Article <a2jtrjddmguih4d002uj2rc44krgclnl3h@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<a2jtrjddmguih4d002uj2rc44krgclnl3h@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: IDentity <identity@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:36:19 +0100
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Lines: 197
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <a2jtrjddmguih4d002uj2rc44krgclnl3h@4ax.com>
References: <vpf1kr$g09c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="60436"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 11837

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1], 
>there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited 
>recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness 
>and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.
>
>ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times it 
>seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with education. 
> From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and Evolution News 
>promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.
>
>Personally, I have a degree of ambivalence toward ID. For example, I 
>think the 'information problem' claimed by ID is real, but I'm a bit 
>surprised that people like William Dembski have not been able to 
>progress it further after several decades (I've briefly but fruitfully 
>corresponded with him regarding this in the past). More recently, on the 
>topic of junk DNA, I get the impression that Casey Luskin and the Long 
>Story Short episode on this may have oversimplified and/or overstated 
>arguments against junk DNA (I've made a corrective comment on LSS's 
>YouTube channel in relation to this).

There is only one way to understand ID, and that is to understand your
own Self.  Because your Self contains all knowledge that exist,
indcluding knowledge about design in nature. And that knowledge cannot
be found anywhere outside of your Mind.

It is that knowledge that all science is built upon. Science is based
on observations through the senses, and the subjective interpretation
of these observations. Knowledge is not something you "import" from
outside by reading books etc., as commonly believed. You could not
understand anything in any book, unless you already new it - i.e. had
the ability to understand 



This ability for interpretation can not be imported from outside, for
logical reasons. 


It must be there before you can begin interpreting any information
from outside. 

 That is just information. There must be an inner ability to
interprete the information coming from outside in the first place, an
inner logic by which things can be understood.








And that knowledge is not complex, but rather simple.  
Complexity is just simple elements combined in different ways.
Everything in the physical world can be reduced to simple particles,
and anythig  complex are just these particles conbimed and arranged 

Not information, for that is what you preceive from outside, via the
senses, and the senses are decitful



>ID itself is a broad-ish church, for example with a range of views on 
>common descent and the extent of evolution (e.g. from micro to macro).
>
>So, given all this, why would I speak in support of ID and claim it has 
>gained and sustained traction [2]? My comments here are somewhat 
>subjective, but with supporting references where applicable. To be 
>clear, this is intended as a more a personal reflection and not a 
>rigorous treatise (in contrast to other TO posts where I believe I 
>attempt to argue consistently and from evidence).
>
>First, the question of origins - either life on earth or the universe 
>itself - is all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted, 
>complicated, etc. One would expect strengths and weakness with opposing 
>arguments and interpretation of evidence, as fallible humans grapple 
>with these ultimate questions. So the shortcomings of ID are not in and 
>of themselves unexpected or disqualifying.
>
>At its best, I think that ID correctly and non-deceptively infers a 
>non-specific intelligent agent from an interpretation of scientific 
>evidence (while acknowledging many ID proponents are Christians). This 
>aligns with my own position and I suspect a growing number of Christians 
>who sit somewhere between YEC and theistic evolution.
>
>The traction that ID has I think partly flows from this genuinely 
>"agnostic" stance when it comes to comes to inferring a designer. This 
>enables it to focus on the science alone.
>
>Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between 
>the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each 
>applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to 
>identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins. 
>Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e. 
>on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic 
>explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.
>
>One misunderstanding of this logical asymmetry is demonstrated by the 
>supposed counter-argument, which says that positing God merely shifts 
>the question to 'Who made God?', which is declared to have no 
>explanatory power, and therefore can be discounted. Dawkins is fond of 
>this approach. Sorry Richard, but you can't make God vanish in a puff of 
>pseudo-logic and disingenuous wishful-thinking.
>
>In any case, ID has endured now its modern form for about three decades, 
>and of the various creationism streams is, as far as I'm aware, by far 
>the most credibly and substantially engaged with current science. The DI 
>claims a research program and over 250+ peer-reviewed papers published 
>in mainstream journals [3]. Of course, the validity of these may be 
>disputed - as are most perspectives and papers in contentious areas 
>(e.g. string theory).
>
>While ID has not delivered a knock-out punch (obviously), it does seem 
>to continue to track progress in science and develop its arguments 
>accordingly. Examples include:
>
>1. OOL. Although I've mentioned some specific criticisms of the Long 
>Story Short video series, overall the fact that they can be made today 
>is revealing. The series critiquing naturalistic abiogenesis [4] 
>(claimed to made by five "PhD scientists") directly challenges OOL on 
>the basis of current science, and exaggerated claims of progress (IMO). 
>Along with this are books like The Stairway to Life [5], and many 
>others. And James Tour has waded in to this issue, as an ID sympathiser 
>at least, and despite his shouty and sometimes dismissive manner, I 
>think his work very much reinforces what ID is saying [6]. YMMV.
>
>2. Stephen Meyer on most things. He is now the public face of ID, and 
>its most prominent intellectual spokesperson, debater, and book author. 
>His guest appearance on Joe Rogan confirm his popular positioning. His 
>genteel conversations with skeptic Michael Shermer I think point to the 
>substantive arguments ID presents. And Meyer's books have deserved 
>infleunce and impact across topics like first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, 
>complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.
>
>4. The whole complexity thing. Yes, I understand (for example) PZ Myers' 
>frustration with ID veering toward "complexity therefore design". 
>However, the complexity problem is real and growing. Science is 
>discovering more and more complexity in living cells and living things. 
>This correspondingly increases the challenge to OOL and macroevolution, 
>and ID knows this and is rightly pressing the point.
>
>4. Behe's IC, and more recently his waiting time problem analysis. Your 
>mileage well vary on this one.
>
>5. The information issue. Biology is as much about information storage, 
>processing and maintenance as it is about physics and chemistry. 
>Naturalism has not come to grips with this IMO, and I think ID is on the 
>right track with the focus it has on this.
>
>6. ID taking on first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information, 
>Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.
>
>That's an incomplete and uneven summary. As I hope I've made clear, 
>YMMV; I acknowledge that. This post is not an opportunity to dive down 
>the hundred rabbit holes that this overview touches on. That is 
>something I've been demonstrably (laboriously) willing to do in many 
>other threads. Rather, this is an invitation for conversation about your 
>own journey, perspective, doubts, convictions etc. I'm happy to consider 
>correction and criticism, within the framework described.
>
>If you are convinced that ID (or creation in general) is not something 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========