Intelligent design

[C1ay]

the other side cites many obvious and overt examples of the presence of ID. the opponents says even though there is no evidence that ID does NOT exist and can offer zero evidence against the existence of ID, it is a religion and is involved with God, therefore there is no chance it has credibility.

No. The request is simply for the ID camp to proffer a valid scientific hypothesis based on the observable evidence that can be used to make testable predictions. IMO, it is a fair interpretation of the observable evidence thus far that ID is a possibility. That is not a hypothesis in and of itself though and certainly not one that yields any testable predictions that will yield additional data on observations to add to those that the hypothesis was based on. It is not up to the community to prove that such a hypothesis is not possible, only to attempt to disprove a hypothesis once it is formed. So far there has been no hypothesis that meets the criteria for the scientific method. Many IDers feel the criteria should be changed because testability presents a problem with forming a hypothesis but science does not change the rules of the scientific method in the middle of the game and should not be expected too.

[questor]

is evolution viewed as a testable scientific fact at this time? aren't there many gaps in the theory? if so, why does the scientific community endorse the unproven theory? i think the reason is that most scientists have rebelled against the dogma and myths of religion, and cannot separate the concept of God with the totally different concept of a creator. and if there was a creator, there was intelligent design. my concept of creator has nothing to do with religion, but is based upon observable phenomena.

[C1ay]

is evolution viewed as a testable scientific fact at this time? aren't there many gaps in the theory? if so, why does the scientific community endorse the unproven theory? i think the reason is that most scientists have rebelled against the dogma and myths of religion, and cannot separate the concept of God with the totally different concept of a creator. and if there was a creator, there was intelligent design. my concept of creator has nothing to do with religion, but is based upon observable phenomena.

No one has said that evolution is a fact because it is only a theory. While there is evidence to support that it is true for at least some speciation, there is not any evidence that it is responsible for all species. In other words, just because John likes Mary and Mary likes water does not mean that John likes water. The scientific community looks for evidence to support and refute the theory so that the limits of the theory can be found. The community makes observations and then determines if they support or refute portions of theory. That's science.

[questor]

Clay, what would be your evidence or observations that would lead one to reject ID? or the idea of a creator?

[C1ay]

Clay, what would be your evidence or observations that would lead one to reject ID? or the idea of a creator?

Evidence that concludes that some other theory explains our observations.

 

I might point out, you cannot just look for evidence that necessarily points one way or another, all you can do is makes observations and then determine if they support or refute the predictions a theory makes. Even if you specifically attempt to design tests that could only support a theory,or refute it, their failure would imply the reverse. You will observe either way and then determine the meaning of the observations as opposed to making a determination of what your observations will mean before you make them. That is the only way that your observations and their interpretation will match that of the rest of the community.

[questor]

Clay, you said:

''Evidence that concludes that some other theory explains our observations.''

what evidence would this be? what other theory?

[C1ay]

Clay, you said:

''Evidence that concludes that some other theory explains our observations.''

what evidence would this be? what other theory?

If we knew that we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd already know the answer(s). Until then we can just keep observing nature to see what those observations imply.

[C1ay]

These are two important questions posed to people who believe in intelligent design.

 

What, if any, predictions does intelliegent design make?

 

What, if any, testable, falsifiable experiments are possible, as in, what would disprove intelligent design?

 

Please, to those of you who think that intelligent design is legitimate science, answer these questions.

And to these add...

 

Did the designer make any mistakes?

Is cancer by design?

Are virii by design?

Are birth defects by design?

Are attractions to the same gender by design?

Are diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.. by design?

Are idiot savants by design?

[questor]

the ''mistakes'' are genetic and comprise a miniscule aberration considering the genetic permutations possible. it is ''intelligent design'', not ''perfect'' design. genetic understanding will eventually help to eliminate most of these imperfections.

[TRoutMac]

And to these add...

 

Did the designer make any mistakes?

Is cancer by design?

Are virii by design?

Are birth defects by design?

Are attractions to the same gender by design?

Are diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.. by design?

Are idiot savants by design?

 

The answers to your questions, according to I.D. theory, could be summed up as follows:

 

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was. It's entirely possible that the susceptibility to diseases of various kinds, either viral or degenerative or genetic WAS designed in to some extent. In the abstract, it's also possible that these were not designed in. The answer depends on what the objective of the designer may have been, and obviously there's no way for us to assess that on a scientific basis.

 

Regardless, there are millions of products designed by intelligent designers that have design deficiencies of one sort or another or are otherwise subject to malfunctions at some point in time. And designers are known to design certain parts with the knowledge that they WILL fail at some point. Intelligent designers do not always design products that perform perfectly in every respect, in fact I would say that they never do. Design is always a trade off, maximizing benefit while minimizing other factors such as weight, size, etc.

 

So, these questions do nothing whatsoever to challenge the theory of I.D., and in fact, they could easily be said to reinforce it. So thank you.

[damocles]

The answers to your questions, according to I.D. theory, could be summed up as follows:

 

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was. It's entirely possible that the susceptibility to diseases of various kinds, either viral or degenerative or genetic WAS designed in to some extent. In the abstract, it's also possible that these were not designed in. The answer depends on what the objective of the designer may have been, and obviously there's no way for us to assess that on a scientific basis.

 

Regardless, there are millions of products designed by intelligent designers that have design deficiencies of one sort or another or are otherwise subject to malfunctions at some point in time. And designers are known to design certain parts with the knowledge that they WILL fail at some point. Intelligent designers do not always design products that perform perfectly in every respect, in fact I would say that they never do. Design is always a trade off, maximizing benefit while minimizing other factors such as weight, size, etc.

 

So, these questions do nothing whatsoever to challenge the theory of I.D., and in fact, they could easily be said to reinforce it. So thank you.

 

Every statement above in that presentation fails for these reasons.

 

1. IDers take a local condition of life(Earth) and assign it universal attributes. Then they totally lie about life processes observed on Earth as currently modelled(evolution) to claim a cosmological designer is responsible for all things

2. IDers fail to explain why there is the purely statistical character of information distribution observed within the universe as modelled that predicts the mistakes that one should expect from a holographic cosmology model of information distribution.

3. IDers assume agreement to the truth of their unsupported assertions without answering with testable evidence.

4. IDers misunderstand entropy as well as chemistry, biology, logic, cosmology......

5. IDers underestimate the human propensity for understanding organizational inter-relationships or how we can tell the difference between design and adaptation.

[FetusHead]

Every statement above in that presentation fails for these reasons.

 

1. IDers take a local condition of life(Earth) and assign it universal attributes. Then they totally lie about life processes observed on Earth as currently modelled(evolution) to claim a cosmological designer is responsible for all things

2. IDers fail to explain why there is the purely statistical character of information distribution observed within the universe as modelled that predicts the mistakes that one should expect from a holographic cosmology model of information distribution.

3. IDers assume agreement to the truth of their unsupported assertions without answering with testable evidence.

4. IDers misunderstand entropy as well as chemistry, biology, logic, cosmology......

5. IDers underestimate the human propensity for understanding organizational inter-relationships or how we can tell the difference between design and adaptation.

 

6. IDers have bad haircuts.

[C1ay]

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was.

Thank you! It's clear that ID is philosophy, not biology since we cannot verify it scientifically.

[TRoutMac]

Thank you! It's clear that ID is philosophy, not biology since we cannot verify it scientifically.

 

Absolute nonsense, sorry to say. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. First of all, you didn't address the salient points of my post, and precisely because you couldn't and so instead you chose to use my post to make an entirely different, and equally mistaken, point. You asked specific questions, I answered them.

 

Point 1) "Intelligent Designer" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect designer". We have lots of intelligent designers on this planet, and while their designs are impressive, they always have flaws. Case closed.

 

Point 2) To objectively assess whether a design is perfect, you must first know what the design's purpose and objective was in a long-term sense. Since we cannot know this, we're really in no position to assess the "quality" of the design we see in nature.

 

Many of you continue to state that there's "no evidence" of I.D. This is an incredible, audacious claim with no basis in fact whatsoever. Example:

 

If you're flying in an airplane over a deserted island and see the letters SOS scrawled in the sand on the beach, is that evidence that an "intelligent designer" (a human, most likely) either is currently or was recently on the island? Do we need to know what the poor soul's name is in order to conclude with utmost confidence that there is (or was) someone on that island with intelligence? Of course not.

 

And please… all of you: Do not give me this BS about how this is a "false analogy". It's not a false analogy. The code that is written in the sand is evidence, powerful evidence, of an intelligent designer.

 

Is any of you I.D. bashers actually willing to deny this?

 

I.D. makes precisely the same conclusion for precisely the same reasons. Therefore it is utterly reasonable, logical and scientific.

[GAHD]

...

If you're flying in an airplane over a deserted island and see the letters SOS scrawled in the sand on the beach, is that evidence that an "intelligent designer" (a human, most likely) either is currently or was recently on the island? Do we need to know what the poor soul's name is in order to conclude with utmost confidence that there is (or was) someone on that island with intelligence? Of course not... The code that is written in the sand is evidence, powerful evidence, of an intelligent designer.

 

Is any of you I.D. bashers actually willing to deny this?

Where is this sand, and where's the 'SOS'? I'm not bashing, I'm saying that there is no evidence FOR ID, it makes no contributions other than a dreamy sence of "ahh! so it's the Designer's fault life sucks so much'.

 

As soon as you ID boys can SHOW a message, and PROVE it was made intelligently, THEN you can make claims. WHERE is this 'SOS' you're talking about? Why don't you understand that we don't need to show you your're wrong so much as you need to show us you're right?

 

Analogies are not evidence, understand?

[damocles]

Absolute nonsense, sorry to say. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. First of all, you didn't address the salient points of my post, and precisely because you couldn't and so instead you chose to use my post to make an entirely different, and equally mistaken, point. You asked specific questions, I answered them.

 

Lie. Questions asked.

 

Originally Posted by C1ay

And to these add...

 

Did the designer make any mistakes?

Is cancer by design?

Are virii by design?

Are birth defects by design?

Are attractions to the same gender by design?

Are diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.. by design?

Are idiot savants by design?

 

Alleged answer.

 

Posted By Trotmac

 

The answers to your questions, according to I.D. theory, could be summed up as follows:

 

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was. It's entirely possible that the susceptibility to diseases of various kinds, either viral or degenerative or genetic WAS designed in to some extent. In the abstract, it's also possible that these were not designed in. The answer depends on what the objective of the designer may have been, and obviously there's no way for us to assess that on a scientific basis.

 

Regardless, there are millions of products designed by intelligent designers that have design deficiencies of one sort or another or are otherwise subject to malfunctions at some point in time. And designers are known to design certain parts with the knowledge that they WILL fail at some point. Intelligent designers do not always design products that perform perfectly in every respect, in fact I would say that they never do. Design is always a trade off, maximizing benefit while minimizing other factors such as weight, size, etc.

 

So, these questions do nothing whatsoever to challenge the theory of I.D., and in fact, they could easily be said to reinforce it. So thank you.

 

The problem with the alleged answer is that it evades the specific questions asked, by saying that we cannot know-which is the same standard answer that the ID crowd always uses when confronted headon with the concrete objections to their lack of testable evidence.

 

Point 1) "Intelligent Designer" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect designer". We have lots of intelligent designers on this planet, and while their designs are impressive, they always have flaws. Case closed.

 

False analogy. Man=universal designer. Equivalence assumed, not proven as usual.

 

Point 2) To objectively assess whether a design is perfect, you must first know what the design's purpose and objective was in a long-term sense. Since we cannot know this, we're really in no position to assess the "quality" of the design we see in nature.

 

Assumes facts. The fact that design defects in cave lobsters and human beings(atrophied eyes and appendix) can be explained by the same mechanism(adaptation leftovers from a past need no longer in primacy for use by the current organism.) shows that human beings can answer the questions asked above quite easily.

 

Many of you continue to state that there's "no evidence" of I.D. This is an incredible, audacious claim with no basis in fact whatsoever. Example:

 

If you're flying in an airplane over a deserted island and see the letters SOS scrawled in the sand on the beach, is that evidence that an "intelligent designer" (a human, most likely) either is currently or was recently on the island? Do we need to know what the poor soul's name is in order to conclude with utmost confidence that there is (or was) someone on that island with intelligence? Of course not.

 

And please… all of you: Do not give me this BS about how this is a "false analogy". It's not a false analogy. The code that is written in the sand is evidence, powerful evidence, of an intelligent designer.

 

Its evidence that the human being on the island needs help. The false analogy has no connectivity to the current question in that you have presented no actual message to which you can point and say that this was left by a universal designer. If you point one out I assure you that the skeptics will pounce on it and test it to negation just as you continue to refuse to do. If you have the message, present it and I will test it for you, fairly and honestly.

 

Is any of you I.D. bashers actually willing to deny this?

 

I've just denied your false analogy for the fourth time?

Lawyer?

Painter?

Politician/murderer?

Now castaway.

I.D. makes precisely the same conclusion for precisely the same reasons. Therefore it is utterly reasonable, logical and scientific.

 

The scientific method includes within it mathematics as a tool that models or describes an observed event. I suppose you could call that reasoning by analogy if you wanted to stipulate that the two events are coincident. in that explanation A models event A.

 

However, explanation A must model event A. It cannot be explanation B for event B models event A. For the seventeenth time event B is not equal to event A unless it is event A; therefore explanation B is not applicable to event A.

 

False analogy.

[TRoutMac]

As soon as you ID boys can SHOW a message, and PROVE it was made intelligently, THEN you can make claims. WHERE is this 'SOS' you're talking about? Why don't you understand that we don't need to show you you're wrong so much as you need to show us you're right?

 

DNA, for the millionth time, is a set of instructions. It's information. SOS on the beach is, quite simply, an instruction. DNA is a language. SOS is a language. DNA conveys information. SOS conveys information.

 

Consider the following from Stephen Meyer:

 

The ease with which information theory applies to molecular biology has created confusion about the type of information that DNA and proteins possess. Sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA, or amino acids in a protein, are highly improbable and thus have large information-carrying capacities. But, like meaningful sentences or lines of computer code, genes and proteins are also specified with respect to function. Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191).3 Molecular biologists such as Monod and Crick understood biological information--the information stored in DNA and proteins--as something more than mere complexity (or improbability). Their notion of information associated both biochemical contingency and combinatorial complexity with DNA sequences (allowing DNA's carrying capacity to be calculated), but it also affirmed that sequences of nucleotides and amino acids in functioning macromolecules possessed a high degree of specificity relative to the maintenance of cellular function.

 

DNA is compared by biologists far and wide to a language and this is reflected in the fact that the nomenclature used with describing DNA consists of words which relate to our use of language. Words like "code", "signals", "transcription", "translation", "read", "grammar", "encode", "decode", "messenger" (as in "messenger RNA") are all words that are used to describe the function of DNA and they also describe our use of language.

 

So, we see the analogy is entirely valid and thus the conclusion of I.D. is extremely well supported by evidence in exactly the same way that an intelligent presence on the island is well supported by evidence.

 

Analogies are not evidence, understand?

 

Of course analogies are not evidence. I never claimed they were. The information in DNA is the evidence (one example, anyway) and the analogy simply allows you to understand, (assuming you are reasonable and open-minded) where some of the evidence in I.D. is located and why we can categorize it as "evidence."

 

Again, if the SOS in the sand is evidence of an intelligent designer having been on the island, then DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer having designed life. To be intellectually consistent, you have no choice but to either accept both or reject both. You cannot accept one as evidence of intelligent design and then reject the other.