Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

1. Quit using the word eternality. It presupposes an assumptive identity not proven.

 

I'll continue to use the word that's appropriate regardless of what you tell me to do. You believe, apparently, that matter and energy always have been, and that you shouldn't need to explain how matter and energy came to be in the first place. To you, they're a given. That's eternality. You can call it something else if you like, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

Again, we're dancing around the "flavor" of science that enjoys heavy favor here… methodological naturalism.

 

MN either presupposes that there can be no Intelligent Designer, or simply chooses to pretend as much and then ignores or reinterprets any evidence which would point toward an intelligent designer.

 

This means that under the weight of methodological naturalism, science is not concerned with actually finding truth about anything. Instead, it becomes concerned with defending its own presuppositions, regardless of what the truth is.

 

The philosophy of methodological naturalism insists that there are only natural explanations for natural phenomena, but acknowledges that it has not found all of the explanations yet. This raises a rather obvious question that needs to be answered:

 

If science hasn't found all the explanations yet, then how does science know that there are only natural explanations?

 

Not surprisingly, (at least not to me) I.D. looks more and more like REAL science, and MN looks more and more like a bunch of panicked scientists trying desperately to avoid admitting how dreadfully wrong they are.

[Theophilus]

I have wondered about Intelligent Design.

How could a rational man possibly argue such a position?

That position can be argued if you approach it properly.

But you would have to junk all pre-conceived notions and abandon any idea that there has to be an ntelligent designer required to produce a self-organizing system.

 

Instead you must set the parameters for what is possible.

Let us turn to a little logic and see if we can find a circumstance in which the intelligent designer could fit our current understanding of the way reality works.

 

First, can an intelligent designer exist undetected?

This is possible if the intelligent designer and the intelligent design are one and the same. Exactly one and the same. If there is any deviation in the two sets; then there is information transfer between the two sets and the boundary or the merge between the sets will be seen by an observer.

 

Second, can an intelligent designer hide in plain sight?

Possible if the intelligent designer built the universe and then moved off leaving it to self-organize, based on a set of pre-set instructions. However he leaves behind two boundary conditions, that an observer would detect eventually in the structure of the creation; even if the observer was on the inside of the creation looking out. On top of that, the very nature of the two boundary conditions would rapidly reveal the exact size and composition of the intelligent designer bringing up the question of what created it?

 

Third, can an intelligent designer act in plain sight and be undetected.

Not possible. If an intelligent designer changes local created conditions and the observer is present; the observer will notice local condition violations immediately and conclude that there is something screwy occuring.

 

Fourth, can one even argue that an observer trapped inside a creation can seek for an intelligent designer and prove or disprove the proposition? If you read this, then you obviously know the answer to that question.

 

Fifth, could an observer detect an intelligent designer if it was an A=A congruence with its creation?(Based on the first condition.) Yes. But the requirement is that the creation and the intelligent designer have an edge or a boundary and be finite. This is so that a reflexive symmetry can be tested and refuted.

Tests

-Violations of any standard universal local condition.(Not seen to date.)

-Discovery of a codified language built into structure that is not explained by chaos theory, principles of self-organized systems, or simple statistical variance.(None of those limiters has been exceeded to date.)

-Discovery of another universe that provides clear data of preset organizational principles.(This is enormously difficult as it requires more than one intelligent designer!)

 

Based on the above conditions, if that intelligent designer is oiut there, then it must be;

-congruous to creation.(A=A.)

-totally inactive as to present modification of the preset conditions it imposes on its creation.(Call this the blooming flower postulate.)

-not violating local universal conditions.(No miracles folks.)

-be a finite being limited to the existence parameters of its creation.(Remember the intelligent designer has to be exactly congruent to its creation in order to escape easy detection.A=A.).

 

Given all of the above, is it any wonder that the Occam's Razor crowd looks upon intelligent design with skepticism?

All of your questions and answers are based on a foundational assumption that the natural order is not created; that your intellect is both sufficient to apprehend the nature of experience and that it is legislative for what is possible. This at the same time that you hold to a purely contingent system of brute factuality which makes predication impossible.

 

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the truth of a proposition. It is frequently used on the mistaken notion that if someone can propose an explanation of the natural order apart from the creator, such explanation must be preferred because it is "simpler." This is a complete misrepresentation of Occam's meaning.

 

BTW, I am not a supporter of ID or Scientific Creationism. I'm just a Christian, i.e., I accept creation on the authority of God's word. Whether ID is a legitimate topic for scientific investigation, it, like all theistic "proofs" does not lead to the God of scripture.

[Theophilus]

Here is a hint; about six thousand years ago, an animal started exhibiting the symptoms of that kind of intelligence. Prior to that it was more or less like its cousins, the other greatr apes.

 

Is this a scientific statement? What observations have you made and what experiments have you conducted to arrive at such?

 

Six thousand years puts it out of the range of observation and, as far as I'm aware, there are no written records. Unless, ..."Dear descendants 6000 years from now; we just wanted you to know that, prior to this time, we acted like our cousins the great apes, but now, we don't. Your's truly, Alley Oop."

[C1ay]

I'll reply as to nylonase and ring species later… no time now to get into it.

Now I'm beginning to wonder how you define later.....

[goku]

strange how life has DNA.

strange how a tornado can destroy a house, but spare the one beside it.

strange how life........lives.

[pgrmdave]

Damocles and TRoutMac, stop flaming, stop attacking each other. If you disagree with someone's idea, tell them why, not just that it is wrong.

 

Yes, science tends to deny the existance of a creator, but why is that wrong? If something can be explained with a creator or without a creator, science will choose the latter, similarly, if something can be explained with an additional element, or without an additional element, science will choose the latter. So far, TRoutMac, you've only been able to say that you think that it is wrong to assume that from the outset, but you don't say why. If science can explain something without a creator, why shouldn't it?

[damocles]

Is this a scientific statement? What observations have you made and what experiments have you conducted to arrive at such?

 

Six thousand years puts it out of the range of observation and, as far as I'm aware, there are no written records. Unless, ..."Dear descendants 6000 years from now; we just wanted you to know that, prior to this time, we acted like our cousins the great apes, but now, we don't. Your's truly, Alley Oop."

 

We started building cities.

[damocles]

Damocles and TRoutMac, stop flaming, stop attacking each other. If you disagree with someone's idea, tell them why, not just that it is wrong.

 

Yes, science tends to deny the existance of a creator, but why is that wrong? If something can be explained with a creator or without a creator, science will choose the latter, similarly, if something can be explained with an additional element, or without an additional element, science will choose the latter. So far, TRoutMac, you've only been able to say that you think that it is wrong to assume that from the outset, but you don't say why. If science can explain something without a creator, why shouldn't it?

 

I do not flame.

 

I respond to each erroneoius statement with an appropiate rebuttal based on evidence.

Otherwise why would I cite example and source point by point?

 

Posted by Theophilos

 

All of your questions and answers are based on a foundational assumption that the natural order is not created; that your intellect is both sufficient to apprehend the nature of experience and that it is legislative for what is possible. This at the same time that you hold to a purely contingent system of brute factuality which makes predication impossible.

 

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the truth of a proposition. It is frequently used on the mistaken notion that if someone can propose an explanation of the natural order apart from the creator, such explanation must be preferred because it is "simpler." This is a complete misrepresentation of Occam's meaning.

 

BTW, I am not a supporter of ID or Scientific Creationism. I'm just a Christian, i.e., I accept creation on the authority of God's word. Whether ID is a legitimate topic for scientific investigation, it, like all theistic "proofs" does not lead to the God of scripture.

 

1. This is a discussion of a hypothesis: "intelligent design".

2. The last time I checked, the supporters of ID claimed it was science.

3. That subjects it to the rules and methodology of the scientific discipline.

4. William of Occam was a philosopher who eschewed the needlessly complex explanation for the simple one for a very good reason. It works in case after case after case after case......when a solution to a problem is sought-any problem.

 

And you misread totally my analysis above.

 

 

Information theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Information theory is the mathematical theory of data communication and storage founded in 1948 by Claude E. Shannon. Modern information theory is concerned with error-correction, data compression, cryptography, communications systems, and related topics.

 

Combined with;

 

Principle of locality;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

 

In physics, the principle of locality is that distant objects cannot have direct influence on one another: an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. This was stated as follows by Albert Einstein in his article "Quantum Mechanics and Reality" ("Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit", Dialectica 2:320-324, 1948):

 

The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space (A and :hyper:: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible.

Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the assumption that all objects must objectively have their properties already before these properties are observed. Einstein liked to say that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it.

 

formed the basis of my thoughts on what you need to formulate as possible existent conditions for which to look in your hypothesis for "intelligent design" before you test those conditions for its, the hypothesis' negation.

------------------------------------------------------

Best evidence shows the local universe has a beginning, middle and end.

 

heat death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

 

The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no free energy to sustain motion or life. In physical terms, it has reached maximum entropy.

 

That is based on the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Ergo, I don't believe that matter and energy is eternal, which if some had bothered to read the discussions on gravity and space in which I have posted would KNOW.

 

One must present evidence of something which possesses the quality of eternality. Otherwise the term is misused when time is the subject discussed.

 

Arguing scholastically when discussing a hypothesis is not credible. If you argue science present evidence of testing(by negation) that supports the hypothesis. Otherwise join the philosophy department and present your arguments.

 

You may be surprised that some of the theologians will demand proof by logic based on the same tests of negation that scientists demand.

 

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

Pierre Teilhard de ChardinPierre Teilhard de Chardin (/pjɛʀ tejaʀ də ʃaʀdɛ̃/; May 1, 1881 – April 10, 1955), a Jesuit priest trained as a palaeontologist and a philosopher, was present at the discovery of Peking Man. Teilhard de Chardin popularized such ideas as the Omega Point and the Noosphere.

 

In setting forth this sweeping account of the unfolding of the material cosmos, he abandoned the literal interpretation of the two different accounts of creation in the Book of Genesis, in favor of a metaphorical interpretation. But he seemed to certain officials in the Roman Catholic Curia to have thereby undermined the doctrine of original sin that St. Paul and St. Augustine had developed from their understanding of the story of the Fall, and for this reason Teilhard's account became controversial with certain church officials.

 

To which I add Gregor Mendel and Galileo Galilei and many other devout scientists who ran afoul of scholastics who couldn't carry water in a true rational argument because the scholastics refused to accept the evidence of negation that scragged the pet theories of how the physical universe of the day operated. History is a harsh judge. Don't be surprised at the verdict when the evidence rolls in that the latest group of William Jennings Bryans are totally discreditted.

 

Never practice law in the court of physical truth.

 

If you want some clue where I head in my discussions on this topicd; instead of trying to, perjoratively label me a "methodological naturalist" and calling me a narrow closed minded anti-religious bigot; you might try to understand that I use the scientific method to frame questions and to work out possible solutions to almost all kinds of physical problems I confront.

 

The question of how the universe got here is a physical problem.

 

The mechanism of how; is a physical mechanism.

 

It really is that simple.

 

And anyone who tries to make it more complicated than that; is violating the principle of simplicity and impugning me with false motives.

 

Which brings us back to Occam's razor again........

[goku]

One must present evidence of something which possesses the quality of eternality.

which is longer, a line or a ray?

 

i think scientists have done amasing research and tests, but misinterpreted the results.

[rockytriton]

strange how a tornado can destroy a house, but spare the one beside it.

 

it's not really that strange. It's just like saying it's strange how a truck can smash into a car but leave the one next to it unharmed.

[rockytriton]

Damocles and TRoutMac, stop flaming, stop attacking each other. If you disagree with someone's idea, tell them why, not just that it is wrong.

 

What? You mean you are actually reading their posts?? :hyper:

[TRoutMac]

Damocles and TRoutMac, stop flaming, stop attacking each other. If you disagree with someone's idea, tell them why, not just that it is wrong.

 

See below.

 

Yes, science tends to deny the existance of a creator, but why is that wrong?

 

Well, I agree that science as you see it tends to deny the existence of a creator, but I don't agree that it should.

 

If something can be explained with a creator or without a creator, science will choose the latter, similarly, if something can be explained with an additional element, or without an additional element, science will choose the latter. So far, TRoutMac, you've only been able to say that you think that it is wrong to assume that from the outset, but you don't say why. If science can explain something without a creator, why shouldn't it?

 

Pardon my sarcasm (this is the "friendly" variety) but I thought science was about discovering truth. You don't seem at all concerned with whether an explanation is actually "true", you just seem concerned with providing an explanation that excludes a creator, even if that explanation is false. And if that's what science is, then discovering truth is not what science is about.

 

It would appear, then, that either of two things is true: 1) You don't believe in any objective, transcendent truth or 2) You believe science creates truth, rather than discovers truth.

 

Lemme illustrate it this way: Imagine you're a detective and you're investigating a murder. Let's say there are two suspects, one of which is "Joe Six Pack" and the other is a popular State Senator, who we'll call "Senator Bedfellow" (apologies to Berke Breathed). Now, imagine that your superior approaches you and says "Dave, we've got to get to the truth of this case. I want you to pull out all the stops and find out who did this. But just one thing, Dave: You cannot consider Senator Bedfellow a suspect."

 

What would you immediately suspect is happening here? Aren't you inclined immediately to think the following?

 

1) Senator Bedfellow is probably guilty.

2) Your superior is not really concerned about discovering the truth.

3) Your superior is protecting someone, most likely the Senator, which gets you back to point 1, the Senator is probably guilty or at least complicit.

 

That's precisely what's happening with methodological naturalism. As a detective, you cannot be expected to uncover the truth about a murder unless you're free to investigate every suspect and follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to a popular State Senator.

 

Methodological naturalism is doesn't allow science to investigate freely, does it? It doesn't let the evidentiary chips fall where they may, does it? No, it doesn't. And by virtue of that fact, it is not science. If it is science, then science cannot be relied upon to provide us with truth.

 

Even Damocles said that science is not supposed to operate on assumptions. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that natural phenomena can be explained and should only be explained by reference to natural causes. But since science hasn't uncovered all the natural causes, it really has no basis in evidence to assume that natural causes are all there is. So, contrary to Damocles' stated ideal of science not operating on assumptions, methodological naturalism does just that.

 

Now do you understand why I think it's wrong? And aren't you forced by logic to agree? Do you think that detectives can do their job when they're told not to investigate certain people?

[damocles]

which is longer, a line or a ray?

 

i think scientists have done amasing research and tests, but misinterpreted the results.

 

In a strange sense, I actually agree with this observation.

There is something fundamentally wrong in physics and a lot of scientists are working on it.

 

One item in cosmology;

 

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0108034

 

Estimating the age of the Universe is an old problem. Rapid progress in observational cosmology in recent years has led to more accurate values of the fundamental parameters. The current most popular model is a flat Universe, with about 30% of the critical density in the form of matter (baryonic and non-baryonic) and 70% in the form of `dark energy'. These two densities, together with the Hubble constant (estimated to be about 70 km/s/Mpc), constrain the age of the Universe to be approximately 13 Gyr. This expansion age is uncomfortably close to the age of the oldest globular clusters (approximately 12.5 Gyr), in particular if they formed relatively recently. We review here proposed models of globular cluster formation and point out possible conflicts with cosmology.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Damocles and TRoutMac, stop flaming, stop attacking each other. If you disagree with someone's idea, tell them why, not just that it is wrong.

 

Rockytriton

What? You mean you are actually reading their posts??

 

It may seem like childish squabbling, but I actually used the exercise to refine my own notions about ID. So I find the exercise useful. If you enjoy the comedy involved? :hihi:

 

Well I TRY to be serious. :hyper:

 

Methodological naturalism is doesn't allow science to investigate freely, does it? It doesn't let the evidentiary chips fall where they may, does it? No, it doesn't. And by virtue of that fact, it is not science. If it is science, then science cannot be relied upon to provide us with truth.

 

Another lawyer argument presented. Another analogy that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and a LIE. Anything existent is subject to investigation, even a god. Half of the posts I've written have been about how you do this; while the opposition has discussed offices, paintings, now politicians....everything except about the actual testing for a god.

 

Why does the opposition dodge the central question of how do you test?

 

Because if they admitted that you could test, then their house-of-cards argument that scientists wouldn't test the hypothesis would fall of its own lie. The only way you could maintain such a lie, is if you could say that there is no test for a god.

 

That is so obviously heinous an argument so loaded with emotional baggage that I've steered clear of it. You do not call your opponents liars. That is impolite.

 

So instead, I hammer on what is polite. Suggest your own test, ID crowd, for negating the ID hypothesis and present the findings that proves you couldn't negate the hypothesis.

 

I even supplied conditions for formulating the hypothesis, and some evidence that might help set up a test. I even supplied some predictions of intelligent design for which I would look.(I am helpful that way.).

 

But......

 

Instead of addressing the question directly the opposition brings up side issue false analogies and then scholastically argues that the scientists because they use a methodology are closed to the idea of the supernatural.

 

If the supernatural leaves behind evidence? It will be seen.

 

But then, by the ID crowds' definition, that isn't correct evidence because it would be seen as physical evidence subject to "methodological naturalism" and is hence not supernatural-that is not acceptable to ID proponents as a valid observation.

 

Follow that argument?

 

Yep. That is why I suggest that the ID crowd are a religion masquerading their theory as science.

[TRoutMac]

Now I'm beginning to wonder how you define later.....

 

Yes, fair enough. There are many evidences that the evolutionist side claims for itself, but on closer inspection, you will often realize that they are merely interpreting the evidence in a way that appears to support evolution, and that there are other interpretations of the evidence that may not support evolution and, in fact, support Intelligent Design. Such is the case with your two examples.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bird.asp

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

 

Notice, however, I am not claiming that these two interpretations of the evidence are necessarily correct. I'm merely pointing out that there is more than one interpretation of the evidence, and as such, the evidence doesn't necessarily support evolution. In fact, it appears that it does not, unless by "evolution" you really mean "micro-evolution".

 

Furthermore, I am immediately skeptical of any interpretation of evidence that comes from a philosophy of methodological naturalism for reasons I've explained in great detail. Methodological naturalism is a lousy way to discover truth.

[Erasmus00]

Furthermore, I am immediately skeptical of any interpretation of evidence that comes from a philosophy of methodological naturalism for reasons I've explained in great detail. Methodological naturalism is a lousy way to discover truth.

 

Its funny that as soon as theological arguments were abandoned for natural ones, mankind developed at an astonishing rate. Look at how far science has progressed since Galileo and Newton.

 

Its also funny that the ID response to the claim that ID isn't science is to say "Your RIGHT! ID isn't science! Science is flawed at its core! ID is BETTER then science!" I'm still waiting for some predictions and experiments from the ID people. Maybe when, and if, they do ID will move from a lawyer's game of rhetoric into the realm of actual science.

-Will

 

edit: typo

[Theophilus]

Its funny that as soon as theological arguments were abandoned for natural ones, mankind developed at an astonishing rate. Look at how far science has progressed since Galileo and Newton.

 

Its also funny that the ID response to the claim that ID isn't science is to say "Your RIGHT! ID isn't science! Science is flawed at its core! ID is BETTER then science!" I'm still waiting for some predictions and experiments from the ID people. Maybe when, and if, they do ID will move from a lawyer's game of rhetoric into the realm of actual science.

-Will

 

edit: typo

The issue of prediction has been raised several times. Perhaps you can give an example of the prediction utility of evolution, i.e., natural selection.

[Turtle]

The issue of prediction has been raised several times. Perhaps you can give an example of the prediction utility of evolution, i.e., natural selection.

___I'll save him the trouble:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

:hyper: