Topic: Is Intelligent Design Science? (Read 21823 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #80 on:** October 15, 2005, 07:57:58 PM »

"When you said "Not even 'intervention in the past' qualifies. More like 'winds it up' and 'lets it go.'" That struck me as essentially a deist position"

I knew I shouldn't have even said it. Think of it instead as being like a building which was built and constructed, but then left without any up-keep. Just because you don't see continual 'intervention' does not mean there is any doubt that the building is the result of design, nor does the position logically require continual intervention.

"You are confusing two different contexts in order to manufacture an inconsistency that wasn't there."

I will leave that for lurkers to decide. You are completely spun around in my view. First there are no predictions, and no predictions are possible, and then you offer your own examples. As far as I'm concerned, that part of the discussion is over with, with my position the clear victor. ID CAN, in principle, make testable predictions.

"I don't recall that they showed anything of the sort, but it would help if you would make explicit how you think they demonstrated that."

Actually, I went back and saw that you had responded to some of their comments. It was Cimic's last comment you have left un-addressed. I was wrong to say that you had completely blown them off.

""My position is that we would expect to observe spontaneous evolution of such great complexity in nature, if the ID hypothesis were right.""

"That's a prediction, isn't it?"

"Not necessarily."

Uh, yes, it is.

"You are a proponent of IDism. Do you endorse it as a prediction?"

I've already answered that.

"I feel as if I am doing all your work for you."

I already said that I don't endorse it as a prediction, and know of no one that would, but that I'll take it since you yourself undermine your own argument that ID cannot even in principle make testable predictions, and therefore is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry.

So, that seems to end the argument. By your own reasoning you have established ID as a scientific endeavor. I don't expect you to agree, because that would mean expecting you to apply logic consistently, but between this and the other thread, I have seen specifically that you have no desire to do so.

"You have not done so. In the absence of any serious effort on your part, I have been making proposals about what I think ID predicts."

Actually, that is patently false. I did make a serious effort, which you seriously misunderstood and misconstrued. I have spent the last few posts getting you to see your error, and you have tenaciously held to your guns. I see no point in proceeding down that particular point of departure if you've already bungled the first sentence and invested paragraph upon paragraph dismantling an argument I did not make.

Obviously your later comments about you doing 'all the work' fail on the same grounds.

"It doesn't matter whether you care. It matters whether professional biologists care."

Actually, they do need to care. My conversations like this are making me far more interested in the process of grant distribution. If professional biologists are not able to think competently, they need to find a new line of work where my tax dollars are not being wasted on such weak-minded folks.

Or to put it in a less inflammatory way: that's only an argument from authority that you've got going there. Saying 'what you think doesn't matter' and then invoking 'professional biologists' is only an argument from authority. Why should it win the day? Its a logical fallacy. Either they are engaging in a truly rational program, or they are not. I believe they are not, and what they think doesn't matter about that, either. Unless and until I can cut off their funding. Wish me luck.

"Your technique seems to be to criticize whatever I say and demand documentation that ID says what I claim it does."

Lol, well, in order for your argument to be anything more than a strawman attack, then yea, I'm sorry, but you actually have to attack their REAL position. YOUR technique has been to simply assert over and over again what ID says. Pony up already.

"You yourself have little to say in defense of ID. YOU can provide that documentation on your own."

Oh, I don't think so. Nice try. If you want to say "ID predicts" ad nauseum, that's your business, but it is YOUR assertion, and its your job to defend it.

I think what we've come to is fear. You are afraid to go and look for references now that I've put a substantial amount of money on the table. You know that I'm sitting on a ton of material that would clobber you in an instant. You have probably tried to find something to corroborate your "horse to cow" contention. Having failed, and wanting to save face, you are trying to shirk your responsibility to defend your assertion by saying its my job to prove that ID people don't make 'horse to cow' predictions.

As lame as an attempt as that is, watch how easy it is:

I hereby submit to you all the writings of ID, all of which do not predict 'horse to cow' macro changes.

Consider your point squished.

"He does this in just about every lecture. An excellent summary of his "pornography defense" approach can be found in his February 2005 NY Times Op Ed piece Design for Living. Here is a relevant excerpt:"

Ah, I see. You think THAT is the 'pornography defense'?

Uh, no. Its not "we know it when we see it" its, "Its obvious what we are looking at."

Bit of a difference, there.

"Nowhere in that article did he even mention irreducible complexity. He cited four arguments in favor of Intelligent Design. The first two were the "it's obvious!" pornography defense."

I've read the article before. "It's obvious" is not the 'pornography defense.'

In the pornography defense, the idea is that to the degree in which something is 'pornagraphic' relates to individual sensitivities which may vary from person to person. If the "It's obvious" argument were to be applied to a pornographic situation, it would be: "Here is a picture of a man and a woman and none of them are wearing any clothes."

That's obviously what is in the picture. Whether it is pornagraphic or not is a different subject altogether. The better comparison to something designed would be "This is designed"- that would be obvious- and then, "This is GOOD (or bad) design." That would be closer to the pornographic defense as I understood you were making it.

"Your denials are lame. That is exactly what you said. And you said it again here in the very same breath that you denied it:"

Well let's look. Let's find where I say that intuition is CRITERIA.

""Its not a criteria.""

Wow. You're right. I did exactly say it was criteria. Man am I stupid.

"It doesn't need a criteria, actually. We don't plod about our lives struggling with distinguishing between our car and the forest. Children can recognize a toy instantly. Boy, I know that! We see things that we've never seen before and yet instantly know that they are designed. We are immersed in design detection, and we are good at it. In this sense, ID is only a way to formalize that in such a way that we can apply it reliably to other systems."

An intuition is a guess about a reality based on insufficient information. A woman has a bad feeling about several men walking down the street. She crosses over to the other side. Was her intuition about the men correct? In some cases we find out, in other's we don't. What I am describing in that paragraph is anything but a guess. She doesn't need her intuition to detect that MEN are walking down the street. She KNOWS that. That's the information she is working with. She doesn't have to systematically figure out what constitutes 'men' so as to distinguish them from against the background of the street.

Similarly, we are in situations all day long where we KNOW we are looking at design. If it is an 'intuitive' step, it is an extremely minor one that we don't have to worry about it being inaccurate. We KNOW it. As I said, ID is a formal approach to determining the criteria and formalizing WHY we know it. This is still not "we'll know it when we see it" this is, "THIS IS DESIGNED." Period, end of story.

If science is unable to account or allow for such self-evident facts of reality, then science needs to be put out of our misery and rebuilt.

The point of that paragraph is clearly A. Intuition is not a criteria and B. Detecting design is easy. C. ID is a project geared towards identifying and APPLYING the criteria that we already use.

"IDists and evolutionists look at the same phenomena all the time and draw completely different intuitive conclusions." CONTRADICTS "We already know that intuitions are unreliable as a scientific test."

You just let the cat out of the bag. I agree. Its the same phenomena. Different conclusions. As such, you can't use this phenomena or that as evidence for evolution or against ID. Both look at all the phenomena and believe a different INTERPRETATION is called for.

I think you are abusing 'intuition' in a singularly destructive way. While its true that there are situations where we have to make guesses about objects and infer that they are either designed or undesigned, our ability to reliably detect design is off the scales in favor of reliability.

"We can re-state this in such a way as to not smuggle in design by use of the word 'information' which we always associate with a designer, by talking about 'content in precise equilibrium.'"

"Here, you seemed to be claiming that one always associates the word 'information' with a designer. If that isn't how you meant me to take it, then we can continue to use 'information' as if it were not always associated with a designer."

Please note the bolded part. I understand that I also said 'which we always associate with a designer' and in general, that's true. Information THEORISTS, of course, know that we can talk about information without connecting it to an intelligent agent, precisely the point that I go on and make and explain.

"I understood your "blocks" analogy to be nothing more than just that. I responded quite appropriately with a "balancing rocks" analogy."

As my argument was only intended to show that we can talk about information without talking about a designer- a point your concede- your balancing rocks analogy was absurd and out of place. I apparently made my point: you can talk about information without invoking an agent.

That will be important if I use information in this precise sense in an argument for making predictions within the ID framework, because without the distinction I could be accused of begging the question.

If you understand that point, and my purpose for making it (hopefully seeing the wisdom for why I'd want to make it) I'd be glad to expand on the particular prediction that I was on my way to providing for you.

Copernicus · « **Reply #81 on:** October 16, 2005, 01:28:00 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"When you said "Not even 'intervention in the past' qualifies. More like 'winds it up' and 'lets it go.'" That struck me as essentially a deist position"

I knew I shouldn't have even said it. Think of it instead as being like a building which was built and constructed, but then left without any up-keep. Just because you don't see continual 'intervention' does not mean there is any doubt that the building is the result of design, nor does the position logically require continual intervention.

Same difference. That's still essentially a deist position. God wound everything up, started it off, and then stopped playing a role. That's not the Christian God.

Quote

"You are confusing two different contexts in order to manufacture an inconsistency that wasn't there."

I will leave that for lurkers to decide. You are completely spun around in my view. First there are no predictions, and no predictions are possible, and then you offer your own examples. As far as I'm concerned, that part of the discussion is over with, with my position the clear victor. ID CAN, in principle, make testable predictions.

Even though you can't name them.

To the extent that it makes testable predictions, it fails the tests. No evidence, no theory. I restated my position quite clearly in the last post. I see that you have no intention of admitting that it has been consistent. You would rather juxtapose quotes out of context and manufacture inconsistencies that weren't there in the first place.

Quote

""My position is that we would expect to observe spontaneous evolution of such great complexity in nature, if the ID hypothesis were right.""

"That's a prediction, isn't it?"

"Not necessarily."

Uh, yes, it is.

I will put your admission that it isn't in bold below.

Quote

"You are a proponent of IDism. Do you endorse it as a prediction?"

I've already answered that.

"I feel as if I am doing all your work for you."

I already said that I don't endorse it as a prediction, and know of no one that would, but that I'll take it since you yourself undermine your own argument that ID cannot even in principle make testable predictions, and therefore is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry.

Nonsense. My position is that it fails tests to the extent that it can be tested. You dodge and dance every time I ask you to propose a test. Don't blame me if the only tests under examination here are the ones that I propose and that it fails. Since you do not endorse any predictions at all, it is you yourself who are undermining your position ID is a scientific hypothesis.

Quote

"You have not done so. In the absence of any serious effort on your part, I have been making proposals about what I think ID predicts."

Actually, that is patently false. I did make a serious effort, which you seriously misunderstood and misconstrued. I have spent the last few posts getting you to see your error, and you have tenaciously held to your guns. I see no point in proceeding down that particular point of departure if you've already bungled the first sentence and invested paragraph upon paragraph dismantling an argument I did not make.

I see. It's my fault that you can't actually come out and make an argument to support your case. So you aren't going to bother to try.

Quote

Obviously your later comments about you doing 'all the work' fail on the same grounds.

Right. Obviously.

Quote

"It doesn't matter whether you care. It matters whether professional biologists care."

Actually, they do need to care. My conversations like this are making me far more interested in the process of grant distribution. If professional biologists are not able to think competently, they need to find a new line of work where my tax dollars are not being wasted on such weak-minded folks.

Or to put it in a less inflammatory way: that's only an argument from authority that you've got going there. Saying 'what you think doesn't matter' and then invoking 'professional biologists' is only an argument from authority. Why should it win the day? Its a logical fallacy. Either they are engaging in a truly rational program, or they are not. I believe they are not, and what they think doesn't matter about that, either. Unless and until I can cut off their funding. Wish me luck.

If you don't like the messenger, kill the messenger. You would do better to become more interested in how science is conducted rather than how you can stifle scientific research whose findings your disagree with. They current regime can and does dump as many tax dollars as it can into junk science that is promoted by religious and other special interest groups.

Quote

I think what we've come to is fear. You are afraid to go and look for references now that I've put a substantial amount of money on the table. You know that I'm sitting on a ton of material that would clobber you in an instant. You have probably tried to find something to corroborate your "horse to cow" contention. Having failed, and wanting to save face, you are trying to shirk your responsibility to defend your assertion by saying its my job to prove that ID people don't make 'horse to cow' predictions.

My facetious remark seems to have stirred you into raising it as something that must be crushed in order to validate the the scientific validity of IDism. I'm flattered. We'll leave it in place as the only prediction that ID makes, since its own proponents refuse to offer anything. Oh, yes, I'm very frightened that you will dump that "ton of material that would clobber [me] in an instant." :D Nooooo! Don't actually try to defend your position.

Quote

As lame as an attempt as that is, watch how easy it is:

I hereby submit to you all the writings of ID, all of which do not predict 'horse to cow' macro changes.

Consider your point squished.

Omigosh! You did it! What can I do? What can I do? Oh, no. Wait!

I hereby counter with all the writings on biological evolution, all of which do not predict 'horse to cow' macro changes and all of which render Intelligent Design an unnecessry hypothesis. Your point just got super-squished.

Quote

Uh, no. Its not "we know it when we see it" its, "Its obvious what we are looking at."

Bit of a difference, there.

Are you kidding me?

Quote

I've read the article before. "It's obvious" is not the 'pornography defense.'

In the pornography defense, the idea is that to the degree in which something is 'pornagraphic' relates to individual sensitivities which may vary from person to person. If the "It's obvious" argument were to be applied to a pornographic situation, it would be: "Here is a picture of a man and a woman and none of them are wearing any clothes."

That's obviously what is in the picture. Whether it is pornagraphic or not is a different subject altogether. The better comparison to something designed would be "This is designed"- that would be obvious- and then, "This is GOOD (or bad) design." That would be closer to the pornographic defense as I understood you were making it.

I see. You weren't kidding me. You really think that you see a difference between "we know it when we see it" and "it's obvious what we are looking at". Here is the basic principle of ID: complexity is in the eye of the beholder. That's not science, Johnny. It's poppysmall bunnies.

Quote

...If science is unable to account or allow for such self-evident facts of reality, then science needs to be put out of our misery and rebuilt.

Wonderful example of procrustean thinking. If science doesn't fit our preconceptions, then we need to chop it down or stretch it out until it does fit our preconceptions.

Quote

"IDists and evolutionists look at the same phenomena all the time and draw completely different intuitive conclusions." CONTRADICTS "We already know that intuitions are unreliable as a scientific test."

We have different "intuitions" here, Johnny. I see the first sentence as supporting the second. :) Evolutionists support their intuitions with evidence. IDists support theirs with nothing more than speculation.

Quote

You just let the cat out of the bag. I agree. Its the same phenomena. Different conclusions. As such, you can't use this phenomena or that as evidence for evolution or against ID. Both look at all the phenomena and believe a different INTERPRETATION is called for.

I'll say it again. Evolution is based on actual evidence. IDism is based on speculation.

Quote

"We can re-state this in such a way as to not smuggle in design by use of the word 'information' which we always associate with a designer, by talking about 'content in precise equilibrium.'"

"Here, you seemed to be claiming that one always associates the word 'information' with a designer. If that isn't how you meant me to take it, then we can continue to use 'information' as if it were not always associated with a designer."

Please note the bolded part. I understand that I also said 'which we always associate with a designer' and in general, that's true. Information THEORISTS, of course, know that we can talk about information without connecting it to an intelligent agent, precisely the point that I go on and make and explain.

As I said, and you vehmently denied, you said which we always associate with a designer. When I pointed out that 'information' is not ALWAYS used that way, you went into GOTCHA mode without bothering to think about the words that you actually posted. Regarding the use of the word 'information' in information theory, we appear to be in violent agreement again. You yourself raised the issue that caused the confusion.

Quote

"I understood your "blocks" analogy to be nothing more than just that. I responded quite appropriately with a "balancing rocks" analogy."

As my argument was only intended to show that we can talk about information without talking about a designer- a point your concede- your balancing rocks analogy was absurd and out of place. I apparently made my point: you can talk about information without invoking an agent.

Did I ever disagree with this last point? Your analogy had the blocks as an example of intuitively recognized intelligent design. My analogy showed that exactly that kind of design takes place in nature and that humans have mistaken such natural designs for artificial designs. In other words, intuitions of intelligent design are not reliable in such matters. Science goes beyond intuition in explaining the nature of such apparent "designs".

Quote

That will be important if I use information in this precise sense in an argument for making predictions within the ID framework, because without the distinction I could be accused of begging the question.

Are you intending to construct an actual argument, or are you still trying to get up the gumption to do so? Why not lay one out and let us judge the matter openly?

Quote

If you understand that point, and my purpose for making it (hopefully seeing the wisdom for why I'd want to make it) I'd be glad to expand on the particular prediction that I was on my way to providing for you.

I think that I understand your point. It seems to be that we have reliable intuitions about whether designs were guided by an intelligent agency or just natural forces alone. I have not conceded the point and have offered my own analogy to explain why.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #82 on:** October 16, 2005, 07:55:47 PM »

Once again I'm going to consolidate and try to narrow the scope of the thread to be back on topic, although this one didn't get too far astray, just verbose. I very much would LOVE to repond point by point, but I think it will do more harm than good, even though I think very little of the content of your objections. I'm going to settle that score by satiating my bloodlust with this emoticon:

Definately one of my favorites.

So, the point of this thread was to ask the question "Is ID science?" to which I offered some rebuttals to potential objections. For example, some object that it is not because it invokes the supernatural. It does not, as is made clear by the examples of directed panspermia and Sagan's Contact.

Despite this, even up to recently, we still have folks calling ID 'thinly veiled religion' which I find disgraceful and dischordant with reality.

Another objection I raise and deal with is the idea that 'intelligent agency' has no place in scientific inquiry for reasons A, B, C- whatever the objectioner raises (you've been focused on 'testable predictions' but it could be anything). I deal with this by pointing out that intelligent agency is detected in a number of sciences already. Anthropology, archeology, and forensic science, are some obvious examples.

I'm now going to re-state the bottom line of that first post: you may for any reason you want to invoke still want to create hurdles for ID to jump over before it can be considered science, but consistency would demand that you force these other disciplines to jump over the same hurdles. If you are hell bent at denying the legitimacy of ID- which is really just an attempt to systematize what we already do across all of our experience- then the argument rightly needs to be about the philosophy of science, because the absurd is being demanded.

Copernicus · « **Reply #83 on:** October 22, 2005, 12:18:30 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

So, the point of this thread was to ask the question "Is ID science?" to which I offered some rebuttals to potential objections. For example, some object that it is not because it invokes the supernatural. It does not, as is made clear by the examples of directed panspermia and Sagan's Contact.

Neither the unsupported panspermia hypothesis nor the science fiction theme in "Sagan's Contact" render ID a testable claim. That is what it all ultimately comes down to. If something is promoted as a science, it must be testable. You have said on numerous occasions that ID is testable, but you have never made explicit how that can be done. What natural phenomenon does ID explain that the already-accepted evolution theory does not?

Quote

Despite this, even up to recently, we still have folks calling ID 'thinly veiled religion' which I find disgraceful and dischordant with reality.

Nevertheless, it is demonstrably true. Even Behe admits that he believes the "Intelligent Designer" to be God.

Quote

Another objection I raise and deal with is the idea that 'intelligent agency' has no place in scientific inquiry for reasons A, B, C- whatever the objectioner raises (you've been focused on 'testable predictions' but it could be anything). I deal with this by pointing out that intelligent agency is detected in a number of sciences already. Anthropology, archeology, and forensic science, are some obvious examples.

An empty claim. Merely citing those fields of study as "obvious" support is not sufficient to establish it. You have to actually bother with an argument.

Quote

I'm now going to re-state the bottom line of that first post: you may for any reason you want to invoke still want to create hurdles for ID to jump over before it can be considered science, but consistency would demand that you force these other disciplines to jump over the same hurdles. If you are hell bent at denying the legitimacy of ID- which is really just an attempt to systematize what we already do across all of our experience- then the argument rightly needs to be about the philosophy of science, because the absurd is being demanded.

I happen to agree with your last point, but we probably disagree on who is making that demand. There are many Christians--both biologists and laymen--who believe in Intelligent Design. They just don't call it science. George Will said it best on Nightline:

Quote from: columnist George Will

There is a persuasion, a tendency, within American Christendom, that's called the "young earth" believers. They really do deny that the earth has a long geological history. Once you concede however, which science compels us to concede, that the earth does have a long, complicated, evolving geologic history, then the argument's about the mechanism. And the question then is: What does Intelligent Design bring to explaining the mechanism? The answer is: nothing but faith. Nothing but the postulate that -- as the current Pope said when he was a Cardinal -- unguided evolution is impossible. Well, impossible, fine. Then again it's a theological position, but not a testable one.

Broken · « **Reply #84 on:** November 10, 2005, 11:11:21 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

For example, some object that it is not because it invokes the supernatural. It does not, as is made clear by the examples of directed panspermia and Sagan's Contact.

These aren't ID hypotheses. They both make the hypothesis that life on Earth did not necessarily originate on Earth. Neither Sagan nor Crick proposed that life did not evolve once it got here.

Quote

Another objection I raise and deal with is the idea that 'intelligent agency' has no place in scientific inquiry for reasons A, B, C- whatever the objectioner raises (you've been focused on 'testable predictions' but it could be anything). I deal with this by pointing out that intelligent agency is detected in a number of sciences already. Anthropology, archeology, and forensic science, are some obvious examples.

I agree those areas of study assume an intelligent agent. This is a rather safe assumption, since these are studies of past human behaviour. None of these studies reach back to a time before humans were known to exist.

There is nothing "unscientific" about studying intelligent agents.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #85 on:** November 12, 2005, 01:09:59 PM »

"These aren't ID hypotheses."

Of course they are, as I am employing them. You are equivocating.

"They both make the hypothesis that life on Earth did not necessarily originate on Earth."

lol gee, and the whole fact that in both cases intelligent agents were invoked as possible explanations did not factor into their overall hypothesis?

In Crick's case, it was because he deemed that processes suggested by evolution were inadequate to explain our origin and development. He offered two reasons why he thought this was so.

In the case of Sagan, the relevant portion is the signal that they received from outer space. Some how they knew this was not to be expected under natural circumstances. This demonstrates that scientists DO have ways to detect design. The implications about the origin of life on this planet as later revealed in the book are irrelevant.

Here is a portion from Contact:

"No, look at it this way," [Ellie] said, smiling. "This is a beacon. It's an announcement signal. It's designed to attract our attention. We get strange patterns of pulses from quasars and pulsars and radio galaxies and God-knows-what. But prime numbers are very specific, very artificial. No even number is prime, for example. It's hard to imagine some radiating plasma or exploding galasy sending out a regular set of mathematical signals like this. The prime numbers are to attract our attention." pg 76

There is more like that. This is before the full signal has been received at all.

I'm sure Sagan, if he has not repented, rues the day that he let the ID cat out of the bag.

Now something from Crick:

"...As an an alternative to these nineteeth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible..."

From the intro...

"It was not until the middle of the nine-teenth century that Pasteur and Tyndall completed the demonstration that spontaneous generation is not occurring on the Earth nowadays. Darwin and a number of other biologists concluded that life must have evolved here long ago when conditions were more favourable. A number of scientists, however, drew a quite different conclusion. They supposed that if life does not evolve from terrestrial nonlinving matter nowadays, it may never have done so. Hence, they argued, life reached the earth as an 'infection' from another planet (Oparin, 1957)." Crick, Directed Panspermia Icarus, pg 341 1973

"Neither Sagan nor Crick proposed that life did not evolve once it got here."

True, but completely irrelevant to the argument that I am making. The argument that I am making is simply thus: It is not unscientific, by definition, to consider intelligent agency as the correct solutions for phenomena. It does not have to be assumed. It can be inferred.

Crick admitted that he had weak evidence, and he would actually eventually withdraw it, but not on the grounds that its improper to consider the possibility because it invoked an agent.

"I agree those areas of study assume an intelligent agent. This is a rather safe assumption, since these are studies of past human behaviour. None of these studies reach back to a time before humans were known to exist."

And yet because an agent is posited, they do not cease to become scientific. Whether the assumption is safe or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not intelligent agency, and its effects, are unscientific IN PRINCIPLE. Of course they aren't.

"There is nothing "unscientific" about studying intelligent agents."

Potential re-direction there. Of course, there is nothing unscientific about studying intelligent agents, as that would be what human anatomy would be about. The question is whether or not it is scientific to deduce agency from other evidences, even in principle.

In your agreement that archeology etc are legitimate scientific fields you acknowledge that, in principle, intelligent agency, nor design, nor the conclusion that an object bears somehow the marks of said agent, is un-scientific.

And that's all this particular argument is about.

Broken · « **Reply #86 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:56:34 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"These aren't ID hypotheses."

Of course they are, as I am employing them. You are equivocating.

It is not ID as is it meant by the current ID community, where the claim is that evolution is inadequate for explaining biological complexity and a Designer is the logical alternative. Crick's panspermia is an origin of life hypothesis, not meant as a substitute for evolution.

Quote

In Crick's case, it was because he deemed that processes suggested by evolution were inadequate to explain our origin and development. He offered two reasons why he thought this was so.

No. Crick originally thought the origin of life was improbable, but he had no problem with life evolving once it was established. Don't forget that Crick later changed his mind when the enzymatic properties of RNA were discovered and the "RNA world" hypothesis was developed.

Quote

In the case of Sagan, the relevant portion is the signal that they received from outer space. Some how they knew this was not to be expected under natural circumstances. This demonstrates that scientists DO have ways to detect design.

Certainly it is possible to detect "intelligent agency" in an artifact which is incapable of constructing itself. A book or a lawnmower are obviously incapable of self-construction and are valid examples of artifacts constructed by an intelligent agent.

Likewise, a spiderweb is such an artifact. The intelligent agent in this case is a spider. But the spider itself is self-constructing: there is no need for an intelligent agent.

Ah, but what of the spider egg from which the spider self-constructed? We know the egg came from another spider, and that spider from another spider, ad infinitum. The only intelligent agents are the spiders themselves, and I don't think that is the sort of intelligent agent you are looking for.

So, certainly we can find agency in the complexity of artifacts incapable of self-construction. It is a different matter for complexity which builds itself. But this leads to the question of how the first of these self-constructing entitities came about. Such is the question of life origins.

Now evolution is not a theory which addresses the origin of life, but that doesn't make the question any less interesting. Did life self-start, as in the a-biogenesis hypothesis, or was another intelligent agent involved?

Of course, if an intelligent agent was involved in life origins on Earth, the next question which comes to mind is whether that intelligent agent was self-constructing and what was it's origin. Is it turtles all the way down? Or was there a first intelligent agent which "was and always will be"?

As I said before, the reason Crick changed his mind about panspermia was the discovery of RNA enzymes able to catalyze their own construction. Since these RNA enzymes are fairly simple, the "irreducibly complex" argument doesn't hold. In fact, these RNAs can even be made to evolve into more efficient self-replicators.

The ubiquity of RNA-based molecules in the most basic biological processes is intriguing evidence that an RNA wolrd preceded the current DNA-RNA-protein world. All of the basic energy molecules, ATP, GTP, cAMP, FADH, NADH, etc are constructed from RNAs. The ribosome complex, found in in even the most primitive cellular life, is constructed of RNAs.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #87 on:** November 12, 2005, 10:02:49 PM »

"It is not ID as is it meant by the current ID community,"

The sole point and purpose of this thread is to see if ID can be considered scientific. These examples are used to that end, and as I said, you are equivocating by using them any other way. My guess is that you are hoping to salvage your argument that ID is not science by moving the goal posts. Thus, equivocating.

"Crick's panspermia is an origin of life hypothesis, not meant as a substitute for evolution."

I heard on the TV recently about a student that was killed by falling goal posts.

"No. Crick originally thought the origin of life was improbable,"

You need to keep your eye on the ball. I don't give a rat's patootey where evolution lies here, and it certainly doesn't make any difference whether Crick still thought that evolution was the correct course or not. This is a very basic argument, Broken: Crick did not consider his argument to be unscientific BECAUSE it invoked an intelligent agent.

Science is not incompatible with the invocation of intelligent agents as a solution.

"Don't forget that Crick later changed his mind when the enzymatic properties of RNA were discovered and the "RNA world" hypothesis was developed."

Thanks. That supports my already stated assertion:

"Crick admitted that he had weak evidence, and he would actually eventually withdraw it, but not on the grounds that its improper to consider the possibility because it invoked an agent."

So thanks for informing me that Crick changed his mind. It would almost seem.... uh.... I dunno... I can see how my statement here really strains at the laws of grammar and vocabulary and can be misconstrued..... but I seem to be saying that Crick would later change his mind and it would NOT be beceause it invoked an agent.

"Certainly it is possible to detect "intelligent agency" in an artifact which is incapable of constructing itself."

Then we have nothing to argue about, because you are at least admitting that intelligent agency is detectable (some scientists and their bulldogs disagree), and you are providing a criteria, which we can argue about perhaps, but concedes nonetheless the basic point. ID CAN be considered scientific, in principle.

"As I said before, the reason Crick changed his mind about panspermia was the discovery of RNA enzymes able to catalyze their own construction."

Good, then we are agreed it is not because intelligent agency is excluded a priori.

That's really what this thread is all about. And its not all that difficult to figure that out.

Copernicus · « **Reply #88 on:** November 12, 2005, 10:26:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny to Broken

"It is not ID as is it meant by the current ID community,"

The sole point and purpose of this thread is to see if ID can be considered scientific. These examples are used to that end, and as I said, you are equivocating by using them any other way. My guess is that you are hoping to salvage your argument that ID is not science by moving the goal posts. Thus, equivocating.

Or he could just be pointing out to you that your examples, whether "scientific" or not, have nothing to do with the ID as it is practiced by proponents of ID. Your examples are about the origin of life on earth, not the question of how complexity evolves in higher organisms. Saying that an intelligent agent planted apple seeds is not the same as saying that the intelligent agent designed the apple tree. Pay attention, Johnny!

Quote

...ID CAN be considered scientific, in principle.

Quite possibly, but that is not really the dispute. The dispute is over whether ID has actually identified any such scientific criteria and shown that those criteria were better at predicting biological development than conventional evolutionary theory. Criteria such as non-self-replication and design optimization actually suggest that biological changes are not examples of intelligent design.

Quote

Good, then we are agreed it is not because intelligent agency is excluded a priori.

That's really what this thread is all about. And its not all that difficult to figure that out.

ID cannot be excluded a priori, but it cannot be included just because it is a logical possibility. Science is about excluding alternative hypotheses on evidential grounds. It does not try to exclude all logical possiblities, only those that we can evaluate on the basis of evidence. ID does not present us with any evidence to include it or exclude it, only speculation. It is a theological argument, not a scientific argument. And THAT is what this thread is really about.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #89 on:** November 12, 2005, 10:46:24 PM »

"Pay attention, Johnny!"

Take your own advice. I brought those examples specifically for the purpose that I identified them for. There is no excuse for twisting them to apply to a situation outside the scope that I presented them. I am trying to establish a very rudimentary area of agreement, an area of agreement that its clear you'd rather gnaw off your own arm then allow.

""...ID CAN be considered scientific, in principle.""

"Quite possibly, but that is not really the dispute."

IT IS THE DISPUTE IN THIS THREAD. From the first post:

""However, if within methodological naturalism a wall is hit and the evidence suggests something else is going on, one is not precluded from examining that.""

This comment seems very familiar to me. I wonder if I wrote it.

Or, the title seems appropriate:

"Is Intelligent Design Science?"

There have been several lines of attack levied against the notion that it isn't, one of which is that design is not falsifiable, not detectable, or, inconsistent with principles of methodological (philosophical?) naturalism.

Thus, we see here what the very common problem is. I say something, you respond to something else that I did not say. Broken did the same thing by talking about what others in the ID field might hypothesize. Are we seriously going to continue this cycle of inconsideration on your part?

"ID cannot be excluded a priori,"

Say no more. That is an advance in itself.

"And THAT is what this thread is really about."

I can't think of a clearer example of you stooping to mind reading to portray what you think is the REAL argument of the thread despite what is actually written.

Its extremely rude of you. There just is no other way to put it. Its also an effective end to conversation, as I have said before, because what I say is irrelevant. YOU know what I REALLY mean.

Copernicus · « **Reply #90 on:** November 13, 2005, 12:43:39 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Pay attention, Johnny!"

Take your own advice. I brought those examples specifically for the purpose that I identified them for. There is no excuse for twisting them to apply to a situation outside the scope that I presented them. I am trying to establish a very rudimentary area of agreement, an area of agreement that its clear you'd rather gnaw off your own arm then allow.

Darn! That stick doesn't work. Nobody is twisting anything. We are simply disagreeing with the line of reasoning that you propose in the OP. And, BTW, you haven't been paying attention to what IDists say, either. In the same breath that Behe denies that God "is" necessarily the designer, he admits that the Big Guy "is" the designer that he has in mind. It's all very Clintonesque. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. And he said it under oath.

Quote

""...ID CAN be considered scientific, in principle.""

"Quite possibly, but that is not really the dispute."

IT IS THE DISPUTE IN THIS THREAD.

You have claimed it as relevant to the question "Is Intelligent Design Science?", but it isn't. ID does not propose any criteria that have been shown to distinguish intelligently designed complexity from unguided complexity. Broken and I have proposed different criteria that might be used objectively to distinguish them, but our criteria don't validate the ID hypothesis.

Quote

From the first post:

""However, if within methodological naturalism a wall is hit and the evidence suggests something else is going on, one is not precluded from examining that.""

What is in dispute here is that "the evidence suggests something else is going on". Your examples from Crick's repudiated panspermia endorsement and Carl Sagan's science fiction novel do nothing whatsoever to validate the proposition that ID is science.

Quote

There have been several lines of attack levied against the notion that it isn't, one of which is that design is not falsifiable, not detectable, or, inconsistent with principles of methodological (philosophical?) naturalism.

I think that we have been agreeing that design is detectable. To the extent that it is detectable, it does not support the proposition that ID is science. Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have not been shown to be irreducibly complex, and Dembski's examples of "specified complexity" have not been shown to fail to occur by chance. Hence, scientists reject their proposals as scientifically accurate or significant. ID is not science. It is an argument from ignorance.

Quote

Thus, we see here what the very common problem is. I say something, you respond to something else that I did not say. Broken did the same thing by talking about what others in the ID field might hypothesize. Are we seriously going to continue this cycle of inconsideration on your part?

I don't think that it is inconsiderate to disagree with a flawed argument. The real problem here is that you say something that leads to a false conclusion, and then you keep moving the goalposts--claiming that you didn't really say that or mean that. You asked the question whether ID is a science. That question cannot be answered by merely claiming that one can objectively recognize intelligent design. The proposed criteria actually have to demonstrate intelligent design before the theorists that propose them can claim scientific validity.

Quote

"ID cannot be excluded a priori,"

Say no more. That is an advance in itself.

Ah, but I did say more. And what I said was also an advance.

Quote

I can't think of a clearer example of you stooping to mind reading to portray what you think is the REAL argument of the thread despite what is actually written.

In my opinion, you presented a spurious argument. I am not claiming any special knowledge of what goes on in your mind. I am claiming that your mind apparently failed to construct a sound argument.

Quote

Its extremely rude of you. There just is no other way to put it. Its also an effective end to conversation, as I have said before, because what I say is irrelevant. YOU know what I REALLY mean.

Honest disagreement is not rudeness, and you should examine your own behavior before wagging your finger at others.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #91 on:** November 13, 2005, 08:33:53 AM »

"Nobody is twisting anything."

Of course you are. I'm not even going to argue about it with you.

"What is in dispute here is that "the evidence suggests something else is going on". Your examples from Crick's repudiated panspermia endorsement and Carl Sagan's science fiction novel do nothing whatsoever to validate the proposition that ID is science."

Only because you are conflating what I am actually saying with what you think I am saying, what I am actually meaning with what you think I mean, where I am at now with where you think I will be later.

Quote:
There have been several lines of attack levied against the notion that it isn't, one of which is that design is not falsifiable, not detectable, or, inconsistent with principles of methodological (philosophical?) naturalism.

"I don't think that it is inconsiderate to disagree with a flawed argument."

It is inconsiderate to not appreciate the argument on its own terms, and rather import terms specifically excluded.

"In my opinion, you presented a spurious argument. I am not claiming any special knowledge of what goes on in your mind."

Oh CAN it. Of course you did. I said what the thread was about and you countered with something inconsistent with my own arguments and saying, "And THAT is what this thread is really about."

Outrageous. No less outrageous, but unsuprising, is your inability to see it.

"Honest disagreement is not rudeness,"

You are not disagreeing with me. How can you? Agreement or disagreement first requires understanding of the argument presented. You are putting 'arguments' in my mouth based on what you think the thread is REALLY about. As always, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim knowledge about what the thread is 'really' about, based on something beyond what I've written, while claiming that your comments are derived from what I've written.

Rude, inconsiderate, elitist, smug, arrogance.

"and you should examine your own behavior before wagging your finger at others."

My behavior has been proportional to your own. It was often employed deliberately to try to tease out of your the awareness of your own arrogance. As you can see of late I have not attempted such literary tricks. Nothing get's through to you.

If this is your idea of trying to come to a level of 'mutual respect' you can keep it. So, once again, in order that I do not tell you how you really rate with me (your approaches and methodologies, at least), I am going to once again decline conversation with you. Conversation requires actually listening to the other person.

Which has bearing on your representation of ID arguments that you wish to keep bringing in.... if you cannot even listen to me to hear what I have to say and react to what I say, we can be pretty confident you don't listen to other more mainstream ID proponents, either. You are therefore not a credible discussion partner.

You are, once again, in violation of unofficial rule 11. Pax.

Copernicus · « **Reply #92 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:05:51 AM »

Quote from: sntjohny

My behavior has been proportional to your own. It was often employed deliberately to try to tease out of your the awareness of your own arrogance. As you can see of late I have not attempted such literary tricks. Nothing get's through to you.

I regard this as an admission on your part that you have gone out of your way to provoke me rather than to respond directly to my arguments. What you consider an attempt to "tease out" a perceived flaw in my character is what drags down these discussions.

Quote

If this is your idea of trying to come to a level of 'mutual respect' you can keep it. So, once again, in order that I do not tell you how you really rate with me (your approaches and methodologies, at least), I am going to once again decline conversation with you. Conversation requires actually listening to the other person.

That's your prerogative. I enjoy a lively exchange of ideas, and I understand that it can be frustrating when you perceive the other party as rude and insulting and not listening. That is certainly the impression that I get from you, so I suppose that we can claim to have established some kind of mutural feeling. Not exactly what I had in mind, though.

Quote

You are, once again, in violation of unofficial rule 11. Pax.

I have no idea what that's about, but this is your kitchen. If you think that I am making it too hot for you, just say so.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #93 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:16:27 AM »

"I regard this as an admission on your part that you have gone out of your way to provoke me rather than to respond directly to my arguments."

Yea, that's it, homey.

"If you think that I am making it too hot for you, just say so."

You nailed it once again, Cop. Wow. Piercing insight.

Copernicus · « **Reply #94 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:18:58 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

You nailed it once again, Cop. Wow. Piercing insight.

Sntjohnny, I respect you enough to leave when I'm not wanted. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to have many fine discussions--with you as well as others on this board. I shall miss you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #95 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:35:03 AM »

You amaze me, Cop.

All I am saying is that I am not going to converse with you at this time. There are, as you well know, many other people on the site you can talk with, and you are.

My own ceasing to converse with you comes down to the old adage my mother told me, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." This you probably would have known if you would have asked.

Thus, my declination. It would be silly to interpret this as 'not being wanted' but isn't that really symptomatic of the problem? Once again, you see fit to want to read my mind. Did I say you were not wanted? No. Did anything that I say indicate that? No. No, a dozen times no. And yet by your mystical abilities to know what I really mean regardless of what I really say, that is what you think I have said.

By all means, continue your conversations with Fuss, 82nd, and Cimics and Rareairpug. For my own part, I shall very likely occasionally still converse with you, if only because I am a glutton for punishment.

matt · « **Reply #96 on:** December 12, 2005, 06:25:35 PM »

Quote

In the same breath that Behe denies that God "is" necessarily the designer, he admits that the Big Guy "is" the designer that he has in mind. It's all very Clintonesque. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. And he said it under oath.

It is frequently replied, with a knowing nod and a wink, that proponents of ID still really think the designer is You Know Who. The suggestion is that the anonymous designer is a politically convenient fiction, a sugarcoating to make the underlying pill of creationism more palatable to those who would otherwise contest the relevance of religion to scientific practice.

However, this response above makes a number of doubtful assumptions.

First, it assumes that all proponents of ID are religious believers, and this is false: some, such as Michael Denton, are agnostics. Besides this, Aristotle accepted the design inference without the motivation of revealed religion. And we might add that Einstein thought that the success of mathematical physics depended on some ordering logos in the cosmos, even though he was far from being an orthodox Jew or Christian. But in any case, it is simply a fallacy to argue that since those proponents of ID who are believers identify the designer with God, this is what they are claiming can be inferred from the scientific evidence. Rather, this conclusion is drawn from a combination of the scientific facts and a theological and metaphysical interpretation. Theistic evolutionists and Darwinian Christians can see the fallacy in reverse when Richard Dawkins and William Provine claim to infer atheism from evolutionary theory, as if the unvarnished scientific evidence had established that atheological conclusion (Dembski, 2004).

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #97 on:** December 14, 2005, 03:50:41 PM »

Realist · « **Reply #98 on:** December 15, 2005, 11:06:22 PM »

ID is as much science as the WWE is a realistic sport.
ID is nothing more than a knee-jerk theistic response to the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of natural evolution without any interference from some supposed deity.

Keep religion in the church and away from our schools!

matt · « **Reply #99 on:** December 16, 2005, 02:10:55 PM »

Quote

Keep religion in the church and away from our schools!

Why would you want your children to learn something that is false?

I thought that science was about following the evidence no matter where it leads.

The Big Bang theory was proposed to be bringing religion and the essence of a divine intervention into people's lives. However, the evidence was followed and the Big Bang Theory was in fact proved to be correct.

Proponents of ID are not just religious believers. For example, Aristotle accepted the design inference without the motivation of revealed religion. Michael Denton is an advid ID proponent, and he is an agnostic. Also, Einstein thought that the success of mathematical physics depended on some ordering logos in the cosmos, even though he was far from being an orthodox Jew or Christian.

Darwinists and people who say that ID proponents are only religious believers are committing a fallacy, because they are arueing that since proponents of ID are believers who identify the designer as God. ID proponents are simply claiming what can be inferred from the scientific evidence.

Explain this to me though.

How can Richard Dawkins and William Provine claim to infer atheism from evolutionary theory if ID proponents cannot infer the designer as God through scientific evidence.

Richard Dawkins and William Provine are simply using unvarnished scientific evidence to establish an atheological conclusion.

Author Topic: Is Intelligent Design Science? (Read 21823 times)