you are using it as ammunition to undermine my credibility?

In classic ad hominem style, does this mean that you've got nothing with which to counter the ideas I was putting across?

Also, does it not occur to you that people who have an interest in science continue to read books and periodicals, as well as taking in news and documentaries, long after they've graduated with their "not very good, is it?" degrees? Do these count for nothing generally, or only in my case?

You repeat things you've read, in hope of some stimulating conversation, why can't I?

[Khandro]

Dear Hypo; I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I have no knowledge, nor do I care what your, or anyone else's qualifications are as I place little store by them anyway, and even if I did, I wouldn't dream of using them in that manner.
If you look back you should see that the person with a "2.2 science degree" was purely a hypothetical case used to ask what exactly is a scientist?
If there has been any unintentional offence caused, I apologise.

[Hypognosis]

@Khandro

//
Dear Hypo; I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I have no knowledge, //

Well, pay attention to what people say and you might notice what people say about their work or what they studied in their youth. :)

//nor do I care what your, or anyone else's qualifications are as I place little store by them anyway, //

and yet you expect people to set any store by what -you- say?
Give no; get no, I say.

//and even if I did, I wouldn't dream of using them in that manner. //

Okay.

//If you look back you should see that the person with a "2.2 science degree" was purely a hypothetical case //

Crucially, you omitted to use the word 'hypothetical'. What is the reader supposed to think when you omit a word as important as that?

//used to ask what exactly is a scientist? //

Everybody observes and measures the world around them and formulates their own mental models to explain it all, so everyone is a scientist, to some extent.

Anyone with school, college or university education in science you might wish to call an "orthodox" scientist. Some of their mental model has been superceded by what was taught to them.

Those with the quals go on to scientific careers: "practising scientists", if you like. The stereotype.

Some have been taught in creationist schools, support Intelligent Design and are "unorthodox" scientists. They earn a living doing lecture tours and selling books.

And some, like myself, fall through the cracks into the outside world and have to make do with internet forums to get to discuss things with reak scientists, who might not give us the time of day, otherwise.

//If there has been any unintentional offence caused, I apologise. //

Apology accepted.

It was sufficiently resemblent of myself to make me think it was about me, which was why I took you to task over it. Apologies for that misunderstanding.

I'll go over the thread, later and see if I can pick out a bit from before the sidetrack, to move the discussion forward.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Nagel is a professional philosopher, Hypognosis, not a back-door creationist. He is addressing the traditional metaphysical question how mind and matter are related. Specifically he is attacking materialism, which in its current scientific form argues that life and consciousness are the result in some way of physical processes. This view was well presented by Dr. Brian Cox in the second part of the Human Universe on BBC2 this week when he discusses the theory of inflation, fine-tuning and the multiverse hypothesis. Nagel , on the other hand, appears to be attempting a reformulation of dualism - that mind and matter are distinct and irreducible aspects of reality.
Such metaphysical speculation does of course intrude (if you pardon the word) on the domain of science. Consciousness is susceptible to scientific enquiry, if only through observations of human and animal brains. Therefore it is possible theoretically that some time in the future science will be able to give an adequate explanation for the origins of life and consciousness from inanimate matter. If that is so then ID will go the same way as other bad theories (such as that plagues are caused by comets).
But what if Nagel is right, and there is an essential (and from our point of view the most important) aspect of the world which is totally inaccessible to scientific enquiry? Well, this is what Khandro (in his normal arch and discursive way) is really getting at in the OP. He's not bothered with the mechanisms of evolution; our favourite hill-dwelling polymath is concerned with the world of the spirit. Khandro says "You and your science can't answer questions A,B,C...Z, but I know a guru who can.". He wants us to share two false conclusions, neither of which can be deduced from his premise. One is that any group of unsubstantiated assertions, however seemingly ridiculous or immoral, made by anyone who claimed to have the ear of God/Be in Tune with the Universe etc., AND believed in by enough people AND believed in for long enough, must by those facts alone offer valuable insights into the world of the spirit. (Khandro's shorthand for these is "great religions"; Smith's Book of Mormon hasn't been around long enough, nor has sufficient followers yet to qualify.) The second is that moral discourse, or spirituality in general are impossible unless believe in one of the aforementioned fairy tales.
You misrepresent Bertrand Russell as a supporter of your position, Khandro. You should read "Why I am not a Christian".

[Khandro]

v-e; What a complete load of drivel, inaccuracy and wilful distortion of what I have said!
//Khandro says "You and your science can't answer questions A,B,C...Z, but I know a guru who can.".// I have never said any such thing. //He's not bothered with the mechanisms of evolution;// This is also completely untrue, never once have I said a word against the theory of natural selection or the evolution of species and I defy you to indicate where I have made such assertions. The issue is the ORIGIN of LIFE itself, (something carefully dodged by your guru[i Brian Cox on tonight's TV show) it was [i]that] which troubled Darwin, but despite lacking an answer, it seems not trouble you.
//You misrepresent Bertrand Russell as a supporter of your position,//
I have never mentioned Bertrand Russell, why should I look to him for support?
I suspect what you see tonight as your witty, lofty, dismissals will look rather thin in the light of morning. I am not afraid of honest cut and thrust of argument, but please spare me dishonest misrepresentation.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I certainly apologize for failing (yet again) to make it clear what I'm attacking and why, Khandro. As for my Bertrand Russell reference, put that down to another senior moment: I think I recalled your quoting Einstein at one point and my synapses got twisted.
I can't offer a defence against the accusations of "wilful distortion" and "dishonest misrepresentation" except to say that I always try to argue my case honestly. If I've misrepresented your views it will be because I have (honestly, not wilfully) misunderstood them; so charge me as a fool, if you will, but acquit me as a knave.
I'll try to explain the "distortions" .
// "You and your science can't answer questions A,B,C...Z, but I know a guru who can.".//
The view I am imputing to you is that there are spiritual aspects of life which are not susceptible to scientific enquiry, and that religion in its broadest sense is an attempt to understand these. I also infer from your remarks on this thread and many previous ones that you have considerable respect for the religious tradition, both in its near and far eastern forms, and a corresponding distrust of atheistic scepticism. If this is your view (correct me if it isn't) then you represent a cast of mind I disagree with. I believe ALL aspects of the human condition are susceptible to rational (not necessarily scientific) consideration, that rational discourse is the ONLY way to promote happiness, and that faith-based religion is an enemy of that discourse. And on these principles hang all the law and the prophets.
//"He's not bothered with the mechanisms of evolution". This is also completely untrue, never once have I said a word against the theory of natural selection or the evolution of species and I defy you to indicate where I have made such assertions.//
I wasn't implying anything about your evolutionary beliefs, Khandro, and I'm sorry my phraseology gave you that impression. What I was trying to say by my "not bothered" remark was that I thought the MAIN purpose of your original post was to attack the materialistic, atheistic view of nature which denies higher intelligence and purpose in the universe; and that it was NOT your principal intention to argue for or against any specific theory about the way evolution has worked. I haven't forgotten your "handing over the wheel to Darwin" remark, so I know very well you're not a creationist. However, I remind you (as others have done before) that "Darwin at the wheel" is not the position taken by Meyer and Behe, both of whom argue (in the books you yourself cited) for intelligent INTERVENTION in the evolutionary process. I bought the two books (Meyer's and the Pre-Cambrian Explosion), by the way, out of general interest in both evolutionary theory and the ID movement, not because I felt especially competent to assess the scientific evidence.
So, how did life originate? I don't know.
I've some questions for you. What are the implications of a world with an intelligent designer? How is such a world from the point of view of humman experience different from a world without such a designer?

[Khandro]

v-e; Accepted, and move on. Your last question first: // How is such a world from the point of view of human experience different from a world without such a designer?//
As Nietzsche pointed out, replacing a transcendent god with an omnipotent humanity alters surprisingly little, - or so it might appear from a position of neutrality, but I am not neutral, and to whose 'human experience' do you refer?
But returning to ID, I only watched the last quarter of Brian Cox's programme Sunday evening, - if you missed it you can maybe catch up but I can't here - He talked a lot about 'accident', but it was the accidents such as, 'if a meteorite had previously collided with the meteorite which struck the earth, and deflected it from it's course, then it would not have struck the Earth and the dinosaurs would have survived, and we would not be here - fanciful though not necessarily true.
So accidents yes, but he went on to talk about "the laws of nature" in detail, but carefully avoided saying anything further about their ORIGIN and using these laws as a 'sine qua non', continued with the normal Darwinian thesis . So my question to you is, if we accept the obvious fact that these underlying laws and patterns exist, from where do they come?

[naomi24]

Khandro, Seems we’ve come the full circle – and we’re still none the wiser. As I said days ago, intelligent minds bridging the gap by determining that the mythical supernatural being they worship is responsible isn’t really that intelligent. There's nothing wrong in saying we don't know.

[jim360]

The Laws of Physics don't really seem to need an origin. This is, of course, not the same as saying that they don't have one.

[Khandro]

Quite right jim, and we may never find the answer, but we certainly wont find the answer unless we ask the right questions.

[naomi24]

Khandro, if no one knows the answer, which they don't, the question is futile.

[jim360]

I don't see that last logic... if no-one knows the answer now that doesn't stop people from knowing it in future.

But the point in this particular case is that there is nothing in the laws of physics to suggest an origin/ creator, so that asking a question along the lines of "what does science say about a creator?" presupposes the creator's existence. In the meantime, those same laws do have a built-in nature of randomness, so that it's not unreasonable to imagine that after all we are just an accident. We may be deliberately created after all... but only hubris would lead you to that thought, and the alternative that we are just "lucky" is not that crazy.

[naomi24]

Jim, for the purposes of this discussion it’s logical. We don’t know, but of course that’s not to say that we will never know.

[jim360]

Ah, OK -- must have missed your point.

[Hypognosis]

@Khandro

//So my question to you is, if we accept the obvious fact that these underlying laws and patterns exist, from where do they come?//

Care to name one that we can get our teeth into?

Did Prof. Cox mention one in particular, or just that catch-all "laws of nature"?

The answer I was thinking of giving would have provoked such a question from yourself, so it helps to focus on one area at a time.