Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Kritikos
Poster
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:48 am
Custom Title: Critical tinker
Location: Cambridge, Mass.
Contact:

Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Postby Kritikos » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:51 pm

Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse had a debate on a radio broadcast with "intelligent design" advocate Sean Pitman. I have not yet listened to the recording, but I have been reading Rosenhouse's comments on his blog, which seem to me to contain some interesting stuff. He writes:

When it comes to natural selection, [Pitman's] skepticism reaches dizzying heights. He simply will not accept any sort of circumstantial evidence that natural selection not only can, in principle, craft complex systems, but actually has done so in natural history. . . .

But all that skepticism goes out the window when it comes to whether intelligence can craft living organisms. Or functional universes for that matter.

I pointed this out during the debate. I asked Pitman why all of his skepticism disappears as soon as the question turns to whether intelligent agents can create living organisms equipped with complex systems. We certainly have no experience of such a thing. Human beings possess the highest level of intelligence with which we have actual experience, but creating universes is many orders of magnitude beyond what such intelligence has been seen to accomplish. Why, then, the willingness to ascribe extraordinary creative abilities to intelligence?


Rosenhouse goes on to furnish particulars in support of his contrast between how ID advocates consider no amount of evidence to be sufficient to show that natural selection can produce the diversity and complexity that we observe, but at the same time consider no evidence at all beyond a hopelessly and irremediably vague analogy to be necessary to show that intelligence can produce those effects.

Those who know Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion may say that Rosenhouse's argument, like "intelligent design theory" itself, is nothing fundamentally new; but I still think that it is a notable and worthwhile way of replying to the specifics of the ID stance. In effect, Rosenhouse is placing the argument for "intelligent design" under the heading of "special pleading" rather than under that of "argument from ignorance." I don't know if he is the first person to take this line of reply, but it was a new to me.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Postby kennyc » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:29 pm

I'm so sick of these IDiots......since they won't evolve, let them die, die, die!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:37 pm

kennyc wrote:I'm so sick of these IDiots......since they won't evolve, let them die, die, die!

Individuals don't evolved, species evolve. IDiots can only adapt...or die.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Kritikos
Poster
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:48 am
Custom Title: Critical tinker
Location: Cambridge, Mass.
Contact:

Re: Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Postby Kritikos » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:13 pm

Gord wrote:
kennyc wrote:I'm so sick of these IDiots......since they won't evolve, let them die, die, die!

Individuals don't evolved, species evolve. IDiots can only adapt...or die.


Unfortunately, they do adapt: IDiots are just creationists who have adapted to their failure to get "creation science" into the public schools. Now that their "wedge" has also failed to get past the federal courts (thank His Noodliness), they have adapted to that by moving to get schools to teach what they call "scientific controversies," as proposed in this bill in Virginia:

The bill calls upon the state board of education and local school boards to "create an environment in public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific controversies in science classes" and to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present scientific controversies in science classes"; they are forbidden to "prohibit any public elementary or secondary school teacher from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in science classes." Presumably attempting to immunize the bill against the accusation that it is religiously motivated, the bill also provides, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to promote or discriminate against any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote or discriminate against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote or discriminate against religion or nonreligion."


And, similarly, this one in Oklahoma:

SB 1765 would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught"; it would prevent such authorities from "prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
Last edited by Kritikos on Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Interesting new (?) reply to ID by Jason Rosenhouse

Postby kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:15 pm

Kritikos wrote:
Gord wrote:
kennyc wrote:I'm so sick of these IDiots......since they won't evolve, let them die, die, die!

Individuals don't evolved, species evolve. IDiots can only adapt...or die.


Unfortunately, they do adapt: IDiots are just creationists who have adapted to their failure to get "creation science" into the public schools. Now that their "wedge" has also failed to get past the federal courts (thank His Noodliness), they have adapted to that by moving to get schools to teach what they call "scientific controversies," as proposed in this bill in Virginia:
..../quote]


But that's exactly my point....it's been going on for decades, it's time for them to die,die, die!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest