Article <quc0sj9r1c7h7g1io36l36pe2ru371l479@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<quc0sj9r1c7h7g1io36l36pe2ru371l479@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.nntp4.net!lim1.tschaffert.com!nntp.terraraq.uk!news1.firedrake.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 05:04:43 -0500
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 236
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <quc0sj9r1c7h7g1io36l36pe2ru371l479@4ax.com>
References: <vpf1kr$g09c$1@dont-email.me> <hf8mrjdt0m94vkt8gd0fcos7kgnp1lj9ps@4ax.com> <vpg74g$mfa0$1@dont-email.me> <samorjp08avatof45tleje7f0fdjhnno2d@4ax.com> <vpmtl8$2hfnl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="315"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eLM7vrQX78keb5JL8KerDkNodcg=
Bytes: 12660

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 24/02/2025 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 24/02/2025 1:24 am, jillery wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for making this point clear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You recently stated in paraphrase that you reject the possibility of
>>>> macro-evolution.  Here would be a good place for you to explain how
>>>> you think micro-evolution would not inevitably lead to
>>>> macro-evolution.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Just to be sure we're on the same page, why are you ignoring the above
>> challenge?  Do you reject even the possibility of macro-evolution?
>> Wouldn't that be just another negative claim?
>
>As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred=20
>rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is=
=20
>_the_ evolution debate.


Since you say "the micro/macro question is "_the_ evolution debate", I
fail to understand how you characterize my question as a
"rabbit-hole". To the contrary, my question is completely relevant to
that debate.  This suggests your comments above are merely a poor
excuse to evade the issue.  At the very least, you could acknowledge
that ID provides zero scientific basis for a rejection of the
scientific consensus.


>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The shortcomings of ID aren't a consequence of human fallibility, =
but
>>>> of it's fundamental inability to make objective distinctions between
>>>> biological features and functions which are the result of unguided
>>>> natural processes and those which are the result of purposeful =
design.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as ID fails to specify the abilities of its designer, it has
>>>> no basis for claiming any scientific foundation for ID.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You conflate two separate lines of reasoning here, between denying
>>>> God's existence and rejecting ID's logic.  They are not the same.  I
>>>> acknowledge Dawkins might sound as if he also conflates them, and
>>>> IDists are more than happy to handwave away his arguments for that
>>>> reason, just as you do above.
>>>>
>>>> However, unless IDists specify the abilities of their presumptive
>>>> designer, they have zero logical basis for assuming what it can
>>>> do/could have done.  My experience is IDists credit their designer =
for
>>>> whatever phenomena they don't understand, which ranges from creating
>>>> the entire universe to creating living things to mutating DNA, all =
on
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========