AJ,
I think you need to be more judicious in referencing your List of Logical Fallacies. Appeals to authority, as you correctly observe, are not proof of anything. But quoting an authority does have its place in the proper context. As before when we were discussing the work of Thomas Kuhn, both of us were giving weight to his authority to speak on his subject.

David,
Since von Braun was not a biologist, we should be wary of following his lead in questions of biology. As you and AJ have noted, that would be inappropriate. However, the questions we have been discussing have gone well beyond the borders of Darwinian evolution. Materialist philosophy is an entire worldview, and as such, we have been lead to discuss many things on this thread, from trees, to metals, to astronomy, etc. I would have thought a guy who was responsible (more so than any other person) for putting a man on the moon might have just known a little bit about something, maybe even astronomy.

To tack the other way, narrowing down to the specific question of life’s origins, most biologists are not well acquainted with the issues as most conduct their daily business without needing to consider the origins of the living things to which they are applying themselves. I personally know a number of people with a degree or masters in biology who, when I ask them their opinion on life’s origins, shrug their shoulders, effectively saying they don’t have much opinion.

Among those who are authoritative on the subject of evolutionary biology, do you suppose that there are presently none who seriously challenge the soundness of the current Darwinian view, as to make it beyond issue?

George,
Thanks for the overview.

You say you have sympathies with AJ’s objections to what I’ve said. I too, probably have some similar objections, for AJ is not interpreting me properly.

AJ,
In speaking of ‘complexity’ you have misunderstood my viewpoint. This is understandable as I haven’t said much at all about complexity.

Complexity does not imply design. No one has been saying that it does.

This morning I emptied a bin of rubbish into a dumpster. The bin contained a pile of colourful waste, mostly food scraps. It was an intricate and complex mess. There was no evidence that the waste was assorted in any orderly manner.

In my alphabet soup, the letters floated around in a disorderly jumble. However, if I find letters laid out in an orderly construction that spelled out an English proverb, would I be right to conclude that they were arranged by an intelligent agent?

Earlier you asked how we would recognise something that is not designed. I think that is a good question, perhaps the right question. I said something similar earlier (4/9) when talking of the SETI project. This was an initiative supported by astronomer Carl Sagan, who believed we could listen for and recognise intelligence in radio signals coming from distant reaches of the galaxy.

Do you think that we are at all capable of distinguishing intelligence in such manner?

The issue is not whether that which is under investigation is simple or complex; it could be as simple as an arrowhead or as complex as living cells.

We recognise creative intelligent input not by observing complexity alone but by a recognition or understanding of the order that has been imposed onto matter.

George,

Thanks for such a thoughtful response.

I think one of the main reasons we disagree is because I’m not willing to take so many leaps of faith as you seem to be.

<<When, do you think he should have appeared?>>

Now would be a better time, because we now have better methods of communication; allowing the whole world to witness his claims and miracles; not to mention the better methods of recording and documenting his visit to Earth.

But it’s not so much when he should have appeared, but why he stays in hiding.

<<That is a different question, and the brief theological answer is that God wants you to seek and find him>>

I don’t like this explanation, and again, for the same reason I don’t like the as “God works in mysterious ways” argument.

But thanks again for your response.

Dan,

<<I think you need to be more judicious in referencing your List of Logical Fallacies. Appeals to authority, as you correctly observe, are not proof of anything.>>

Arguments from authority can most certainly be appropriate.

But I also mention it as a logical fallacy because Creationists use quotes and the opinions of others so disproportionately frequently when arguing their case (as if it proved something). It shows that they don’t have anything much else. Notice how rarely (if ever) I do that?

<< Complexity does not imply design. No one has been saying that it does.

This morning I emptied a bin of rubbish into a dumpster. The bin contained a pile of colourful waste, mostly food scraps. It was an intricate and complex mess. There was no evidence that the waste was assorted in any orderly manner.>>

Okay then, but order doesn’t imply design either.

If you think you see design in the universe then I can understand that. But if you’re implying that it brings evolution into question, or supports the Genesis account of creation, then that’s a non sequitur - another fallacy of logic.

<<We recognise creative intelligent input not by observing complexity alone but by a recognition or understanding of the order that has been imposed onto matter.>>

Waterboy already dealt with the ‘order implies design’ argument at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#120907 where you used and analogy of the letters H E L P written in the sand instead of the alphabet soup analogy, and I gave you some good links debunking the same argument at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121345.

The best link was http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php.

So again, you’re repeating a discredited argument.

But this is all quite meaningless, because I’ve mentioned enough over our discussions and particularly in one of my last posts about Quote Mining, to show that Creationist arguments, whether they be from websites or movies, are rife with deceit. Any viewpoint that requires so much deceit has lost the argument from the word “go”.

I’m not sure how you can get around that one, sorry.

AJ Philips,
>>one of the main reasons we disagree is because I’m not willing to take so many leaps of faith as you seem to be<<
Yes, as I said at the beginning of our discussion, there are no rational reasons (binding for everybody, like reasoning in logic or mathematics) to prefer Sagan’s version of reality to its alternative, or vice-versa. Indeed, the extra insight that one has, or lacks, leading to the one or the other preference, is sometimes called “leap of faith”. Of course, if you do not make that leap, and choose Sagan’s option, then any exposition of the possible human models of the Divine (depending on the cultural context and intellectual level of those who subscribe to them) must come to you as more “leaps of faith” or just simply as meaningless.

>> why he stays in hiding.<<
There are millions of Christians, religious Jews, Muslims, and in a certain sense also Hindus and even some Buddhists, of different cultures, intellectual level etc., who do not think the Divine is hiding. I would not say the Chinese language is incomprehensible, only that it is incomprehensible TO ME, because there are millions of those who can understand it. See also my reference to the subjective nature of the concept of convincing evidence.

Had you “liked“ the phrase that God does not want to force Himself upon you, that would have meant you already accepted His existence in some sense, which I did not assume. “God works in mysterious ways” is not an argument but a poetic expression of the unfathomable.

Grim,
Please read my posts to AJ about why today no educated person - theist or atheist - believes in a God, who performs magic. One reason for that is that even if He acted like that, it would not necessarily convince everybody. Another reason are the many millions I mentioned above who have experienced Him (It) in this or that way that counts to them as convincing evidence of His (It’s) existence, even if people like Dawkins can understand it only as delusions.

AJ,
So many of your responses over the years have alleged deceit on the part of those with whom you disagree. This tactic reflects more on you than anything else.

Earlier you cried “Ad Hominem Argument” when I merely suggested that you’d borrowed a line from someone else. Yet the most popular theme of your arguments is that your opponents are telling lies. So much so, that it is akin to a slander campaign. I don’t know why you can’t see the real ad homenim argument in your own writing. I think you would be better off addressing the points made by adversaries than attacking someone’s moral integrity whenever they make a challanging point.

A few posts ago, Grim made a comment about people believing the earth to be flat. I thought we’d already dealt with that issue adequately earlier (23/9). Perhaps Grim thinks otherwise. Perhaps he thought my explanation was inadequate. Perhaps he’s just trying to be provocative. Whatever, but I don’t desend to slander by calling him a liar just because we disagree on that point.

Anyway, I asked you a question, and apart from alleging deceit, you provided some links. As most of them just lead to other links, I got tired of chasing my tail.

One link lead to a comment last year from Waterboy, which began an interesting and lengthy discussion. In the midst of which appeared the same diversion:

“Think how boring it is to have you continually calling me and creationists dishonest and liars, as if your argument vitally depends on it.” (Dan, 18/8/08)

In the end, Waterboy never denied that order within a coded message implies intelligence (a writer of the code). He denied DNA contained encoding.

So what about answering the questions?

If I find letters laid out in an orderly construction that spelled out an English proverb, would I be right to conclude that they were arranged by an intelligent agent?

Was Carl Sagan correct to think that we are capable of distinguishing intelligence by recognising intelligible order read from within radio signals from distant parts of the galaxy?