@Brad: What this means is that …

Comment on Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God” by Sean Pitman.

@Brad:

What this means is that the differences are clustered or nested because of the different functional needs of different organisms in different environments. – Sean Pitman

This suggested that you knew something about the designer that would enable a prediction. When I tried to draw out the consequence, you took it back. If you were honest, you would simply admit that your hypothesis does not make any empirical predictions, contrary to your earlier claims. You would also admit that all your talk about hierarchical patterns being the sorts of things designers naturally employ is irrelevant, since when you are threatened with evidence that clearly non-functional aspects of the genome also display these patterns you just throw up your hands and say that the designer could have done things that way for reasons we can’t discern.

I only suggested that there could be possible reasons why an intelligent designer may choose to use a NHP. This is not to suggest that all intelligent designers would use a NHP to produce complex interacting machines nor is the production of a NHP a clear prediction of the ID-only hypothesis since NHPs can be and are produced by apparently mindless process of nature all the time.

Again, the only real scientific basis of supporting the ID-only hypothesis, as Sober himself argues (though inconsistently), is the demonstration that the phenomenon is within at least human-level creativity while being well beyond any known non-deliberate source of natural production. That’s it.

Thanks for the entertainment; you couldn’t have misunderstood Sober more if you tried. You have not described the inverse gambler’s fallacy, which in this case is the fallacious inference from observing repeated double sixes to the hypothesis that many rolls had taken place before the observed rolls. By the way, the regularly gambler’s fallacy as standardly described is made by someone who by stipulation believes the dice are fair; and both fallacies are in fact independent of the particular hypothesis concerning the bias of the dice we choose for the sake of example. If you were taking my introduction to probability class, you would fail. In future, perhaps you should be a bit more cautious in supposing one of the leading philosophers of probability in the world to have made an elementary mistake of the kind you allege (and in a widely cited and twice-reprinted paper, no less).

Oh please. The fallacies are really the same in essence. The inverse gambler’s fallacy is the conclusion that a particular outcome of an apparently random process, like rolling double sixes ten times in a row, likely occurred in the past at a more common rate than would be expected given the assumption of fair dice. In other words, the gambler concludes that the dice are in fact loaded or biased given a certain unlikely pattern of outcome.

This is Sober’s mistake related to the topic of the design hypothesis: A gambler experiencing a seemingly biased series of rolls of the dice starts to make the hypothesis that perhaps the dice are not fair; that they are really biased. This hypothesis he holds not only for future rolls of the dice, but past rolls as well which he did not directly experience. In other words, his hypothesis could be challenged in two ways. Future rolls of the dice could falsify his hypothesis, and, someone with prior past experience that extends beyond that of our gambler own could also inform him of past rolls of the dice that falsify his hypothesis.

The point remains the same: Based only on the pattern itself the hypothesis of bias can be scientifically hypothesized to a useful, though never perfect, degree of certainty. Sober doesn’t recognize this point with his use of the “gambler’s fallacy”… and evidently neither do you.

For another interesting take on Sober’s argument that design cannot be inferred from certain characteristics of the phenomenon alone, but must have independent evidence of the existence of the designer (though Sober is not consistent with this argument), see Dembski’s counter-argument here:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.23.Sober_indep_evid_req.htm

This addresses yet another flaw in Sober’s paper. Sober accuses IDists of appealing to the concept of “modus tollens“, or the absolute perfection of the ID hypothesis. He uses the illustration of a million monkey’s randomly typing on typewriters producing all of the works of Shakespeare. He argues that while such a scenario is extremely unlikely, that it isn’t statistically impossible. There is still a finite probability of success. While this is true, science doesn’t go with what is merely possible, but what is probable given the available evidence at hand. – Sean Pitman

Yes, that is the simple point here, that the design theorist shouldn’t say that non-design is impossible, just that it is unlikely. You agree with him, so this can hardly be a “flaw” in the paper.

The “flaw” in Sober’s argument here is to lump all IDist together into one boat. I personally do not know very many IDists or even informed creationist who make this particular mistake. Sober is using a simple debating tactic here to discredit all by associating everyone with the few who do not grasp this or that obvious concept.

If you agree that probabilistic modus tollens is invalid, then you had best not say that it had to be involved. Rather, the hypothesis is that it was involved. Sober’s argument is that there is no evidence for this claim, since there is no independent evidence sufficient to ground the probabilistic inequality:

∑i Pr(the eye has F1 … Fn │ Design & GAi)Pr(GAi│Design) > Pr(the eye has F1 … Fn │ Chance).

The potentially falsifiable hypothesis is that only ID could have produced the particular phenomenon in question.

As I previously noted for you several times, I call this the ID-only hypothesis. The basis for supporting this hypothesis is the very same basis that Sober himself claims is a valid basis for SETI and is also the basis for other sciences that invoke ID – like anthropology or forensics.

The argument, as Sober explains, is that the phenomenon in question is known to be well within the powers of at least human-level creation while being, at the same time, well beyond the known powers of non-deliberate natural production.

That’s it. It is a very simple argument that Sober himself uses.

I apply the very same argument to certain features of living things – the very same argument. Sober disagrees with my application only because he thinks that Darwin has provided an obvious mechanism to explain what I’m claiming can only be done by at least human-level intelligence and creativity.

This is quite different from your argument where you are claiming to be able to support a mindless naturalistic process without any known viable mechanism. Remember, you said that you were “ambivalent” regarding the creative powers of RM/NS. Sober, on the other hand, is not. He is convinced of the creative powers of RM/NS. Therefore, given this starting premise, Sober is on much higher logical ground than you are.

For the record, here are my “thoughts” regarding what is “convincing” about the “arguments” in Sober. First, the arguments are valid. Second, I can see no reason to doubt any of their premises. Finally, I regard as convincing exactly those valid arguments formed from premises I can see no reason to doubt.

Incidentally, this whole exercise is becoming very tedious, since I am beginning to suspect that every single argument you have will end up depending on your in-principle argument regarding natural selection. Since I regard the probability of that argument succeeding as negligibly small—after all, you have no expertise in this area and have convinced exactly no-one who is—these conversations look increasingly fruitless. Do you agree?

It depends. You seem to me to disagree with a core basis of logic which Sober himself is defending. By your own admission you do not recognize the clear creative potential of RM/NS which Sober defends – a mechanism with which you are “ambivalent”. You also don’t seem to realize that the basis of ID arguments aren’t an effort to prove God, but to support the ID-only hypothesis where all that is know of the intelligent agent is that he/she/it was intelligent to at least the human level. That’s all.

You also seem to think that if you find a particular pattern that can be explained by mindless naturalistic processes that everything associated with that pattern can be explained by the same. This is a logical fallacy on your part which is why I asked you to discuss the geometric granite rock problem – which you have yet to do.

As far as not convincing those with letters after their name, I’m not in this discussion with you to convince you or anyone else of anything. I’m in it for myself, to challenge my own ideas to see if they really can fly. And, its fine if you have lost interest and no longer wish to continue this discussion. No one is twisting your arm here.

If you do wish to continue, however, I suggest that your goal also should not be to convince me of anything. Your goal should be to speak to those who have not yet thought about these issues and have not made up their minds to the point of being so biased that they cannot see “rational” arguments for what they really are for themselves (without seeing if others of high academic rank are convinced first). There are many “lurkers” who frequent this forum, usually over 2000 per day, – not all of whom are completely blinded by their religious background and many of whom, I know for a fact, would preferentially favor your perspective if they were ever exposed to it.

Just something to think about…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

My understanding is that, historically, Adventist fundamental beliefs have shifted in ways that individuals holding one particular position, including Ellen White herself at times, could have been expelled from the Church by those holding another particular position. There was a time when those of the Church held different views on what 24-hour period of the day should be kept as Sabbath (it wasn’t always sunset to sunset); the Godhead (we once rejected the trinity); and righteousness by faith (we once believed in righteousness by works).

These disagreements occurred before certain agreed positions were so settled in the minds of the founding fathers and mothers of the SDA Church that they became “fundamental” pillars of the SDA faith. The current list of fundamentals was not always as it currently stands. It grew and developed over time. It is only expected that as more information comes clearly to light that the list of important “fundamental” beliefs would also expand over time.

And, as the early Church founders soon discovered, without the maintenance of internal order, discipline, and government within the Church, as based on the concept of “present truth”, as understood by the organized body of believers, the organization soon begins to fragment towards chaos and irrelevance…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

Sean, while I could agree with your statement on a prima facie basis, I think one needs to dig a bit deeper here. This statement basically says that we don’t need the Bible or any type of falsifiable evidence or even beliefs to gain admission to heaven, which seems to contradict what you often state (not to mention the purpose of this website). I could be wrong, but I believe that God is able to claim souls who lack knowledge in Him because he can judge whether they would accept Him and Christ’s sacrifice if they had representative knowledge of Him.

Exactly…

It just goes to show that it is motive, not current knowledge or beliefs, that is important when it comes to judging if a person is or is not savable.

This idea does not contradict my efforts to uphold truth as I see it. Just because knowledge is not the basis of salvation does not mean that it isn’t important. Knowledge is the basis of the solid conscious hope of the Gospel message. While one can be saved without ever having a conscious knowledge of this future glory while here on Earth, it sure would be nice to have known while here – right?

I’m not convinced that God saves them because they have “love;” after all, many animals give well-documented evidence of having love, which is an instinct written in the genes of many life forms, including most humans (I’ve met a few who could be exceptions). I suspect that He who knows us in the womb can discern much more than our love, and recognizes what our choice would be given an opportunity to know Him and serve Him.

Our moral choices are based on motive, not knowledge. While animals do express love and devotion to their masters, they cannot appreciate moral freedom as we humans can. They have not been given moral responsibility or choice as we have been given it. Free moral choices are based on the motive of love – of doing unto others as you would like to be treated because of your love for your neighbor.

Remember, it was Jesus who pointed out that all the Law and the Prophets were built on the single “Royal Law”, and James put it, of Love – love to both God and toward our neighbors. Matthew 22:39-40 NIV.

And, as Paul points out, those who love their neighbors as themselves fulfill the Law and are therefore savable – regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof regarding the particulars of God’s existence, the life and death of Jesus, His true character, or any other doctrinal truths while in this life. Romans 13:8-10 NIV.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

Like the vast majority of readers here, I don’t need a scientific basis for my faith, and I believe I can be saved by it however “blind” it may be.

Salvation is based on love, not blind faith – or faith of any kind for that matter. It is for this reason that even those who have never heard the name of Jesus or had any real concept of God can be saved according to how they expressed the Royal Law of Love toward their neighbors – a law which has been written on the hearts of all. This is why I believe that there will be a number of very surprised atheists in Heaven someday…

Faith or belief is the basis of conscious hope, but not of salvation. If you have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, you have gained nothing… 1 Corinthians 13:2 NIV.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.