Critique of Intelligent Design

[TRoutMac]

No, there are some that are actually open minded enough to realize the possibilities are endless on how life began and that no one has the answer.

 

Do you actually deny the reality of what I described in my previous post? Does anyone here have the stones to deny that reality? Is it not a foregone conclusion that whatever your natural explanation for life is, it WILL BE natural? (duh!) And once you invoke that as your natural cause, does it not become a natural phenomenon that needs a natural explanation? Only one of you has addressed this (paultrr) and all he could muster was "I don't know" or words to that effect.

 

The rest of you, it would appear, have avoided it like the plague. Oh, sure… Damocles told me a million times I'm using "faulty logic", but even with posts that must occupy 50 MB of server space, he's still not able to explain what's wrong with my logic.

 

But Then there are the close minded with the tunnel vision that only their view can be the right one and everyone else is wrong. They can't prove it but everyone is just supposed to accept it as the gospel truth anyhow.

 

Yes, like evolutionists, for example. He, he.

 

There is no evidence to conclude that any theory is the one and only theory at this point and open minded scientists know that. Are you one of them?

 

I will concede this and only this: There is no direct evidence to support either theory. The only evidence left to us falls roughly in the "circumstantial" category.

 

Seeing the fundamental problem with the philosophy which underpins evolutionary theory, however, ought to lead anyone to reject whatever "evidence" that side produces, because methodological naturalism virtually requires the misinterpretation of nature itself.

[GAHD]

trout: I have many stones, the most recent ones added to my collection are a reddish block of quartz and some black sparkley one I have yet to identify. How they will help me deal with your abrasive method of writing, short of in a sling-shot, is beyond me. ;)

 

Your 'turtle hunt/snipe' post is close to right; every discovery/answer does open up a thousand new questions, but I think it's better to explore and learn than to say 'god did it' and leave it at that.

 

The whole point is that we don't know the root cause (yet) but with each peice we hammer into the puzzle, things become clearer. How can you say what you call MN misinterprets the very nature that it observes? Do YOU have UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that is not CONJECTURE on your side?

 

Please, oh bearer of all things wise, enlighten us humble and misguided people of the world with the nectar of widom from your meaty brain.

 

TO EVERYONE POSTING

 

you catch more wasps with honey than vinigar. Consider it both as advice, and as a warning.

[damocles]

Do you actually deny the reality of what I described in my previous post? Does anyone here have the stones to deny that reality? Is it not a foregone conclusion that whatever your natural explanation for life is, it WILL BE natural? (duh!) And once you invoke that as your natural cause, does it not become a natural phenomenon that needs a natural explanation? Only one of you has addressed this (paultrr) and all he could muster was "I don't know" or words to that effect.

 

Here I am. IDers have misrepresented the argument consistently.

 

Supernatural events require supernatural explanations. That is what IDers claim as was written above.

 

IDers deny that their intelligent designer leaves a testable physical impact(information transfer) as being a real phenomenon subject to investigation.

 

I explained this logic error consistently.

 

The rest of you, it would appear, have avoided it like the plague. Oh, sure… Damocles told me a million times I'm using "faulty logic", but even with posts that must occupy 50 MB of server space, he's still not able to explain what's wrong with my logic.

 

I won't write for the rest of them, but what I read from them is more or less along the lines I've just written above for the twentieth time.

 

I suggest this;

 

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/

 

Its an online introduction to the principles of logic.

 

and this;

 

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

is a primer on the scientific method.

 

As for an IDer continued use of rhetoric? If they are going to use that tool to present their arguments;

 

http://rhetoric.eserver.org/

 

should help them.

 

Yes, like evolutionists, for example. He, he.

 

If some had read me carefully, they would have read that my discussion has been weighted in the direction of informationj theory and physics as applied to cosmology. I tend to address the biological questionl only in direct reference to the IDers numerous presented errors about the way life works.

 

I will concede this and only this: There is no direct evidence to support either theory. The only evidence left to us falls roughly in the "circumstantial" category.

 

So they retreat from the statement that the intelligent designer has planted obvious evidence that can be plainly seen in the universe that was written earlier?

 

Obviously the absurdity of that argument caught up with some at last as untenable.

 

I, however, concede nothing of the kind. If the evidence is there; WE WILL SEE IT and TEST it even if IDers won't. Information is an observed event no matter how it is else (falsely) defined.

 

Seeing the fundamental problem with the philosophy which underpins evolutionary theory, however, ought to lead anyone to reject whatever "evidence" that side produces, because methodological naturalism virtually requires the misinterpretation of nature itself.

 

IDers fail to demonstrate a sound evidence based system for making that assertion.

 

As such, it is this;

 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/me/meaningless_statement.htm

 

A meaningless statement is a statement which posits nothing of substance which can be agreed or disagreed with. In the context of (Click link for more info and facts about logical fallacies) logical fallacies, the inclusion of a meaningless statement in the premises of the argument will undermine the validity of the argument since the premise can neither be confirmed or falsified.

 

It can be difficult to prove that a statement is meaningless because such statements are often offered in bad faith.

 

However, lack of verifiable evidence to support such a flat assertion is one such successful negation test.

 

In plain English, a not true statement.

[C1ay]

Do you actually deny the reality of what I described in my previous post? Does anyone here have the stones to deny that reality? Is it not a foregone conclusion that whatever your natural explanation for life is, it WILL BE natural?

I haven't denied anything. I have actually stated that ID is as much a possibility as anything else. The premise of ID does not fit the mold of scientific method for study since it requires a hypothesis that produces testable predictions and we have no ability to test for supernatural processes. That does't mean it's an invalid possibility, just that it doesn't fit science which is by definition, a study of natural phenomena.

 

I have also said that we cannot conclude that any of the possibilities are not possible because we do not have the evidence to rule any of them out. You insist on throwing out things like evolution without producing conclusive proof that it can be ruled out as a possibility. I would even venture to say that one possibility is that evolution was designed and wager that you could not provide conclusive proof to rule that out as a possibility. So tell us, why do you think there are possibilities that should be thrown out without the conclusive evidence to rule them out?

[TRoutMac]

How they will help me deal with your abrasive method of writing, short of in a sling-shot, is beyond me.

 

Sorry about my "abrasive" writing. I'm just trying to get a point across and I see very little evidence that my most basic, salient points are sinking in.

 

Your 'turtle hunt/snipe' post is close to right; every discovery/answer does open up a thousand new questions, but I think it's better to explore and learn than to say 'god did it' and leave it at that.

 

I agree with you, as long as we can see there's something to learn down the road we're headed. But again, I must emphasize that science seeks truth about the natural world and should not be interested in "fooling itself" by looking for truth down the wrong road for the sake of "learning things". If the road we're going down doesn't lead to truth, then the scenery along the way will just be an illusion.

 

And keep in mind that, in the abstract, there's no reason to expect we won't learn useful things by exploring I.D. You guys jump to this "God did it" line and in doing so, you're doing exactly what you say I.D.ers should not do… identify the designer. We're not identifying the designer as part of the I.D. theory, so why should you? So why must you distort and misrepresent our theory to such a degree if your theory is so rock-solid?

 

The whole point is that we don't know the root cause (yet) but with each peice we hammer into the puzzle, things become clearer. How can you say what you call MN misinterprets the very nature that it observes? Do YOU have UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that is not CONJECTURE on your side?

 

And again, my whole point is that if this "root cause" which you hope to find can only be a natural explanation, then it will need to be explained as well, which really means there is no "root cause". And by the way, methodological naturalism is not my term. Barbara Forrest, Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock, etc.

 

How does MN misinterpret nature? Because it presumes that nature has certain limits, certain boundaries that we simply cannot know that it has. When it comes right down to it, we don't really know EVERYTHING that constitutes what we call "nature", do we? How can we?

 

Consider the following from William Dembski's expert rebuttal at the Dover Vs. Kitzmiller trial where he cites Eugenie Scott's statement as follows:

 

Eugenie Scott:

…to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must

restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction).

 

William Dembski:

By natural explanations, Scott means explanations that resort only to material causes—as she puts it, to “matter, energy, and their interaction.” But that is precisely the point at issue, namely, whether nature operates exclusively by such causes. If nature contains a richer set of causes than purely material causes, then intelligent design is a live possibility and methodological materialism will misread physical reality.

 

That Dembski's right is simply not deniable… IF nature's envelope is larger than we think, encompassing a "richer" set of causes than purely material ones, and we push forward thinking that the envelope is much smaller, then we will misinterpret reality. We simply don't know how big nature's envelope is, and MN presumes that we do.

 

It's no more complicated than that.

[GAHD]

And again, my whole point is that if this "root cause" which you hope to find can only be a natural explanation, then it will need to be explained as well, which really means there is no "root cause"...

No, it means nothing because we do not know that there is no root cause. If we discover a self-contained (recursive?) cause, then it would be the root.

...And by the way, methodological naturalism is not my term. Barbara Forrest, Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock, etc.

never sait it was yours, just that you call it MN.

 

...When it comes right down to it, we don't really know EVERYTHING that constitutes what we call "nature", do we? How can we?

By observing, and experimenting. That's what science is all about.

 

...IF nature's envelope is larger than we think, encompassing a "richer" set of causes than purely material ones, and we push forward thinking that the envelope is much smaller, then we will misinterpret reality. We simply don't know how big nature's envelope is, and MN presumes that we do.

 

It's no more complicated than that.

That's a pritty big if. taking the jump from 'if' to 'is' is what makes people say you're using faulty logic. We know a lot about it so far, we do push the envelope(keeping with the fighter pilot terminology) regularly with new and different tests. I agree that anyone who thinks we have our Theory Of Everything well in hand is buck-nutty crazy, but anyone that puts up a TOE ( and actually beleives it) without an objective way to test it falls in the same category.

[Boerseun]

Oh boy - here we go again...

[TRoutMac]

No, it means nothing because we do not know that there is no root cause. If we discover a self-contained (recursive?) cause, then it would be the root.

 

Now you're admitting that a "self-contained" cause is the only way to escape from the box… I'll take that to mean that you realize you're in a box, which is a step in the right direction. When you arrive at the "self-contained" cause, why is it acceptible to science to conclude that it's "self-contained"? If it's a cop-out to invoke God, then isn't it also a cop-out to invoke "self-containment"?

 

Did you ever consider the possibility that the "self-contained" cause just might be the Intelligent Designer?

 

By observing, and experimenting. That's what science is all about.

 

Sure, but as many have said, science is never complete. Science is always waiting for the next chunk of data which will change it's prior conclusions. Therefore, we may THINK we have a handle on where the edge of nature's "envelope" is, but to say this is an absolute is akin to denying that science makes mistakes, and corrects them. Science does make mistakes, and one of those mistakes could have to do with the very definition of nature.

 

That's a pritty big if. taking the jump from 'if' to 'is' is what makes people say you're using faulty logic. We know a lot about it so far

 

And there you concede the point I made above. We know "a lot about it so far." Sure, we know a lot about it… I wouldn't deny that. But we do not know everything about it, and so we must, in the interest of objectivity, conclude that we simply don't know how big that envelope is, that we should not presume to know that it has certain boundaries. And that means that there could be a "richer set of causes" as Dembski puts it, a bigger envelope.

 

You want evidence that the envelope is bigger? Information content of DNA. Irreducible complexity. Appearance of design in biological systems (even guys like Richard Dawkins and Steven Jay Gould recognize this)

 

My overarching point is simply that Intelligent Design is no less logical or scientific than evolution and to discard it as such is to presume we know more than we ever will.

[GAHD]

I don't think I am in any box, but I might be wrong. I said 'if' in my statement; it's another big 'if', and poorly defined one at that. Still, it is the end point to my logic train; evidence is my fuel and the inertia only lasts so long without it.

 

I have considered the possibility that the "self-contained" cause might be Intelligent Design, but where there is no evidence I tend to remain skeptical. I relize there are multiple explanations, and for that reason I don't sit with any particular camp. I might be called a fence sitter, but it's better than getting stuck in the muck below the fence.

 

Science does make mistakes, and one of those mistakes could have to do with the very definition of nature, but it is what we currently have evidece for. If we throw out years of observations without a reason for doing so, without evidence that it is wrong, we are using faulty logic. Our science does work, we describe how it works as best we currently can. Could ID provide something as useful as nuclear fission? How about Fusion? Chemistry? Does it provide ANYTHING of practical value? I don't see anything, so for that reason I put it in the junk pile along with string theory, the 'muffin model' of the atom, and Alister Crowly's writings. That's my logic.

 

There could be a bigger envelope as you put it, but that does not mean that our section of the envelope is wrong.

 

The information content of DNA is not 'irriduceable'; gene deletions without harm, and the redundant nature of codons shows that there ARE better ways of doing things than most DNA contains. The human genome alone contains many codons that if mistranslated still produce an almost identical protein and thus an almost identical being.

 

My overarching point is simply that Intelligent Design is not logical or scientific, and to discard it as such is to presume we currently know more than ID ever will hope to add.

[cwes99_03]

Witness says design claim isn’t founded on faith

‘Intelligent design’ based on observations of nature, proponent tells court.

 

Assoc. Press Article for Tuesday 10/18/05

 

Michael Behe is quoted as saying that ID does not rely on religious texts, messages or any such thing.

 

I don't understand where scientists get this. If it isn't based on these things, then what things in nature have you observed that give you enough evidence to believe that some intelligent being created us and everything else around us?

 

Personally, I say ID is a scientific theory based upon Bible teachings, and supported by what I believe to be the accuracy of the Bible in it's many other scientific statements and apparently fulfilled prophecy.

 

As such, if one were to study the Bible scientifically and agree upon the accuracy of the Bible then they would also believe in the accuracy of the idea behind an Intelligent Design. Otherwise, the idea of ID without any other supporting evidence (note my supporting evidence is what I believe to be the accuracy of the Bible) is simply an unfounded, untested, unproven hypothesis, and as such is much weaker than evolution (again, I hold to the idea that everything was created.)

[questor]

are you not aware that if ID exists, it existed billions of years before the bible was written and before man appeared upon the earth?

[cwes99_03]

I don't understand the question? ID is a theory that has been recently proposed. Therefore it did not exist billions of years ago.

[C1ay]

Personally, I say ID is a scientific theory based upon Bible teachings, and supported by what I believe to be the accuracy of the Bible in it's many other scientific statements and apparently fulfilled prophecy.

 

As such, if one were to study the Bible scientifically and agree upon the accuracy of the Bible then they would also believe in the accuracy of the idea behind an Intelligent Design. Otherwise, the idea of ID without any other supporting evidence (note my supporting evidence is what I believe to be the accuracy of the Bible) is simply an unfounded, untested, unproven hypothesis, and as such is much weaker than evolution (again, I hold to the idea that everything was created.)

What you are saying is that you believe in biblical creation, not ID. The ID camp wishes to distance itself from biblical affiliation and proffers their theory as something other than biblical creation.

[TRoutMac]

I don't understand the question? ID is a theory that has been recently proposed. Therefore it did not exist billions of years ago.

 

Well, I don't think anything existed "billions of years ago", but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I.D. is "true". Was it true prior to someone proposing it? It did it not become "true" until it was proposed as a theory? Or was it true all along, even before it was proposed as a theory, and then we just happened to discover it?

 

Back in the day when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe; back before the theory was proposed that is now accepted as fact, was it still true that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe?

 

Another way to ask it is, Do you believe that what is "true" is true independent of whether YOU believe it? Or do you think that belief in something "creates" truth?

[Southtown]

...I have actually stated that ID is as much a possibility as anything else. The premise of ID does not fit the mold of scientific method for study since it requires a hypothesis that produces testable predictions and we have no ability to test for supernatural processes. That does't mean it's an invalid possibility, just that it doesn't fit science which is by definition, a study of natural phenomena.[/Quote]

Good point. I'm still trying to understand the weight of design detection arguments. How can one conclusively say something had to be designed, in legal lingo? I personally have used such logic in my philosophies, but when does it become "useful", as GAHD put it? Any methods of defining a determination between chaos and order would seem incredibly fundamental, I think.

 

Personally, I say ID is a scientific theory based upon Bible teachings, and supported by what I believe to be the accuracy of the Bible in it's many other scientific statements and apparently fulfilled prophecy.[/Quote]

I'd say this is where I'm coming from. I have read evidence for the flood that surpasses rhetorical reasoning against evolution, even though I find abiogenesis/common descent theory hysterically adept. The only reasonable flood theory I have found is the hydroplate theory, and as far as I can tell, it has loads of support.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview.html

 

P.S. The message of scripture was never designed to be forced, only offered freely to those who would accept it. Any logical or physical persuasiveness tends to bypass the prerequisite humility and openness.

[damocles]

Oh boy - here we go again...

 

Frustrating.

 

http://www.kbrhorse.net/tra/h2o1.html

 

You Can Lead a Horse to Water...

In the horse business you can learn from anyone and everyone.

 

One of our "new horse" boarders was working her Arab on a rather hot autumn day when she decided to take a break. She wanted to water her sweaty horse, but he was a picky sort and didn't want to drink from the bucket which he was offered. Undaunted, the boarder quartered an apple, tossed it in the bucket, and the horse immediately went to the bucket, picked out the apple slices, and drank the water.

 

We had recently installed a new water barrel with an automatic float in one of the pastures and not only did the animals refuse to drink from it, they wouldn't go anywhere near it. Even if we herded them over to it, all they were interested in was making a getaway. We figured this would be a great test for the apple theory.

 

We cut three apples in half, showed them to the animals and tossed them in the barrel. It wasn't 30 seconds before they were all nosing up to the barrel checking things out. Shortly afterwards they were bobbing for the apple slices. It became more of a game for them than anything else, chasing the apples around on the water and trying to pick them out.

 

Soon the barrel was no longer a "horse eating dragon" and before too long, the animals decided to sample the water which it contained.

 

Not only did this experiment provide great entertainment, it solved the watering problem!

 

You just have to find that apple.

 

Best wishes.............

[questor]

i'm under the impression that the universe is 8-14 billion years old. the initials ID stand for intelligent design. intelligent design of what ? of the universe!! if the universe was created 10 billion years ago, wasn't this long before man made up the theory of ID ? and whatever theories man has to offer about anything, does that have any bearing on whether or not

intelligent design occurred ? the answer is NO in case someone doesn't get it.