Wednesday, May 5, 2010

A Question for Barbara Forrest

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. This is the consensus position of evolutionists and, in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed. She writes:

The sciences are unified by their naturalistic methodology and empiricist epistemology, a unity ... that can take us to the outer reaches of natural phenomena, but never beyond them. When we move beyond the epistemic boundaries that these faculties and rules set for us and the correspondingly limited metaphysical boundaries they enable us to define, we move from the relative epistemological safety of knowledge to the unmapped, supernatural territory of faith.

That seems like a reasonable philosophy of science insofar as it goes. But how then would Forrest have us implement this limitation? For there is a three-way tug of war between method, realism and completeness. One can mandate any two of these three, but not all three. The underlying problem here is that we don't know the truth at the outset.

For instance, if we mandate a naturalistic methodology as do evolutionists, then this restriction may rule out true explanations in some cases. We have no way of knowing if method restrictions will rule out the truth, because we don't know the truth.

This means we'll either have to settle for explanations that may be false (as did Descartes), or for explanations for only the subset of phenomena that match up with our method restriction (as did Bacon).

The first option mandates method and completeness but sacrifices realism. The second option mandates method and realism but sacrifices completeness. Finally, the third option is to mandate completeness and realism but sacrifice restrictions on method. Historically this was the favored position of moderate empiricists.

Within this larger context we can see that Forrest falls into the second option, mandating method and realism but sacrificing completeness. The question for Forrest and the evolutionists then is: What is the boundary between natural phenomena and supernatural phenomena?

Forrest tells us science must never violate this boundary, so it is important that we discern it. We need to distinguish between natural and supernatural phenomena? How can science know when it is investigating a supernatural phenomena rather than a natural one? Bacon wrestled with this problem. What does Forrest have to say?

74 comments:

  1. What kind of gibberish is this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'How can science know when it is investigating a supernatural phenomena rather than a natural one?' - one has facts and/or evidence and/or proof, the other doesn't?
    Nice triangle, who confirms it's validity? Looks a bit metaphysical to me.
    You are really struggling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "How can science know when it is investigating a supernatural phenomena rather than a natural one? Bacon wrestled with this problem. What does Forrest have to say?"

    Cornelius, *you're* the friggin' supernaturalist, *you guys* are the ones who have to provide a workable, objective method for detecting the supernatural if you want to have the supernatural in science!!

    A great many great minds have tried, and failed, to figure out a way to make it work. This hard historical experience, not some blind ideological dogma, is why science has increasingly excluded the supernatural as it has advanced over the last several hundred years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NickM:

    "Cornelius, *you're* the friggin' supernaturalist,"

    Ah, no Nick, that would be you, not me. Remember? You're the one making the claims about god, not me.

    "if you want to have the supernatural in science!!"

    There you go again... I'm cleaning up this mess after you. Let's keep things straight: You're the one who put the supernatural into science, I'm the one trying to get it out.

    Now try reading the Forrest quote a little more carefully, and the issue that it raises, which I point out. It's your issue, not mine. You're making the mandate about how science must work, so you need to clarify your position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius -


    In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. This is the consensus position of evolutionists


    It is the position of ALL SCIENTISTS. Not just evolutionists. Naturalism is a prerequisite for all science. It is ridiculous - and utterly inaccurate - to state this is a mandate put in place by any one particular theory.

    As you apparently wish to put it, science (and again, that's 'science'... not 'evolution') may indeed be 'sacrificing completeness'. Science (and again, that's 'science'... not'evolution') restricts itself to only natural phenomenon. But that's science for you (and again, that's 'science'... not 'evolution').


    Ah, no Nick, that would be you, not me. Remember? You're the one making the claims about god, not me.


    The theory of evolutino makes no claims about God - it just cannot USE God as an explanation for natural observations which is a restriction put on every theory in science (and again, that's 'every theory in science'... not 'just evolution').

    And you're not making any religious claims? So where exactly do you stand on Biola university's doctrinal statement?


    "The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

    "Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."


    Seems pretty religious to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. that's pathetic Cornelius! Twisting people's words to suit yourself is a desperate resort.

    The only claims that we make about a god/s is that it doesn't exist. Science has not worked with the intention of excluding the possibilty a creator, that is simply a by-product of the overwhelming evidence.

    Any rational, logical and honest thinker would acknowledge that 'oo look, a gap, must be the creator' is the position that wishes to have the supernatural in science.

    'if we mandate a naturalistic methodology as do evolutionists, then this restriction may rule out true explanations in some cases.' - how so? Because it rules out a creator? Too late, that's not a potential true explanation.

    And while you're about it, who came up with the triangle?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe clarifying Dr. Forrest's comments will help a bit:

    The sciences are unified by their naturalistic methodology and empiricist epistemology, a unity ... that allow us only to the outer reaches of natural phenomena, but never beyond them because we've decided beforehand and without investigation, that natural phenomena is all there is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. padron13 -

    Cute.

    But hasn't it dawned on you there might be a REASON science restricts itself to natural phenomena?

    It's not because 'we've decided that's all there is' - it's because we have no way of finding out!

    How could you possibly investigate supernatural forces? By their definition they are beyond being measured, and most crucially, tested.

    Science itself progresses by making hypotheses and testing them. So it simply has nothing to say on matters that by definition cannot be tested.

    So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us not knowing if there is a supernatural realm/forces. There might be, there might not be. And from here, we cannot just ASSUME the existence of the supernatural. It is useless as an explanation because we do not know if it exists.

    And any hypothesis which is based on the assumption of a supernatural entity (such as, just to pick two random examples, Creationism and ID...) simply is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ritchie,

    As I understand it the problem isn't so much with how to test but the narrowing of possible results. It doesn't matter what you test or how you test if you restrict what kinds of answers you can come up with before you test.
    How would we test for the supernatural? Some would say current tests already point in that direction or at least the direction of a designer of some sort. They'd also say that they arrived at that conclusion assuming exactly what Dr. Forrest suggests but that the evidence simply went in a non naturalistic direction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Design is a natural phenomenon.

    ID does not require the supernatural.

    And science is only concerned with reality- as in the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The distinction between natural and supernatural is not always clearly defined, except by context. Saying the supernatural is outside the bounds of science is a useful heuristic that eliminates unevidenced spirits, elfs and other capricious beings. More rigorously, science ignores extraneous entitites, those without clear empirical entailments. Consequently, it depends on how we define the entity under investigation.

    Sign on door: ABSOLUTELY NO DEMONS ALLOWED IN THE CHEMISTRY LAB!

    Many definitions of ID are scientifically vacuous because they propose an unspecified designer using an unknown mechanism at some undetermined time for some inscrutable reason. Creationism often makes empirical claims, most of which have been falsified. We can certainly investigate a Big Dude throwing lightning bolts from atop Mount Olympus. Invisible pink unicorns are unfalsifiable, by design.

    ReplyDelete
  12. padron13 -


    As I understand it the problem isn't so much with how to test but the narrowing of possible results. It doesn't matter what you test or how you test if you restrict what kinds of answers you can come up with before you test.


    There is no limit to the possible results with the supernatural. A miracle could be literally ANYTHING. That's kinda the problem. You cannot restrict the results because there are no boundaries that you can affect. The supernatural works outside all boundaries.


    How would we test for the supernatural? Some would say current tests already point in that direction or at least the direction of a designer of some sort.


    Who? Where? Seasoned academics? Credited institutions? Don't be vague. Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joe G -


    Design is a natural phenomenon.


    It is not the concept of design itself which is supernatural - but in the case of ID it is the being required to do the designing.


    ID does not require the supernatural.


    Really? So by what NATURAL mechanisms could a designer have created and tweaked life?


    And science is only concerned with reality- as in the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated.


    Only in a broad sense. Yes, ultimately science does want to uncover what is real. But it has a specific way of going abuot uncovering reality - part of which is non assuming the existence of things you have no evidence for.

    I'll quote Zachriel because what he said is important and deserves repeating:


    Many definitions of ID are scientifically vacuous because they propose an unspecified designer using an unknown mechanism at some undetermined time for some inscrutable reason.


    ID COULD POTENTIALLY be tested - if we specify parameters here. We need to specify details about the Intelligent Designer who did the designing, and by what mechanisms it brought about/tweaked life - details we can actually TEST.

    But while these details remain unspecified they remain beyond the reach of science, and ID as a whole fails as science.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is well known and understood by all in this conversation that agents (in particular, people and animals) do things, and that it is frequently useful to figure out when a person or animal intentionally did something. IDists like to extrapolate from this to infer agency in areas such as cosmology and, especially, biology.

    The problem is that "agency" by itself is very, very weakly descriptive, and not in the least explanatory.

    It's exactly like the simulation argument I raised in a prior post. Simulations are known things. The universe may be a simulation. But all by itself, the proposition that the universe is a simulation gives us nothing to work with. This is a big part of why science assumes that we are in a "real world", despite the fact that we might not be.

    So it is with supernatural design. There may be an outside-the-Universe entity capable of creating and modifying any possible life forms, and some or all life that we know of may be the work of this entity. But all by itself, the proposition is so nebulous that it gives us nothing to work with. Science (yes, even forensics and archaeology) assumes naturalism because without it, all bets are off.

    (Not to mention that in both the cases of supernaturalism and simulations, there are philosophical tug-of-wars to be had over definitions. For example, does ruling out the supernatural mean ruling out the existence of ghosts? Many would say yes, but what if ghosts became a conformable biological phenomenon with predictable effects? Then they would be no more "supernatural" then electromagnetism or algae. Another example is ESP. Ostensibly "supernatural", it has been formulated into many testable hypotheses, making it an "honorary" naturalistic hypothesis, albeit one that hasn't passed many tests.)

    What are the positive detectable signs of this entity's work — not just the problems with particular naturalistic hypotheses? Both Behe's IC and Dembski's CSI are really just negative arguments against a particular (quite powerful) naturalistic theory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zachriel:
    "Many definitions of ID are scientifically vacuous because they propose an unspecified designer using an unknown mechanism at some undetermined time for some inscrutable reason."

    Spoken like someone who has never conducted an investigation-

    In the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) and specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.

    That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.

    IOW Zach thank you for once again exposing your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ritchie:
    "It is not the concept of design itself which is supernatural - but in the case of ID it is the being required to do the designing."

    Wrong again.

    We don't know.

    And guess what?

    If we investigate and find out the designer(s) are supernatural then it would be a bit too late to turn back.

    ID does not require the supernatural

    Ritchie:
    "Really? So by what NATURAL mechanisms could a designer have created and tweaked life?"

    Design is a mechanism- however there many other more specific mechanisms such as targeted searches, directed chemistry, artificial selection.

    And science is only concerned with reality- as in the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated.

    Ritchie:
    "Only in a broad sense."

    That is false.

    Science is only concerned with reality and the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated.

    Anything less is science-fiction.

    ID can and is tested on a daily basis.

    ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    And to refute any design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that the thing in question can be accounted for by matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    As for failing as science- just look at your position.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Catchling,

    ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s).

    The design exists in the physical world.

    As for negative arguments- well it is obvious that is all you have.

    You evos love to harp on ID being only a negative argument- which is false- but all you can do is to attack ID.

    Your whole position can be reduced to one sentence-:

    "Anything but ID."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ms Forrest sez that ID is a religious belief yet ID does not say anything about "God"; ID does not say anything about worship; ID does not say anything about giving service.


    IOW it appears that Ms Forrest is redefining words to suit her agenda.

    She also conflates ID with Creation which more than exposes that agenda.

    Typical...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ritchie:
    But [science] has a specific way of going about uncovering reality - part of which is no[t] assuming the existence of things you have no evidence for.

    Are you telling me that there is no way for the scientists to determine that the monolith discovered underneath the surface of the moon (in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey) is designed unless the existence of the designer is established first?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe G:

    You evos love to harp on ID being only a negative argument- which is false- but all you can do is to attack ID.

    Your whole position can be reduced to one sentence-:

    "Anything but ID."


    "Evolution" is built out of negative arguments only by the convoluted ID definition of "evolution": however life arose, it was natural; Life arose by not-God. This is not remotely the actual scientific definition. How could it be? And why can't chemistry be defined as solely the proposition that chemicals arise naturally?

    Consider the following:
    1. The origins of species requires no supernatural intervention.
    2. Therefore, species arise from other species by slow processes of reproduction, mutation and selection, and are related in a pattern of common descent.

    Does this follow? No, it doesn't.

    Before Darwin, thousands of people addressed, in one way or another, the questions of origins without recourse to God. They didn't automatically hit upon the evolutionary answer, because the evolutionary answer is way, way more than "God didn't do it".

    A priori, there is a multitude of possible naturalistic explanations for life. Evolution is the one that happens to work a posteriori. For example, we could just as easily have found ourselves in a universe where extreme saltation was the norm. We happen not to be in one (so far as we can tell).

    Doublee:

    Are you telling me that there is no way for the scientists to determine that the monolith discovered underneath the surface of the moon (in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey) is designed unless the existence of the designer is established first?

    Until some attempt is made to scientifically describe at least the who or the how, "design" remains a scientifically fruitless assertion, despite its apparent "obviousness". You have to ask the sort of questions that lead us to the how and who. ID has made at best baby steps in this direction (front-loading, message theory, quantum information beams).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joe G -


    Wrong again. We don't know. And guess what? If we investigate and find out the designer(s) are supernatural then it would be a bit too late to turn back.


    IF we investigate?! How about actually DOING some investigation?

    Your position is based on absolutely no evidence at all - just supposition: IF there's a designer, it MIGHT be supernatural??! Basically you're just sitting around hoping for someone to suddenly come up with evidence for design in nature one day. Meanwhile you'll just sit around and have faith?

    The ID movement needs people to actually come up with some evidence - or even ideas for suggested mechanisms to test for - NATURAL mechanisms. Until it does, it is based on supposition and God-of-the-gaps logic.


    Design is a mechanism


    And what EVIDENCE do you have to subtantiate the idea that life is degisned? Again, without this, all you have is supposition and God-of-the-gaps logic.

    Also, we know of no beings capable of designing life. Such a being would have to be both remarkably powerful and have remarkable foresight. And the more remarkable such a being is, the more statistically improbable it is.


    ... targeted searches, directed chemistry, artificial selection.


    Again, what evidence bares out that nature has been crafted by these mechanisms?


    That is false. Science is only concerned with reality and the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated. Anything less is science-fiction.


    Nope. There are a body of techniques for investigation collectively known as the scientific method. You must be adhering to one or more of these techniques to be performing science.


    ID can and is tested on a daily basis.


    Please link to a single article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which provides positive evidence for ID.


    ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.


    ... and a belief that there are beings capable of designing and creating life. A belief we should not take for granted - especially since it is so statistically unlikely, and is totally unsupported by the evidence.


    And to refute any design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that the thing in question can be accounted for by matter, energy, chance and necessity.


    Elaborate. Describe in great and gritty detail EXACTLY how we might go about that. Or are you just asking for impossible evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zach:

    "Many definitions of ID are scientifically vacuous because they propose an unspecified designer using an unknown mechanism at some undetermined time for some inscrutable reason."

    Did you mean "evolution" ?


    "The distinction between natural and supernatural is not always clearly defined, except by context. Saying the supernatural is outside the bounds of science is a useful heuristic"

    OK, ...

    "that eliminates unevidenced spirits, elfs and other capricious beings. More rigorously, science ignores extraneous entitites, those without clear empirical entailments. Consequently, it depends on how we define the entity under investigation. "

    You're confusing phenomena with explanations. Of course we avoid supernatural explanations. But can you answer the question?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doublee -


    Are you telling me that there is no way for the scientists to determine that the monolith discovered underneath the surface of the moon (in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey) is designed unless the existence of the designer is established first?


    Firstly I haven't seen 2001: A Speace Odyssey, but I'm picturing a big, complex monolith, possibly covered in writing, pictographs, or whatever...??

    Oh, just Googled it. Looks like just a flat slab.

    Anyhoo, my answer:

    Again, bear in mind that science never PROVES anything. It deals in probability. What is the most probable explanation?

    On the face of it it seems to me that the monolith being designed is more likely than it being a natural rock formation. It is a simple geometric shape, which is more in keeping with fashioned objects than natural rock formations. But, being good little scientists, we will want to run tests this.

    We can check for tool marks - telltale signs of a chisel or lasers or whatever. If we find some the design hypothesis is better supported by evidence and more probable. Is it made from a 'native' moon rock type? If not the design hypothesis is better supported yet. Even if we find people on the moon who CLAIM to have built it, the design hypothesis only becomes much, much more likely. Never proven absolutely.

    What do we have when we turn to ID? Well the idea that life is designed logically necessitates at least one designer. We know of no beings capable of designing and creating life from nothing. Moreover, the existence of such a being would necessarily be LESS LIKELY than the existence of life itself. So in this case, design is already the less likely option. At that is before we even look at the evidence.

    Now, evolution is a very fertile theory - it has opened the door to a flood of research. The assumption that life has evolved according to Darwin's ideas has led to many, many hypotheses and theories being created and tested and a ton of supporting evidence being uncovered. It has even led to entire new fields of science - productive fields which yield tangible results.

    Does ID do this? It seems to me ID does the opposite - it is a catch-all explanation for the things that we DON'T understand. It says 'See this observation? You evolutionists can't explain that. Therefore design is the DEFAULT explanation'. It simply indiscriminately labels absolutely everything it finds as 'designed' and then goes home.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Catchling,

    ID is not anti-evolution.

    And you don't have any evidence that living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    And again ID does not require the supernatural.

    So it would be:

    1- Living organisms are the result of intentional design

    OR

    2- Living organisms are the result of chemical and physical accidents

    I know how to test premise number 1.

    Can you tell me how to test premise number 2?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ritchie:
    "Your position is based on absolutely no evidence at all "

    My position is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    It is your position which doesn't have any support.

    "And what EVIDENCE do you have to subtantiate the idea that life is degisned?"

    What EVIDENCE do you have to substantiate the idea that life is the result of chemical and physical accidents?

    Here is some of my evidence:

    Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

    The Design Inference in Peer-Review

    That is false. Science is only concerned with reality and the reality behind the existence of what is being investigated. Anything less is science-fiction.


    Nope.

    So you are ignorant of science.

    Please link to a single article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which provides positive evidence for ID.

    Please link to a single article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which provides positive evidence for for blind, undirected chemical processes.

    And to refute any design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that the thing in question can be accounted for by matter, energy, chance and necessity.


    Elaborate. Describe in great and gritty detail EXACTLY how we might go about that. Or are you just asking for impossible evidence?

    Geez Ritchie all I am asking is for you to support your position with positive evidence.

    IOW Ritchie tell us about the methodology used to determine that the design observed is illusory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ritchie:
    "Now, evolution is a very fertile theory - it has opened the door to a flood of research."

    The theory is very vague and fruitless.

    For example no one knows how many mutations it takes to go from land mammal to whale.

    No one even knows if the transformations required are even possible.

    Yet you expect people to believe that it occurred via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    You can't even muster a testable hypothesis for such a cliam.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Catchling,

    ID is about the DESIGN not the how or who.

    That is because in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) and specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.

    That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.

    So what part of that don't you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  28. JoeG-

    I never did see your post at UncommonDescent regarding the nature of the designer appear. (You had agreed to engage them over a post the concluded the designer is the Christian God).

    I wonder why? Could it be you are in the minority on this opinion? Is your conclusion so against the orthodoxy that it warrants banning?

    As for your analogy on archaeology and forensics, aren't those disciplines focused almost entirely on learning about the designer? Studying an artifact is to learn about a civilization that made it, investigating a crime scene is to convict a perpetrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joe G: you don't have any evidence that living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    In a way, this canard is true. But in the same sense, I also don't have any evidence that stars arose from non-astral matter via blind, undirected processes. Or hurricanes, or anything else. We don't know every single action of every single component of those processes; they could very well involve some sort of natural or supernatural "directing".

    In such cases, all we have in our hands is processes. And the known, documented processes of evolution include numerous forms of mutation, divergence and selection. "Mutation" isn't just a word meaning "stuff changes" — it describes the physical actions of deoxyribonucleic acid and other chemicals. That it is "blind" (by some definitions) is irrelevant.

    Conversely, "design" is not a process. It's an umbrella term for a large family of processes, such as:
    * Painting a house
    * Manufacturing a car
    * Splicing some genes
    * etc
    This is why "design", by itself, answers no scientific questions.

    The following question sounds meaningful, but isn't: "Which kind of processes lead to X — "blind" or "telic" ones?" A much better question is "What processes — what actual processes — lead to X?"

    Calling a process "blind" is as useful as calling it "not angry". In the grand scheme of possibilities, it is by no means impossible that volcanoes feel anger. So, can you prove that solely non-angry processes cause volcanoes?

    "Volcanoes aren't angry" (like "evolution is naturalistic") is a reasonable null assertion, but by itself it has no fecundity; it doesn't get us anywhere. I can say "volcanoes aren't angry" all day long and I won't have learned or prompted someone else to learn anything about volcanoes. Likewise for "volcanoes are angry". Either way, I have to make some predictions. Evolution happens to be the one makes predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doublee: Are you telling me that there is no way for the scientists to determine that the monolith discovered underneath the surface of the moon (in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey) is designed unless the existence of the designer is established first?

    If you didn't know how gems were made, would it be reasonable to assume they were made by Hephaestus?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zachriel: Many definitions of ID are scientifically vacuous because they propose an unspecified designer using an unknown mechanism at some undetermined time for some inscrutable reason.

    Cornelius Hunter: Did you mean "evolution" ?

    The Theory of Evolution makes many testable scientific claims, mechanical and historical.

    Cornelius: You're confusing phenomena with explanations.

    The phenomena is the solution turning blue. The proposed hypothesis submitted on the lab report is that a Demon did it. However, without evidence of a demonic mechanism or being, the proposal is an extraneous entity. We don't have to rule out Demons apriori.

    Cornelius Hunter: Of course we avoid supernatural explanations. But can you answer the question?

    If you read the explanation, the distinction is heuristic. We don't have to arbitrarily draw a line (though we have various well-established rules of thumb). It's simply a matter of whether the posited entity or effect has clearly defined empirical implications.

    ReplyDelete
  32. RobertC:
    ====
    As for your analogy on archaeology and forensics, aren't those disciplines focused almost entirely on learning about the designer? Studying an artifact is to learn about a civilization that made it, investigating a crime scene is to convict a perpetrator.
    ====

    Very well put. To that I would add this: In such fields, the designers' existence is always additionally inferred by evidence besides their having been the designer. Even if we have no physical remains of the builders of Stongehenge, we can reasonably postulate that the builders were Homo sapiens who lived in the area at the time, and from this, we can roughly ascertain the nature of their culture, their intentions regarding this artifact, their interaction with neighboring cultures, etc. "Builder of Stonehenge" does not in itself logically yield "Human beings", or even "life forms"; it's our other documented evidence of humans building things that does.

    Likewise, when one has ruled a death to be the result of murder, the reasonable possibilities limit the strong likelihood to not only a certain species, but to those members of this species who were in close proximity to the event of death.

    In neither case does one treat the entire problem as "Was this the result of chance or design?", then conclude: "Design". You don't ask, "What was the cause of Bob's death?" and answer "Alice, an intelligent agent, wanted him to be dead." You say, "Alice poisoned his drink" (or whatever).

    ReplyDelete
  33. I would say that in science there are no supernatural phenomena. Phenomena either have a scientific (natural) explanation or they don't. Not withstanding that any phenomenon can have a supernatural explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Joe G -

    You are wrong on so many fronts it's so hard to keep track. So let's go right back to square one and start from there.

    Let us at first agree on what science is.

    Science is a method of discovering the way the world around us works.

    It is not merely 'trying to discover what is true', or 'happening to discover how the world works by any means necessary'. It mandates a particluar method to follow: gathering data, forming hypotheses, and then testing hypotheses. The scirntific method.

    Do you agree with even that?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ritchie:
    We know of no beings capable of designing and creating life from nothing.

    Prior to the discovery of the monolith buried on the moon, the scientists knew of no beings capable of making a monolith and burying it.

    Yet, the scientists came to the conclusion that such a being existed. They went through a simple two step process.

    1. Discover the markers of design.
    2. Infer the existence of a designer.

    You aptly described some of the markers that showed the monolith was most likely designed.

    Yet the same kind of reasoning cannot be applied to biological systems, even though biological systems are full of design markers, such as digital codes, message transmission systems, message decoding systems, error correction schemes, and hierarchical information processing schemes.

    Scientists have yet to demonstrate how such sophisticated systems can come into existence, yet they insist that nature and only nature is allowed to apply for the job.

    On what basis does science accept the logic of the design inference in all cases except biological systems? Either the logic is correct or it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie,

    You are confused.

    I never said nor implied that science 'trying to discover what is true', or 'happening to discover how the world works by any means necessary'.

    As for the scientific method try applying tat to your position.

    Please present the testable hypothesis for living organisms arising from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    Then do the same for the alleged evolution of whales from land mammals.

    Also you should read:

    science is a process

    Note the part about the scientific method.

    And as for methods I am still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To RobertC:

    Me on UD

    As for your analogy on archaeology and forensics, aren't those disciplines focused almost entirely on learning about the designer?

    Not necessarily.

    Ya see it is as I said- you need to study the evidence in order to do that.

    We still don't know who designed Stonehenge, but we think we know how because we studied it.

    Both disciplines prove that we don't need to know who nor how before reaching a design inference.

    And both prove the design inference is not a dead-end as more questions will be asked.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Zachriel:
    "The Theory of Evolution makes many testable scientific claims, mechanical and historical."

    Not based on the proposed mechanisms.

    The claims it makes can also be made by alternative scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
  39. you don't have any evidence that living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    Catchling:
    In a way, this canard is true.

    It isn't a canard. It is the anti-ID position.

    In such cases, all we have in our hands is processes. And the known, documented processes of evolution include numerous forms of mutation, divergence and selection. "Mutation" isn't just a word meaning "stuff changes" — it describes the physical actions of deoxyribonucleic acid and other chemicals. That it is "blind" (by some definitions) is irrelevant.

    IOW you do not understand ID.

    ID is OK with mutations.

    ID is OK with evolution.

    Not even YEC argues for stasis.

    IOW your ignorance is duly noted.

    Conversely, "design" is not a process.

    Wrong again- design is a process.

    Buy a dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Joe G -


    I never said nor implied that science 'trying to discover what is true', or 'happening to discover how the world works by any means necessary'.


    I didn't say you did. I simply wanted us to agree that science is the application of the scientific method, since you called me ignorant when I said this was so.


    Please present the testable hypothesis for living organisms arising from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.


    This is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is concerned only with how life develops, not how it started. Even if the very first living matter was zapped into existence by a supernatural power, that would not affect whether or not life then developed via evolution.

    Nevertheless, abiogenesis is a fertile area of research. No-one claims to have all the answers figured out, but we are producing very telling results, such as the Miller Urey experiment, which showed that the chemical building blocks of life could arise under conditions similar to those of early Earth.

    Still, the origin of life is not a solved problem. But abiogenesis, which takes as it's base hypothesis that life first arose from non-living matter, can be tested, and in fact is. This is your first clue that it is science.

    How may we test the hypothesis that life was designed by an external being? If we cannot test this, then this is your first clue that it is not science.


    Then do the same for the alleged evolution of whales from land mammals.


    Well, we can use genetics to work out whales' clostest living land relatives. And we have - hippos. We can then predict the discovery of intermediate species in the fossil record - creatures which demonstrate a change from the whale-hippo common ancestor to modern whales.

    This prediction has been spectacularly vindicated by the discovery of such fossilized creatures as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon - each a wonderful testament to the predictive power of the theory of evolution. Are these creatures absolute proof? No. But science never provides absolute proof. It provides evidence, and these specimens are excellent evidence.

    How exactly does ID provide a testable hypothesis for the origin of whales?


    And as for methods I am still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory.


    Design does not get a free pass. We do not assume design unless we can prove otherwise. The onus is on you to provide a methodology used to determine that natural features actively ARE designed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ritchie,

    I take it that you haven't read any of the links I posted.

    Oh well.

    Ritchie:
    "Well, we can use genetics to work out whales' clostest living land relatives. And we have - hippos. We can then predict the discovery of intermediate species in the fossil record - creatures which demonstrate a change from the whale-hippo common ancestor to modern whales."

    Unfortunately that doesn't have anything to do with blind, undirected processes.

    Also common design and convergence can explain all similarities.

    Your position cannot explain the differences observed.

    And as for methods I am still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory.


    Design does not get a free pass.

    Neither do you- now answer the question.

    The onus is on you to provide a methodology used to determine that natural features actively ARE designed.

    We have done just that.

    It is all about requirements and reducibility.

    ReplyDelete
  43. From one of the links Ritchie ignored:

    There is no such thing as "THE Scientific Method."
    If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than "question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions."

    But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom "concludes" and never "proves."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Please present the testable hypothesis for living organisms arising from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    Ritchie:
    "This is abiogenesis, not evolution."

    The two are directly connected- if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity was driven solely by those types of processes.

    "How may we test the hypothesis that life was designed by an external being?"

    Reducibility and requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nice to see Dr Hunter continuing in his usual vein. And support from IDguy too!

    Echoing what has been said already, science can study any real phenomenon. Imaginary stuff is best left to philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I would like to commend Dr Hunter's continuing open comment policy. For that at least he deserves credit.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Joe G -


    Unfortunately that doesn't have anything to do with blind, undirected processes.


    Evolution is a blind, undirected process. And such creatures were predicted using the theory of evolution. Their discoveries were vindications of that theory. What's the problem here?


    Also common design and convergence can explain all similarities.


    Common design? You mean some great designer just decided to create Pakicetus, and then a little later, decided to create Ambulocetus, which was very much like Pakicetus, but a little more whale-like but still totally unlreated, and then a little later created Dalanistes, which was rather like Ambulocetus but a bit more whale-like and totally unrelated, and then Rodhocetus, and then Takracetus, and so on? You think THAT makes more sense than the fact than they are evolving into one another? Really?


    Your position cannot explain the differences observed.


    What differences can it not explain?


    Neither do you- now answer the question.


    The onus is not on me to show design is illusory. It is on you to show design is real. To insist otherwise is bizarre to say the least.


    We have done just that.


    Have you? Where? I must have missed it. Do it again. Make it nice and simple since I'm obviously being thinck here.

    The link you posted and quoted is interesting though. No such thing as the scientific method? Wow, that's news to me. So we can do whatever we like and call it science? We can take superstition and hearsay, treat it as fact and call that science? Is that the size of it?


    The two are directly connected- if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity was driven solely by those types of processes.


    You have it backwards. The theory of evolution accounts wonderfully for the development of life. Though it does not tell us how it began. So the issue of how life arose does not impact on whether evolution is true.


    - How may we test the hypothesis that life was designed by an external being?

    - Reducibility and requirements.


    Elaborate, please.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ritchie:
    "Evolution is a blind, undirected process."

    That is what is being debated.

    You have refused to tell us about the methodology used to make that determination.

    Common design? You mean some great designer just decided to create Pakicetus, and then a little later, decided to create Ambulocetus, which was very much like Pakicetus, but a little more whale-like but still totally unlreated, and then a little later created Dalanistes, which was rather like Ambulocetus but a bit more whale-like and totally unrelated, and then Rodhocetus, and then Takracetus, and so on? You think THAT makes more sense than the fact than they are evolving into one another? Really?

    Common design can explain the genetic similarities between whales and hippos.

    Also out of the 50,000+ transitionals there should be we only have a handful of speculative examples.

    What differences can it not explain?

    All of them.


    The onus is not on me to show design is illusory.

    Yes it is.

    You make the claim you need to be able to test it.

    As for design we test it the same way we test all design inferences- figure out what it takes to account for it.

    The two are directly connected- if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity was driven solely by those types of processes.


    You have it backwards. The theory of evolution accounts wonderfully for the development of life. Though it does not tell us how it began. So the issue of how life arose does not impact on whether evolution is true.

    So logic eludes you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    ReplyDelete
  50. Joe G -


    - Evolution is a blind, undirected process.

    - That is what is being debated. You have refused to tell us about the methodology used to make that determination.


    The principle of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    The proposal that life is directed is unhelpful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified. It is exactly the kind of extraneous assumption Occam's Razor was designed to cut away. Especially when we have no evidence of anything capable of doing the directing.


    Common design can explain the genetic similarities between whales and hippos.


    Really? It makes sense under common design for a large, exclusively water-living creature to share far, far more genetic similarities with hippos and land-based ungulates than it would with other water-living creatures such as, say, a shark? Could you explain how, please?


    Also out of the 50,000+ transitionals there should be we only have a handful of speculative examples.


    Fossilization is a rare process. It is totally unreasonable to expect every species to be represented in the fossil record.


    - What differences can it not explain?

    - All of them.


    I was hoping for something a little more specific...


    - The onus is not on me to show design is illusory.

    - Yes it is. You make the claim you need to be able to test it.


    No, it really isn't. Again, refer to Occam's Razor. Without evidence for design and direction, we should not assume it. It is unhelpful and extraneous.


    As for design we test it the same way we test all design inferences- figure out what it takes to account for it.


    Again, could you be more specific?


    So logic eludes you.


    I'd appreciate it if you dropped the snarky remarks. You're not the only one who feels like he's banging his head against a brick wall, y'know.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    So irreducible complexity, basically?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oh and, just for kicks:

    http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

    Back tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Truism here, I note that I have been deleted and blocked from threads on the Uncommon Descent site.

    I can assure you there was nothing personally directed, abusive, threatening or profane in my comments.

    I can only assume there is a need to control the debate. That would make it a propaganda newsletter, not a forum for discussion and debate.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    Horrendous definition.

    Depends sharply on the components?

    As in fails without them? This a definition of design? How many designs do you know that have redundant systems? Fail-safes? Is my hard drive non-essential? I have it mirrored to a second drive for backup. Remove either, and my system works. Is my system, therefore, undesigned? Is our government undesigned because no individual person is essential, with clear lines of succession, and means of replacement?

    Similarly, I could say the arches in Arches National Park* or other natural stone formations have separate stone components. If I knockout a low component, the thing is going to fall. Is the arch designed, because it depends sharply on its components? Is a tree irreducibly complex because if I remove its leaves, bark, or roots, it dies?

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicate_Arch

    Any better definitions of design?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ritchie:
    The principle of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    Design is the simplest explanation when compared to an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    The proposal that life is directed is unhelpful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.

    The premise that life is undirected is unhelpful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.

    ID OTOH can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for it.

    No, it really isn't. Again, refer to Occam's Razor. Without evidence for design and direction, we should not assume it. It is unhelpful and extraneous.

    You have to be able to support your claims.

    Obviously you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory...

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    RobertC:
    Horrendous definition.

    What do you have for determining the design is illusory?

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory..."

    1) What 'observed' design? How did you determine it was designed? I'm still waiting for a design filter that works. Hell, I'd even settle for a logical explanation of how to detect design. Behe's, as you state it above, ruled out my computer, but ruled in rocks and trees. Weak.

    In the words of this blog, you've interpreted the data through a metaphysical, religious filter, and nothing else.

    2) That is the point. We can never rule out design. Something could even be designed to look evolved. We could do an experiment where something is generated by directed evolution, but we could never rule out a designer didn't influence the experiment supernaturally. That is why you aren't doing science. Nothing falsifiable there.

    Dembski himself:
    "As I’ve said (till the cows come home, though Thomist critics never seem to get it), the explanatory filter has no way or ruling out false negatives (attributions of non-design that in fact are designed). I’ll say it again, ID provides scientific evidence for where design is, not for where it isn’t."

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

    ReplyDelete
  59. Joe G -


    Design is the simplest explanation when compared to an accumulation of genetic accidents.Design is the simplest explanation when compared to an accumulation of genetic accidents.


    Wrong. Design is the more complex explanatiion because it relies on the totally unevidenced existence of a being more complex than that which it is being advocated to explain.

    An accumulation of genetic accidents, by contrast, does not rely on the existence of such extraneous and improbable entities. So it is the simpler explanation.


    The premise that life is undirected is unhelpful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.


    Compare the idea that life is directed and designed with the idea that living matter is infused with magic from a giant pixie, or tainted with the undetectable stench of the breath of the cosmic hippo.

    We cannot disprove any of these proposals - but there is no evidence for any of them. There is an infinite number of things which are POSSIBLE. It is evidence and evidence alone which ties what is real to what we know. Without it, we have no reason to believe any particular proposal over another and the idea that life is directed is as sensible and reasonable as the magic infusion or hippo halitosis proposals, but science must not ASSUME that any of them are true without evidence to separate the fact from the fluff.

    We do not need to positively determine direction, or magic dust, or hippo halitosis etc., are illusory. It is assumed until shown otherwise.


    ID OTOH can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for it.


    Not so. ID allows for natural processes and just slaps labels like 'miracle' and 'directed' onto whatever we cannot currently explain. It is the god-of-the-gaps logic. And it can account for absolutely any result of bsolute any experiment I perform - another clue that it isn't really science.

    Still waiting for the methodology used to determine whether a natural feature is designed, by the way...

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Still waiting for the methodology used to determine the observed design is illusory..."

    1) What 'observed' design?

    The observed design that Darwin tried to explain away.

    The observed design that Dawkins says is illusory.

    The observed design that Crick said biologists had to remind themselves evolved.

    That observed design.

    RobertC:
    How did you determine it was designed? I'm still waiting for a design filter that works. Hell, I'd even settle for a logical explanation of how to detect design. Behe's, as you state it above, ruled out my computer, but ruled in rocks and trees. Weak.

    Behe's criteria did not rule out your computer. You are confused. IOW your "argument" is weak.

    In the words of this blog, you've interpreted the data through a metaphysical, religious filter, and nothing else.

    That is false.

    I look at the evidence through experience and observations.

    2) That is the point. We can never rule out design.

    Yes we can by demonstrating nature, operating freely can account for iyt.

    That is how it is done in forensics and archaeology.

    IOW RobertC all you have to do is start providing positive evidence for your position.

    Still waiting...

    ReplyDelete
  61. Design is the simplest explanation when compared to an accumulation of genetic accidents.Design is the simplest explanation when compared to an accumulation of genetic accidents.


    Wrong. Design is the more complex explanatiion because it relies on the totally unevidenced existence of a being more complex than that which it is being advocated to explain.

    One design is less comnlex than multiple accidents.

    And ID is not about the designer(s).

    Your attempts to make it so are laughable.

    An accumulation of genetic accidents, by contrast, does not rely on the existence of such extraneous and improbable entities. So it is the simpler explanation.

    Your premise cannot even be tested.

    The premise that life is undirected is unhelpful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified.


    Compare the idea that life is directed and designed with the idea that living matter is infused with magic from a giant pixie, or tainted with the undetectable stench of the breath of the cosmic hippo.

    Do design engineers use magic or are strawman arguments the best you have?

    ID OTOH can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for it.


    Not so.

    That is so and that is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.

    That also applies to SETI.

    IOW by you rejecting what I said you just further expose your ignorance.

    Still waiting for the methodology used to determine whether a natural feature is designed, by the way...

    The same methodology used by forensics and archaeology.

    IOW the methodology that you don't appear to understand.

    And thank you for demonstrating your position is nothing more than "anything but ID".

    ReplyDelete
  62. RobertC:
    As in fails without them?

    Yes it fails without them.

    This a definition of design?

    It works.

    How many designs do you know that have redundant systems? Fail-safes?

    Explain the relevance.

    "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”



    Is my hard drive non-essential? I have it mirrored to a second drive for backup. Remove either, and my system works.

    But you cannot remove both and still have it work.

    IOW all you are doing is arguing like a child.

    Is that the best you can do?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks


    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks cont.

    Proof-reading and error-correction require knowledge- knowledge of what to read, what to correct and how to correct it.

    Alternative gene splicing also requires knowledge- what to splice, when to splice, how to splice.

    Blind molecules do not have any knowledge.

    Programmed molecules would just as spellchecker knows what to correct and how to correct it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Joe G -


    One design is less comnlex than multiple accidents.


    No, it really is not.

    Once you have seen a horse for yourself and know for a fact that horses exist, the proposition that a million other horses exist is simpler than the proposition that a single unicorn exists.


    And ID is not about the designer(s).


    It necessitates one. You cannot have design without a designer. You may try to obscure what you think the INDENITY of the designer is if you wish, but you cannot hide the fact that one is required.

    ID needs a designer - a highly improbable being we have no reason to think exists. Ergo, it is far more complex a proposition.


    Do design engineers use magic or are strawman arguments the best you have?


    My analogy is an accurate one. As scientists we should assume that life is undirected in exactly the same way as we should assume it is unsaturated my magic dust or untainted by the undetectable smell of hippo breath. We should be sensible and say 'prove it'.


    That is so and that is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.


    But with archaeology and forensics you don't need to propose hypothetical, highly improbable and totally unevidenced beings. We have entirely natural candidates to explain what we find - humans usually. You are simply ignoring the problem with ID - that it has to propose an unevidenced and highly improbable being, problems archaeology and forensics simply don't have.


    IOW by you rejecting what I said you just further expose your ignorance.


    I do not, because you are simply wrong. And your inability to understand that or refusal to accept that will not change the matter.


    The same methodology used by forensics and archaeology.

    IOW the methodology that you don't appear to understand.


    No, you do not appear to understand it. Archaeology and forencis do not prove design. But it is reasonable to infer design because we have excellent candidates for the findings of archaeology and forensics. Something ID is conspicuously missing.


    And thank you for demonstrating your position is nothing more than "anything but ID".


    I have done nothing of the sort. Even if ID falls flat on its face (which it clearly does) that is not supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, and I never claimed it was. I just asked you to support your position, which frankly you are failing to do. The fact that ID is hooey, however, does not make evolution more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  65. One design is less comnlex than multiple accidents.


    No, it really is not.

    Yes it is as one is less than multiple.

    And ID is not about the designer(s).


    It necessitates one.

    ID is not about the designer(s).

    ID is about the design.

    ID needs a designer - a highly improbable being we have no reason to think exists.

    There are plenty of reasons to think one existed.

    You keep ignoring them.

    Do design engineers use magic or are strawman arguments the best you have?


    My analogy is an accurate one.

    Your "analogy" proves that you are cluelss.

    And you still need evidence that evolution is blind and undirected.

    That is so and that is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.


    But with archaeology and forensics you don't need to propose hypothetical, highly improbable and totally unevidenced beings.

    LoL!

    You can't even address the point. Pathetic.

    With forensics and archaeology the way to refute the design inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    The same with ID.

    We have entirely natural candidates to explain what we find - humans usually.

    Natural? Natural how?

    There isn't any evidence that humans were produced by nature, operating freely.

    Archaeology and forencis do not prove design. But it is reasonable to infer design because we have excellent candidates for the findings of archaeology and forensics.

    You don't know anything.

    Archaeology and forensics infer design because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    That is the same for ID.

    And thank you for demonstrating your position is nothing more than "anything but ID".


    I have done nothing of the sort.

    Yes you have by failing to produce your methodology and your failure to produce any positive evidence for your position.

    I just asked you to support your position, which frankly you are failing to do.

    Well you don't appear capable of understanding anything Ritchie.

    IOW no amount of evidence will ever convince you of ID.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ritchie,

    You say ID necessitates a designer.

    Well your position necessitates something beyond nature.

    That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its beginning, which science has shown that it had.

    ReplyDelete
  67. JoeG-

    RobC-"What 'observed' design?

    JoeG- The observed design that Darwin tried to explain away.

    The observed design that Dawkins says is illusory.

    The observed design that Crick said biologists had to remind themselves evolved.

    That observed design."

    Ahh, so now the detection of design-the whole business you are trying to achieve-is just something apparent. Defining the goal by the starting data-how very nice and circular.

    Btw, this argument is fine-as a personal belief. You can go to the Rocky Mountains and marvel at, what might appear to many as a manifestation of God's creation. Just don't expect us to substitute that personal belief for plate tectonics in geology class.

    As for design detection, the 'sharp' dependence of a design on its components misses two things. Redundancy (knock out one system, still functions) and fashion (design features-e.g. car trim, leather wheel, neon running lights, that don't impact function). So an experimental approach-such as I presented for a computer-is hampered by this definition of design, where the function does not SHARPLY depend on all designed components. Similarly, it ruled in the design of natural rock formations.

    Even Dembski admits there is no way to rule out design. It just isn't disprovable. My experiments running in the lab could have been altered by a designer-supernatural (or of the janitorial variety, I suppose).

    So what are these criteria that led you to know, on face, nature is designed?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Joe G -


    Yes it is as one is less than multiple.


    How cute. Adorably naive. And totally wrong.

    How can I account for the furniture in a room? I could say a magic fairy made it all appear. Or I could say each piece was individually carried physically into the room. Which is simpler?

    According to your logic we would have to go with the fairy! One fairy v multiple instances of furniture being carried = one fairy is the simpler explanation.

    Which would be false because the fairy explanation would have to take into account just how unlikely the existence of the fairy was in the first place. The second explanation relies on no fantastical agents. Therefore it will always be simpler, even if I had a million billion pieces of furniture to account for!


    ID is not about the designer(s).

    ID is about the design.


    You cannot have a design without a designer. If ID declares things designed then it must take on board the statistical probability (or, more to the point, improbability) of the existence of a being capable of being such a designer.


    There are plenty of reasons to think one existed.

    You keep ignoring them.


    A quick bullet-point recap would be great...


    Your "analogy" proves that you are cluelss.


    What a schoolyard response. Rather than address my argument you resort to childish insults. I hope such a tantrum makes you feel better.

    Nevertheless my point stands. You do not undermine it by getting personal.


    And you still need evidence that evolution is blind and undirected.


    No I don't. We should assume it until given reason to think otherwise. Just like we should assume life is unsaturated with magic dust, untainted by cosmic hippo breath or uninfluenced by any of the infinite number of other theoretically possible but utterly hypothetical forces which MIGHT exist.


    You can't even address the point. Pathetic.


    Again with the insults. Touched a nerve, have I?


    With forensics and archaeology the way to refute the design inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.


    But with archaeology and forensics, the proposition that ancient objects etc, were done by design can be explained through entirely natural forces - human intervention. This is not the case in ID.


    Natural? Natural how?

    There isn't any evidence that humans were produced by nature, operating freely.


    You misunderstand. Humans are natural because we know they exist. When archaeology posits humans to explain ancient pots and carvings, there is nothing un-/sub-/super- natural about what they are proposing.


    You don't know anything.


    Again with the personal remarks. How old are you, exactly?


    Archaeology and forensics infer design because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.


    That may be so. And by doing so they still adhere methodological naturalism - the philosophical stance that everything in science must be explained through natural means.

    Methodological naturalism is the principle which underlies all of modern science. ID does not adhere to it. Ergo it is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  69. (continued)


    Yes you have by failing to produce your methodology and your failure to produce any positive evidence for your position.


    I have one position you have another. I might be right. You might be right. We might both be wrong. It is reasonable for you to ask my to explain and defend my position so you can judge it's worth. It is also reasonable of me to ask you to do the same. That alone does not mean my position is BASED UPON or the failure of yours.


    Well you don't appear capable of understanding anything Ritchie.


    Yes that's right. I just sit around mumbling and licking the walls all day. I'm actually just mashing my face against the keyboard even as I "type" this - it's just good luck that it is making apparently meaningful sentences. What an incredibly intelligent person you are to have pointed that out.


    IOW no amount of evidence will ever convince you of ID.


    LOL.
    How can you say that when you have presented none?


    Well your position necessitates something beyond nature.


    The only position I have been defending here is the theory of evolution.


    That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its beginning, which science has shown that it had.


    Has it indeed? To cite Stephen Hawkings in A Brief History of Time:

    "[On the big bang - Ritchie] If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined."

    So it's not that the Big Bang was absolutely the start of everything, simply that we cannot know what occurred before.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Zachriel: If you didn't know how gems were made, would it be reasonable to assume they were made by Hephaestus?

    You are apparently asking if you didn't know how evolution works to transform a land animal into a whale, for example, is it reasonable to assume that an intelligent agent guided the process?

    What is reasonable in either case is not to claim that you that you have a theory of how something is made or works until have a plausible story of how that something is made or works.

    The explanation for evolution is akin to claiming that the smooth, patterned surfaces on the gem were formed as the result of a rock tumbling down a rocky mountain slope during an earthquake.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Doublee: Are you telling me that there is no way for the scientists to determine that the monolith discovered underneath the surface of the moon (in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey) is designed unless the existence of the designer is established first?

    Zachriel: If you didn't know how gems were made, would it be reasonable to assume they were made by Hephaestus?

    Doublee: What is reasonable in either case is not to claim that you that you have a theory of how something is made or works until have a plausible story of how that something is made or works.

    More precisely, a testable explanation.

    Doublee: The explanation for evolution is akin to claiming that the smooth, patterned surfaces on the gem were formed as the result of a rock tumbling down a rocky mountain slope during an earthquake.

    Ironically, gems are formed by tectonic forces.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Zachriel: Ironically, gems are formed by tectonic forces.

    True, but does that give the gems a patterned surface that is indistinguishable from a cut gemstone?

    Just a little bit of miscommunication here. When I used the word "patterned", I, of course, was thinking of a cut gemstone. And, of course, you were thinking of a raw gemstone.

    To complete my original point, the explanation for how a cut gem is made would include a detailed description of the actual methods the gemstone cutter would use to shape the final jewel.

    Evolutionary explanations are not at that level yet. If they are, I haven't run across one yet.

    I believe that scientists are engaging in premature elucidation when they claim that evolution is a fact. Until they can come up with a plausible story about the mechanisms of evolution, I reserve the right to remain skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Doublee: True, but does that give the gems a patterned surface that is indistinguishable from a cut gemstone?

    Not indistiguishable generally, but often having smooth, patterned surfaces.

    Doublee: Evolutionary explanations are not at that level yet. If they are, I haven't run across one yet.

    Rather, you don't accept the explanations.

    On the subject of patterns, consider that a highly complex pattern, the nested hierarchy, is formed naturally by uncrossed descent with variation — even if the variations are random.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Uggh, I can't believe JoeG actually wrote the following.

    In response to: "What differences [genetic diffs between hippos and whales] can it [evolution] not explain?"

    Joe G writes:

    "All of them."

    Idiotic answer. I'm reminded of Sarah Palin being asked by a journalist: What newspapers and magazines do you read? Palin replied: "All of them."

    "All of them" means "I'm lazy, I'm ignorant, I don't really care about this subject, but still you must acknowledge my opinion as equal to everyone else's."

    I call this "the creationist voice." The third voice, after active voice and passive voice.

    In a previous thread I pointed out, specifically, one similarity between hippos and whales: the pattern of retrotransposons, specifically SINEs, which are identical. I asked Dr. Cornelius for an explanation that did not require common descent of hippos and whales.

    I never got an answer, and never will. They have no answer.

    Hippos and whales are related by common descent. Dr. Cornelius, through his silence, agrees.

    Lastly, JoeG keeps bringing up "design detection" in forensics and archaeology. This is totally irrelevant, because no one in forensics or archaeology utilizes ID methods, ID math, or ID philosophy in detecting artificial objects.

    No one in forensics or archaeology has ever once employed any ID or DI methods, such as "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity," for determining whether a sharp rock was a man-made tool or made by geological forces.

    Intelligent Design is based on the hypothesis that you can *prove* something is intelligent designed from that object's *intrinsic properties*, for example, some alleged mathematical "pattern", without comparing the mechanisms by which such an object could be formed-- e.g. natural/geological/mutation/nat. selection mechanisms vs. human technology.

    In reality, the way archaeologists or geologists prove something is man-made vs. natural is by considering *extrinsic, external* processes, natural or human, which could have created that object-- (that is, inference to the best hypothesis.) This assumes you have to know something about natural processes that could have created the object.

    For example: Ron Wyatt's fake "Noah's Ark" and the Klerksdorp "spheres", were all proven to be non-artificial, products of natural, geological forces.

    In contrast, the Olduwan culture (Homo erectus stone tools) were shown to be artificial because no geological force could have moved them upstream to their location.

    No DI fellow, no William Dembski, no Stephen Meyer, ever used "specified complexity" in any real archaeological excavation-- no "specified complexity" analysis of even one stone tool, no ID analysis of Olduwan culture, the Venus figurines, Ron Wyatt's fake ark, etc. etc.

    Intelligent Design has never been applied to forensics and archaeology. You are not allowed to cite them. They don't want you. The ID side has never even attempted such an analysis.

    ReplyDelete