Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

The claim was that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information". If I describe the other alternatives and why they are wrong, then this is support for the claim that intelligence stands alone. Rather than shout argument from incredulity, think about the nature of the claim I'm making. For example, imagine someone claims "idea A is the only good idea". In order to support this claim, they must show why ideas B, C, and D are not good ideas. Does that make sense? In order to show that intelligence is the only cause capable, I must show why the other causes are not sufficient. 

Moreover, intelligence is observed to be capable of producing it all the time. Through the input of intelligence, we have developed computer code, written language, radio communication, and have even tampered with genetic code. All of these are specified and sequence based. Intelligence is an adequate cause.

(emphasis mine)

These are radically different claims.  The first is true but unremarkable.  The second would be true if you'd actually shown other causes are insufficient, but you haven't done that.  All you've done is whine about improbabilities and use undefinable terms like "specified information."  Showing that the exact process of abiogenesis responsible for life on this planet is unknown doesn't advance the proposition of intelligent design.  It's just a fallacious argument.  The fact is that nobody has been able to create a filter that can reliably separate out those things that were designed from those that weren't designed.  In its absence, we have a bunch of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity.  If this is the best that the ID movement can produce, it is a very poor showing.  More, because it's a possibility that humans evolved their ability to design things, you haven't even shown that design points to a non-natural process.  That's a complete failure for those hoping that design is the magic bullet that points to God.

You're right, the claim is that it is the only known cause, not that it is the only cause. I should have been more careful with that. Information is defined as that which is conveyed by a sequence of things. The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function. Couple that with the fact that the sequence is highly irregular, and you start to see how intelligence is a good candidate. Now just because intelligence has repeatedly been shown to be an adequate cause of this information, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was the cause. This is why it is essential to compare the competing hypothesis for the origin of information. When the others fail, and only one remains, we can conclude that the remaining one is the only known cause. We can and should look for other causes, but that doesn't change the fact that only one possible explanation has been identified despite rigorous searching. And the intelligent design advocates have been working hard to develop methods of design detection. William Dembski has worked on this issue. Yes, it is proposed that humans evolved their ability to design things, but this ability relies on intelligence. I didn't say that design points to something non-natural, I said it points to intelligence. You're right that it doesn't necessarily point to God, and that is why the ID community does not attempt to identify the designer(s).

---

There is no direct link between atheism and science.

The application of scientific thinking often results in atheism. But not all atheists are scientifically minded.

This was my response as well, though it seems not to have been posted before I shut it down this morning.

There is no link as Rob says and in fact some atheists claim to be spiritual, etc.  But it is quite fair to point out that every mainstream xtian sect embraces empirical claims not based on observation or measurement.  In other words, xtians start off committed to empirical claims for which they do not consult science.  And yet empirical claims are precisely those which make up the domain of science.  That isn't to say such a xtian couldn't be a good scientist in regard to other questions but when it comes to the origins of the universe, the development of life on earth or the relationship between consciousness and the human brain xtians are not good scientists. Instead they seek to cherry pick evidence that supports the empirical beliefs their religion commits them to.

I disagree. A lot of Christians can and have always been good scientists. We have an obvious apparent bias. Given that we all know that science should be protected from personal bias, we are forced to take our bias into account at every turn. On the other hand, non religious scientists do not have their biases labelled. They are still incredibly biased people, but they are not necessarily held up to the same bias-avoiding behavior that religious scientists are.

---

Random mutation is proclaimed to be the engine that drives new genetic information.

It's "an" engine, not "the" engine.  Mutations are also the result of fairly predictable biochemical factors such as stochastic switching, whereby the chemical balance in the environment can mask or uncover alleles, thereby affecting which traits are "on" and which ones are "off" at the time of replication.

If you want to an assert that an intelligent agent is somehow directing the process. it's your responsibility to provide evidence for that agent, rather than working backwards and just inferring that it simply has to be there.  (I doubt very much, however, that the clueless git described in the Bible would be capable of such work.)

Mutation frequency is predictable (but highly influenced by environmental contaminants), but mutation location and which base will be incorporated in place of the newly mutated locus are not. And at the time of replication, very few genes are active. And traits don't switch on or off, genes are transcribed with a gradient of rates from none to rapid. Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you're trying to say that mutation isn't random, then it must be nonrandom. If it is nonrandom, then genomes would eventually converge on the same sequence due to the fact that the same mutations are favorable. 

Also, it is not really unreasonable to say that because intelligence is the only known cause, an intelligent agent must have been present to cause it. You want me to provide evidence for a designer without appealing to what we see in nature?

[Astreja]

Also, it is not really unreasonable to say that because intelligence is the only known cause, an intelligent agent must have been present to cause it. You want me to provide evidence for a designer without appealing to what we see in nature?

It is extremely unreasonable to assert intelligence as the "only known cause," because we simply do not know that.  We have no evidence whatsoever to connect preexisting organic structures to an intelligent agent that predates modern biotechnology.  You are assuming the existence of an intelligent entity that created life, and using existing life as evidence for the entity.  That is simply not acceptable from a logical point of view.

Here are your choices:

• Independently demonstrate the existence of an entity capable of creating life, then explain how it created life.
  
• Explain the mechanism whereby life originated, then trace that mechanism back to an intelligent agent.
  
• Shrug and say "We don't know... yet."
  

Personally I favour the third option.

[Cecelia]

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

I disagree that nature exhibits evidence of design.

Nature evolves.  it changes.  Just as we change.  A designed object doesn't gain nor lose attributes.  It retains them, and doesn't change, without the designer going in and changing them.  One could say that a creator is STILL changing the design--but if that were the case we'd see more significant changes.  It would also suggest that this creator is purposely designing deformed children, and doing absolutely nothing about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.    Not to mention that according to bilblical sources people used to live hundreds of years, but don't anymore.  Christians like to blame sin, but that seems counter to design.  It's not as if 'sin' determines how long we live or how long our bodies last.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Your feeling that life 'seems' designed is neither empirical data nor a testable hypothesis, it isn't even a coherent assertion in itself. You scientific illiterate.

[downbeatplumb]

I wonder if this AAA person realises that the theory of evolution had all the answers to the design idea when Darwin originally did it.
It was in part a response to Paleys watch from the word go.

[Tonus]

You're right, the appearance of design might be an illusion, but I have not seen a compelling reason to think it to be so. In fact, the more I learn the more I think it may be genuine. We have those historical examples of times when things were not as they seemed to be, and that should keep us cautious and fair minded when evaluating the appearance of design. However, just because things aren't always as they appear does not mean that they are never as they appear.

I think it depends on how we approach it and what we think we're looking for. If it's just highly-advanced beings who are not particularly compassionate then the design of things like harmful bacteria or viruses is not surprising (though it might be very disconcerting). If it's a highly-advanced being who is the very hallmark of compassion, such things should trouble us because it's difficult to see where they fit in.

I understand that for a great many people, the idea that there must be a god is very compelling and makes intuitive sense. But where we go from there must take into account everything we see in that design, including the stuff that might make us worry about the type of intellect behind it. I'm cautious about accepting the notion of a highly-advanced --and unbelievably powerful-- being creating everything around us, because some of that stuff is very scary.

[Whateverist]

This was my response as well, though it seems not to have been posted before I shut it down this morning.

There is no link as Rob says and in fact some atheists claim to be spiritual, etc.  But it is quite fair to point out that every mainstream xtian sect embraces empirical claims not based on observation or measurement.  In other words, xtians start off committed to empirical claims for which they do not consult science.  And yet empirical claims are precisely those which make up the domain of science.  That isn't to say such a xtian couldn't be a good scientist in regard to other questions but when it comes to the origins of the universe, the development of life on earth or the relationship between consciousness and the human brain xtians are not good scientists. Instead they seek to cherry pick evidence that supports the empirical beliefs their religion commits them to.

I disagree. A lot of Christians can and have always been good scientists. We have an obvious apparent bias. Given that we all know that science should be protected from personal bias, we are forced to take our bias into account at every turn. On the other hand, non religious scientists do not have their biases labelled. They are still incredibly biased people, but they are not necessarily held up to the same bias-avoiding behavior that religious scientists are.

I can't believe you just OMGUS'd* non-Christian scientists over their lack of god belief. You've identified no personal bias likely to distort their findings yet cast shade on them all gratuitously. Worse, you seem to feel that dancing around your own easily identifiable bias some how inoculates the lot of you against any further occurrence of personal bias. You give no reason for either finding non-Christian scientists biased or finding Christian scientists less biased. I'd say this post of yours indicates your personal bias immunity theory is bunko.


* http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?titl...d_You_Suck

[Chas]

Well, no, it doesn't start with the genome.  It starts with much simpler chemicals and all genomes are products of evolution.

What makes you think that chemicals will produce genomes?

Given elements, energy, and time more complex molecules arise. We see this throughout the universe.

Lone nucleotides or even nucleic acids are not the same as genomes.

No, they are the building blocks. See above.

Similarly, amino acids are not the same as genomes. Not only do you need nucleotide codes to arise, you also need a system to connect this to a protein code to eventually arise as well.

And that system evolved from less complexity.

---

This information is specified.

By what or whom?

It accomplishes a desired and specific function.

Specific does not mean specified; don't conflate them.

Natural selection is not a shaping force, unless you mean it shaping populations.

Yes, it shapes gene pools by selecting individual organisms for success.

Even then, I would argue that it is a mechanism to prevent genetic degradation by removing the individuals that suffer mutations.

Then you are seeing only half the picture. Or less.
Not all mutations are "suffered". Some are beneficial and lead to greater success thus increasing their presence in the gene pool.

And you said it yourself that mutation and recombination are responsible for the new information. This means that you do in fact assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated from the norm (the mutated ones).

They are the ones that deviated only a little from the norm. You claimed that the ones that deviated the most were selected and that is false.

And we have no idea to what extent mutation/ recombination add information. We don't even know if they can at all.

Of course it can, and does, add information. Any change is information; any change at all.
Have you ever heard of Richard Lenski's work?

Assuming that it can add seemingly infinite information is way too speculative for me.

Try harder.
What would limit it? If small changes accumulate, where is the limit?

[LastPoet]

I disagree. A lot of Christians can and have always been good scientists. We have an obvious apparent bias. Given that we all know that science should be protected from personal bias, we are forced to take our bias into account at every turn. On the other hand, non religious scientists do not have their biases labelled. They are still incredibly biased people, but they are not necessarily held up to the same bias-avoiding behavior that religious scientists are.

I can't believe you just OMGUS'd* non-Christian scientists over their lack of god belief.  You've identified no personal bias likely to distort their findings yet cast shade on them all gratuitously.  Worse, you seem to feel that dancing around your own easily identifiable bias some how inoculates the lot of you against any further occurrence of personal bias.  You give no reason for either finding non-Christian scientists biased or finding Christian scientists less biased.  I'd say this post of yours indicates your personal bias immunity theory is bunko.


*  http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?titl...d_You_Suck

I counter that with WIFOM. Lets go to a battle of wits... to the death.

[AAA]

Also, it is not really unreasonable to say that because intelligence is the only known cause, an intelligent agent must have been present to cause it. You want me to provide evidence for a designer without appealing to what we see in nature?

It is extremely unreasonable to assert intelligence as the "only known cause," because we simply do not know that.  We have no evidence whatsoever to connect preexisting organic structures to an intelligent agent that predates modern biotechnology.  You are assuming the existence of an intelligent entity that created life, and using existing life as evidence for the entity.  That is simply not acceptable from a logical point of view.

Here are your choices:

• Independently demonstrate the existence of an entity capable of creating life, then explain how it created life.
  
• Explain the mechanism whereby life originated, then trace that mechanism back to an intelligent agent.
  
• Shrug and say "We don't know... yet."
  

Personally I favour the third option.

It's not an assertion that intelligence is the only known cause, that is true. Nobody knows of an adequate alternative, and intelligence is repeatedly observed to be adequate.

---

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

I disagree that nature exhibits evidence of design.

Nature evolves.  it changes.  Just as we change.  A designed object doesn't gain nor lose attributes.  It retains them, and doesn't change, without the designer going in and changing them.  One could say that a creator is STILL changing the design--but if that were the case we'd see more significant changes.  It would also suggest that this creator is purposely designing deformed children, and doing absolutely nothing about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.    Not to mention that according to bilblical sources people used to live hundreds of years, but don't anymore.  Christians like to blame sin, but that seems counter to design.  It's not as if 'sin' determines how long we live or how long our bodies last.

That's not true. New artificial intelligence technology is capable of adapting its responses to the environmental stimuli. Just because we haven't designed anything that can adapt as well as individual organisms doesn't mean that they weren't designed. It could just imply that they were designed better.

---

What makes you think that chemicals will produce genomes?

Given elements, energy, and time more complex molecules arise.  We see this throughout the universe.

Lone nucleotides or even nucleic acids are not the same as genomes.

No, they are the building blocks.  See above.

Similarly, amino acids are not the same as genomes. Not only do you need nucleotide codes to arise, you also need a system to connect this to a protein code to eventually arise as well.

And that system evolved from less complexity.

---

This information is specified.

By what or whom?  

It accomplishes a desired and specific function.

Specific does not mean specified; don't conflate them.

Natural selection is not a shaping force, unless you mean it shaping populations.

Yes, it shapes gene pools by selecting individual organisms for success.

Even then, I would argue that it is a mechanism to prevent genetic degradation by removing the individuals that suffer mutations.

Then you are seeing only half the picture.  Or less.
Not all mutations are "suffered".  Some are beneficial and lead to greater success thus increasing their presence in the gene pool.

And you said it yourself that mutation and recombination are responsible for the new information. This means that you do in fact assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated from the norm (the mutated ones).

They are the ones that deviated only a little from the norm.  You claimed that the ones that deviated the most were selected and that is false.

And we have no idea to what extent mutation/ recombination add information. We don't even know if they can at all.

Of course it can, and does, add information.  Any change is information; any change at all.
Have you ever heard of Richard Lenski's work?

Assuming that it can add seemingly infinite information is way too speculative for me.

Try harder.
What would limit it?  If small changes accumulate, where is the limit?

Well that was about 10 assertions. More complex molecules are not the same as genomes. You can't just assert that given chemicals, life will start. You not only have to form the molecules, but you must explain their sophisticated sequence that allows them to reproduce. It is not a given we are just constantly moving toward a state of higher complexity and functionality. And were you referring to the long term evolution experiment where the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize citrate? They already possessed the enzymes necessary to break it down, it's just that they could not take it in under aerobic conditions. It could easily be explained by a degrading cell wall, which is not even entirely dependent on DNA for its proper replication. And I think natural selection limits the accumulating mutations. Your genome can only take so much mutation before it is rendered functionless.

---

I disagree. A lot of Christians can and have always been good scientists. We have an obvious apparent bias. Given that we all know that science should be protected from personal bias, we are forced to take our bias into account at every turn. On the other hand, non religious scientists do not have their biases labelled. They are still incredibly biased people, but they are not necessarily held up to the same bias-avoiding behavior that religious scientists are.

I can't believe you just OMGUS'd* non-Christian scientists over their lack of god belief.  You've identified no personal bias likely to distort their findings yet cast shade on them all gratuitously.  Worse, you seem to feel that dancing around your own easily identifiable bias some how inoculates the lot of you against any further occurrence of personal bias.  You give no reason for either finding non-Christian scientists biased or finding Christian scientists less biased.  I'd say this post of yours indicates your personal bias immunity theory is bunko.


*  http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?titl...d_You_Suck

Do you really think that non-religious scientists are unbiased? That is an unfortunate consequence of how science is portrayed. Many scientists are extremely biased when it comes to results that deal with worldview issues. For example, things like thiomersal being used in medicines, the extent to which obesity is genetic, and scientific questions with religious implications are all topics with which many scientists have already made up their mind. I didn't say that Christian scientists are less biased, I said that because their apparent bias is so obvious, they must be kept in check, while the other scientists whose biases are less obvious can go sort of undetected.