Re: [asa] ID question?

They could be dealt such special hands dozens of times in a row & could
never conclude that it was absolute proof that they weren't just having
a lottery winning, vanishingly improbable (but not zero-chance). But
their common & mathematical senses should tell them that the probability
their experience was "rigged" for their benefit is vastly more probable
than that they are just having the experience of a lifetime (or vast
sequence of lifetimes, more accurately).

Related to this: assuming that pi is one of the normal sorts of
irrational numbers in which any finite sequence of base ten digits is
as likely to appear as any other, then there is somewhere in pi where
ten million sevens appear in an unbroken sequence. If I could take a
person for a stroll on just that number series --- "hyperjump" them over
the unfathomable distance to reach my ten million sevens and drop them
in the middle of it, they would by all rights conclude that they were
standing on a rational number. Even if I told them that actually this
was pi and they just happened to be in a special place where this
happened, they would conclude (more correctly this time) that I had gone
to incredible effort to get them to just that point as it is so
ludicrously improbable compared to everywhere else in that number they
could be. But they would only begin to see this by having the special
"outside" knowledge about the number pi as we have here. Without that
knowledge they would be lunatics to think that these sevens stretching
to both horizons were *really* part of some random sequence. We're kind
of in the same boat. People who philosophically prize the randomness of
our existence postulate the multiverse to grant that "infinite" space in
which our special place can somehow become more statistically
guaranteed. And that would seem to be an unintended nod towards the
weak (cosmic fine-tuning) ID crowd and the array of improbabilities they
note among the cosmic constants. Maybe it could even be seen as a nod
towards the stronger ID crowd in the same kind of way, though nobody not
already on that wagon is eager to jump on it now. But they would
almost all agree that the "millions of sevens in a row" are beyond
suspicious and demand some sort of response; whether it be a
multi-verse, or a designer.

--Merv

dfsiemensjr wrote:
> Imagine that four guys sit down at a table with a pack of cards. One
> picks the pack up and begins to deal them. At the fifth round, one of
> the guys says, "There's something fishy. Every card I've gotten is a
> heart." One of the others says, "Yeah, all I've gotten is clubs." The
> third chap says, "Mine are spades." The dealer picks up his cards and
> reports, "I have nothing but diamonds." It seems obvious that somebody
> gimmicked the deck. But can the guys at the table determine whether it
> was deliberate or just an unusual outcome of an honest deal? It seems
> to me that they cannot decide without tracing the deck back and
> determining the bona fides of everyone who had access to the deck.
> Just observing the outcome won't do it, and perhaps all the
> information they can gather does not lead to a definitive conclusion.
>
> Looks to me as though our observations of a sequence of evolutionary
> events, as closely as we can now determine them, does not tell us
> whether the changes were determined by intelligent forces from without
> or internal natural changes. The changes, so far as empirical
> observations can determine the source, are equally compatible with
> direct divine intervention, constant divine supervision, and a series
> of purely natural events. One has to call in extra-empirical
> assumptions to bolster whatever claim one makes. All the empirical can
> tell is is the nature of the natural changes, whether an insertion or
> deletion occurred, etc. ID insists that they know it was intervention,
> at least some times.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> writes:
>
> This is the impasse between ID and TE. To the extent that this is
> in error, TE's tend to err on the side of upholding the integrity
> of science. It appears to me that ID tends to err on the side of
> upholding a philosophical or theological ideal. I don't disagree
> with that ideal but as I have said before I don't believe it is
> scientific so I don't see how we can make such an issue out of a
> subjective belief. Further, I don't think there is any conflict
> between these two positions so I reject the positioning of them as
> being mutually exclusive as Behe does here.
>
> His personal beliefs aside, Darwin was at least partially right in
> the fact that randomness does contribute to evolution. While it
> may not explain all of evolution you have to at least concede that
> much to be allowed to sit at the table of science and to have your
> views taken seriously. And Eugenie Scott and NCSE serve a valid
> purpose in policing this. Behe and ID need to at least acknowledge
> this much about Darwinian evolution to ever regain the public
> trust that they are not just theocratic science deniers.
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Fri, October 16, 2009 11:24:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Heya John,
>
> Personally, I'm coming to Behe's defense because the claim that
> Behe is 'anti-evolution' is simply unfounded. It seems like some
> people are sensitive on this topic to the point where any
> criticism of evolution - even if it's specified as Darwinian
> evolution, even if it's based on interpretations of data and
> research, even if it's admitted these are (strong) inferences
> rather than logical proofs - must be balanced out, in the next
> breath, by a public declaration of faith in at least some kind of
> evolution. Otherwise, suspicions start to mount. That, I think, is
> an exaggerated response.
>
> In other words, I just don't share your impression. I also don't
> share what I take to be this feeling that it's very, very
> important for Behe to balance out his criticisms of darwinian
> evolution by praising evolution in the broad sense. Then again, I
> think that this obsession with evolution (by many, spanning
> various views and faiths) needs to come to an end anyway.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> This is exactly right. Behe does make claims against Darwinian
> evolution. I asked the same question before, is there another
> form of evolution that Behe is more comfortable with? If so,
> he didn't mention it in the video that I recall.
>
> I know he has spoken and written other things in other places
> about evolution but in this video he does come across as being
> against evolution. Its not like it was heavily edited either
> and made to look a certain way nor was he responding to a
> strict set of questions. He could have said anything he wanted
> and made any point he wanted and left any impression he wanted
> but this is what he chose. Why is everyone then apologizing
> for Behe and saying this is a mischaracterization of him?
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: asa <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:06:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
> Hi Cameron-
>
> " Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where
> he says that he is "against evolution", or else do the
> honourable thing and publically
> withdraw your comments."
>
> If you watch the video- he said repeatedly that "Darwinian
> evolution" couldn't do such and such. What other kind of
> evolution is there? Is he saying there's another kind of
> evolution that he accepts? If so, what does he call it?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Bernie:
>
> Your remarks about Behe are incorrect. They are not only
> unsupported by any
> references to his works; they show an almost complete
> misunderstanding of
> his position. It is not Behe who is in a "muddle".
>
> Such a high degree of misunderstanding suggests a lack of
> familiarity with
> Behe's writing. And this reminds me that you still have not
> answered my
> earlier question: which books and essays of Behe have you
> read entirely
> through?
>
> Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where
> he says that he
> is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and
> publically
> withdraw your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:39 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
> > Hi Bill- you apparently see the ID debate as "guided vs.
> unguided
> > evolution" but I see it as "evolution vs. special
> creation." ('Special
> > creation' being creation by fiat.)
> >
> > This is what I think I'm starting to see in the current
> origin's debate
> > culture: Because evolution has been proven by pseudogenes,
> people want to
> > shift the argument from "did evolution happen" to now "is
> evolution
> > guided." I think this is the current crisis for OEC's. But
> I think OEC's
> > reject evolution, so if they want to now accept it, even as
> 'God-guided,'
> > they still have to leave the camp and come over to TE. The
> OEC camp will
> > always be there, and it is only for those who reject
> evolution, guided or
> > not.
> >
> > I think some OEC's are attempting to make a switch from
> "evolution is
> > false" to "evolution is maybe God-guided" and appeal to
> Intelligent Design
> > to save face (like a ploy to straddle the fence of accepting
> both modern
> > science and simultaneously rejecting/accepting evolution).
> >
> > Behe is a perfect example of this muddle, by apparently
> rejecting
> > evolution (in some aspects) and accepting it for human
> common descent.
> > Therefore, Behe is neither for or against evolution.
> Creationists
> > generally like to separate evolution into micro and macro.
> When Behe says
> > he accepts common descent for humans, that is macro
> evolution. So here we
> > have Behe accepting micro/macro evolution yet still against
> evolution for
> > other things. I guess he needs to define another category
> of evolution,
> > so he can accept micro and macro, but reject this third
> thing/part of
> > evolution.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com <mailto:wjp@swcp.com>]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:14 PM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: asa
> > Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
> >
> > OK. I've got to say something about this.
> >
> > Bernie, you apparently believe something like:
> >
> > Intentional/Design theories fail because they have not been
> able to
> > demonstrate that unguided evolution could not have done it.
> >
> > This is a rather strange way to do science, and only the
> kind of game that
> > a bully would employ. Is there any kind of evidence that it
> could be said
> > "unguided evolution" could not do that?
> >
> > What a more civilized approach would be is that evolutionary
> mechanisms
> > were clearly defined so that what is likely and what is not
> might be
> > become clear. This would entail, for example, temporal
> stochastic
> > equations. Is the abrupt arisal of species a problem for
> unguided
> > (whatever one means by that) evolution or not? It doesn't
> seem to me that
> > evolutionary biology is prepared to even address the question
> > intelligently.
> >
> > How can there be honest theory comparison when the theory is
> so vague?
> >
> > ID can also be required to be more explicit. It needs to
> describe in
> > detail a story, which is nothing more than evolution
> offers. The story
> > would describe, for example, what are the minimal
> capabilities and steps
> > required for a Guide to act.
> >
> > Comparing an explicit evolutionary mechanism and a guided
> one could be
> > fruitful. For one, the guided story is one that could be
> possibly
> > employed by human agents. The process of putting it
> together permits
> > dialog between the two. One supporting a guided mechanism
> might argue
> > that such and such step was entirely unlikely given
> available resources.
> > In ths same the unguided advocate might argue that such and
> such a step
> > might be accomplished without guidance, and here's how.
> >
> > In developing explicit guided mechanisms and paths, perhaps new
> > definitions and understanding of what is guided and what is
> not will
> > arise. For now it is vague.
> >
> > As far as I can tell there is no good evidence available to
> distinguish
> > guided from unguided evolution. I don't see why
> "pseudogenes" are any
> > better off in this regard. They appear to adopt a position
> that you
> > oppose: an argument form ingnorance. Just because we know
> of no "reason"
> > that a "pseudogene" would exist does not imply that some
> "reason" might be
> > later found. So all that can be said is that no "reason" is
> known YET.
> > Sound familiar? What is more, unless you know God or all
> putative
> > designers better than I do, I don't see how you (or anyone)
> can say that
> > "pseudogenes" were not intentional.
> >
> > The argument begins to look like Antony Flew's Invisible
> Gardener. One
> > might ask what is the difference between and invisible
> Gardener and no
> > Gardener at all, or what is the difference between an
> invisible designer
> > (guided evolution) and no designer at all (unguided
> evolution). But I
> > take from Flew's argument something different from what he
> intended. All
> > his argument suggests to me is that given the evidence
> provided I have no
> > reason to prefer a Gardener or none at all.
> >
> > Frankly, I think, if one must proceed along these lines,
> that the evidence
> > better supports a guided universe. The only argument offered
> in Flew's
> > case to prefer no Gardener at all is Occam's Razor. But I
> take this to be
> > an epistemological criterion, and see no reason for it to
> bind ontology.
> > Indeed, if it did, it would argue for a Gardener.
> >
> > bill
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> >
> >> William Paley used the 'watchmaker analogy' to demonstrate
> the idea of
> >> intelligent design. We can just tell, by looking at
> nature, that things
> >> are obviously designed by God by fiat, such as man, because
> of their
> >> complexity.
> >>
> >> Darwin creates a stir with an alternate hypothesis of man's
> creation via
> >> biological evolution instead. It is a competing
> hypothesis. Evolution
> >> has now won, for explaining the biological creation of man,
> because of
> >> DNA evidence like pseudogenes.
> >>
> >> So my question: Isn't Behe's 'moustrap' irreducible
> complexity the same
> >> EXACT situation? It is basically saying since we don't know
> how it could
> >> have evolved, therefore it was intelligently designed (by
> God or aliens).
> >> The only difference is that Behe goes into great detail
> trying to explain
> >> how it can't be done by known "Darwinistic evolutionist"
> mechanisms, but
> >> Paley could have (and maybe did?) done the same thing
> (explaining why/how
> >> known science of his day could not explain evolution for
> humans).
> >>
> >> I would like to know what is so different about Behe,
> compared to Paley.
> >> Paley has a 'complexity' argument with the watch, and Behe
> introduces
> >> irreducible complexity, but both are proposing ID because
> known science
> >> can't explain it... yet.
> >>
> >> It is interesting to me that Paley's argument for the
> biological creation
> >> of man is not discarded because it is wrong with the idea
> of complexity,
> >> but because the evolutionary process has evidence "beyond a
> reasonable
> >> doubt." So complexity may still be a valid way to detect
> ID, yet in this
> >> case, it turned out wrong as science accumulated more
> facts. It could be
> >> the same with irreducible complexity. A valid way to
> detect ID, yet
> >> disproven in the future when more facts become available.
> >>
> >> But what is the evidence to prove irreducible complexity?
> It seems like
> >> the only evidence is "evolution can't do it or explain
> it... yet."
> >>
> >> ...Bernie
> >>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbJIGGVvhB4N4pRois01alcOlXrsNLcHdIyNmyDSyDKwlJ1fNW/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.19/2438 - Release Date: 10/15/09 12:02:00
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 17 22:47:30 2009