What is science?

John Paul asks:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Because biology deals with 'artifacts' that reproduce themselves.John Paul:
But even that reproduction process is IC, or didn't you read the link I provided pertaining to that? And where did these organisms come from?MrH:
It's that simple: if an archaeologist finds an artifact like ones that humans make today, and if we have no knowledge that Nature makes these kinds of artifacts, then we can safely conclude that it was man-made.John Paul:
No humans are making Stonehenges today.MrH:
However, we need that independent knowledge before we can conclude intelligent design.John Paul:
We have that. We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.MrH:
An outboard motor is man-made, a bacterial flagellum is natural.John Paul:
That is your assertion, void of evidence. IOW just saying a bacflag is natural does not make it so.MrH:
In all of biology, we have never seen anything originate through intelligent design, only natural design.John Paul:
Funny we have NEVER seen DNA originate via purely natural processes.MrH:
All of the empirical evidential inquiry conducted using the genome of organisms has led inevitably to conclusions that the vast majority of scientists and lay people believe enriches not only our knowledge about biology, but also about the history of the world.John Paul:
Mere assertion. Creationists outnumber evolutionists. Naturalists are a very small minority.

John Paul,
Funny we have NEVER seen DNA originate via purely natural processes.Mark:
We've never seen anything design it, either, therefore you can't infer it. Right?John Paul:
True but we have observed intelligent agents design objects that exhibit specified complexity and we have observed intelligent agents designing information-rich systems. However you did take my quote out of context.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.MrH:
Prove that anything in biology, anything at all, anything, has ever been shown to be the product of intelligent design and not natural processes.John Paul:
One more time- Science is NOT about proving anything. Anyone looking for proof in science does not understand science. seeing this is at least the third time you have done so I can only conclude that you are scientifically ignorant. The evidence shows there are signs of an intelligent agent. Therefore we can infer ID via the evidence.Also nature does NOT produce organisms. Spontaneous generation was refuted years ago. Organisms produce like organisms. When someone says that nature produced an organism it is time for that person to get an education.

Mark if ID is an untrested hypothesis then so is the ToE. How so? Because we can NOT objectively test the premise that random mutations culled by NS can lead to the evolution of a cetacean from a land animal.But I digress. ID proponents have put forth a means to test ID. They have also put forth a means to falsify it. Now instead of remaining ignorant I suggest you try reading about what it is you are debating against.

Mark if ID is an untrested hypothesis then so is the ToE. How so? Because we can NOT objectively test the premise that random mutations culled by NS can lead to the evolution of a cetacean from a land animal.Mark:
You most certainly can OBJECTIVELY test the ToE. A single for example, that cladistic analyses match stratigraphy as well as they do, for example. I mentioned this in this very thread, post 84.John Paul:
For one the fossil record is subjective. It shows more stasis than anything else. Also it says nothing about the mechanism.As for putting things in my own words, I would if it were my work. I also would if I had any indication that my opponent had done any research into the subject.You can test for design by using the design explanatory filter.
You can falsify ID by showing that purely natural processes can account for specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems.http://www.discovery.org/scripts/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-16-2004 02:36 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.
John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Let me see if I can break this down.Translation:
Let me see if I can twist this to suit my needs.Premise one: Non-biological specified complexity is due to the acts of an intelligence.OK so far.Observation: There is "specified complexity" in biological structures.Bingo.Conclusion 1: The specified complexity in biological structures HAS to be the act of an intelligence.Nope. We can safely infer intelligence from our cuurent knowledge base.Conclusion 2: ALL known specified complexity is due to an intelligent agent.That is a fact of life.LM:
Conclusion 1 is not warranted, and therefore the jump to conclusion 2 is also unwarranted.John Paul:
Conclusion1, the way you worded it, is incorrect anyway.LM:
For conclusion 1 to be true we have to observe an intelligent agent creating specified complexity in biological structures.John Paul:
That is not true. We do observe humans genetically altering biological systems.LM:
I am claiming that your conclusion of ALL specified complexity being caused by intelligent agency is not supported.John Paul:
You can make that claim but it is worthless without substantiating evidence.

John Paul:
For one the fossil record is subjective. It shows more stasis than anything else. Also it says nothing about the mechanism.Mark:
1/ The fossil record is full of OBJECTS, it is not subjective. Stratigraphy is also objective, & so is cladistics. That the fossil record matches cladistic results is an objective statement brought about by objective methodology.John Paul:
LoL! Just because something is full of objects does not make it objective. Stratigraphy is subjective because we don't know how those layers were laid downMark:
2/ It doesn't have to say anything about the mechanism, it has to support the ToE's predictions.John Paul:
If you take what brought this on in context (an objective test for the ToE) it has to say something about the mechanism. also the only thing the ToE can predict is change.Mark:
3/ Let's not descend into hypocrisy. If you don't have to produce a mechanism for ID, then neither does anyone for the ToE. You can't have it both ways.John Paul:
Design is the mechanism.Me:
You can test for design by using the design explanatory filter.
You can falsify ID by showing that purely natural processes can account for specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems.Mark:
A "design explanatory filter" appears to be missing from your link. And a "design explanatory filter" is not evidence either.John Paul:
The DEF doesn't need to be in the link. I never said the DEF was evidence. I said it was a way to test for design. What is your problem?

Mark:
No, it's your job to provide evidence it's your argument.John Paul:
Been there, done that.Mark:
In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallaciesJohn Paul:
The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency. No assumptions necessary. If we had one case where specified complexity arose via purely natural processes that statement would be falsified. However we have NEVER observed specified complexity arise via purely natural processes. The deduction is when we see SC we can safely infer ID.The bottom line is ID is testable and it is falsifiable.

Mark:
The fossil record consists of objects known as fossils, not my subjective opinion, it is an objective fact.John Paul:
Figure you to miss the point completely. here is no way to objectively test the fossils to provide evidence for the ToE.
Stratigraphy- until we know how the strata were laid down any fossil evidence will be subjective.Design is a mechanism. No amount of crying can change that fact. For example when someone askes why does a car go forward, sure you can explain the workings of the engine and transfer to the wheels, but ultimately it goes forward because it was designed to do so. I never said design was the mechanism for design. That is your inference. Just like random mutations culled by NS is the alleged mechanism behind evolution, design is the mechanism that drives the changes we see according to ID. Asking how something was designed is irrelevant when trying to determine design and then trying to understand that design.Now you want me to explain the DEF. I am not here to teach I am here to debate. I will wait until you are educated in ID to continue this dialog.

The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency.That is NOT an assertion but an observation based on FACTS.If you can falsify that then do so and stop whining.Who is Stephen and what makes him an authority on anything?This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-16-2004 03:21 PM

Predictions made by ID-If ID were true we would expect to see specified complexity, information-rich systems and/ or irreducible complexity in biological organisms.When we test those predictions we do see specified complexity, information-rich systems and allegedly we also see IC.

1) Science already uses processes to detect design- fact.2) MrH says that we observe humans building structures and that is why archaeologists infer ID when they observe similar structures. To respond to MrH's point I will link to "natural bridges". I do so because if we follow MrH's logic- we see humans building bridges, the bridges linked to must have been constructed by humans- but they were no (at least no one infers that they were):Photographs of Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah: Owachomo Bridge - underneath

​

Photographs of Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah: Kachina Bridge, from the overlook

​

Sipapu Bridge, from the highway: Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah

​

Owachomo Bridge - distant view: Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah3) For some (unknown?) reason evolutionists say that those processes cannot be applied to biology.4) Biological organisms reproduce. This reproduction process is of itself IC:Cell biologist Joseph Francis argues that even in simple bacteria, the most basic cell functions display irreducibly complex mechanismsfor instance, cell division. This article considers the origin of an irreducibly complex cell division apparatus in the light of protocell theory and intelligent design theory, and concludes that intelligent design is a better explanation.see: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm5) Evolutionists say that ID in biology is based on ignorance and that in the future we may find the answers. The response is obvious. The future may also confirm IC is real and ID is the only solution. Also theories cannot rest on what the future may or may not bring. Theories have to rest on our current state of knowledge. Theories have and do change in light of new knowledge.
The reality is that ID is based on our current state of knowledge.6) It has been posted that by inferring ID researchers would just give-up. That couldn't be further from the truth. Archaeologists don't just give up when they make a find. There is still much to do.7) Evolutionists ask other questions like who is the designer and how did this designer design? Both of these questions could be answered by science if we let it. (archaeologists do this by studying the object in question). The answer to either question is not necessary to detecting and understanding the design. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science.

MrH:
Science is about understanding the design that needs no designer.John Paul:
What a crock! Tell that to archaeologists and anthropologists who look at artifacts.MrH:
Intelligent design creationists can’t accept the design abilities of Nature.John Paul:
Despite the FACT there aren't any intelligent design creationists, naturalists have never shown that nature can account for specified complexity.MrH:
I think the design argument strikes at the heart of science, which is the search for what nature does on its own.John Paul:
That is not true. I have already pointed to sciences that do no such thing.MrH:
If the biological diversity of life on Earth can be understood through genetic mutation and natural selection, then a designing intelligence is superfluous to our understanding.John Paul:
That is one big IF. Also ID is more about how life came to be in the first place.MrH:
I have no idea why it should be true that if biological organisms or structures are the product of undirected processes, then every other artifact on Earth must also be the product of the same natural mechanisms.John Paul:
That is not what I said. IF life is the product of purely natural processes, and it is the most complex structure we observe, it stands to reason that nature could create something as simple as an arrow-head, an axe and tool-like structures.MrH:
While they claim to recognize the hallmarks of design in biology due to their similarity to human design, the IDC folks also claim that the identity of the biological designer is irrelevant.John Paul:
That is right. We do NOT need to know the identity of the designer to detect and understand the design. That is a fact. However by understanding the design we may be able to make some inferences about the designer.MrH:
The ironic thing is that design research in fields such as arson investigation or forensics depends very heavily on knowing the methods, motives, and identity of the proposed designer.John Paul:
That is backwards. They determine the methods via research. The motives may never be known and the identity is found via the research.

edit duplicate postThis message has been edited by John Paul, 06-17-2004 11:01 AM

PS:
I don't agree (on the IC part). Reproduction can be reduced to DNA replication, which at it's heart is a chemical reaction.John Paul:
Funny that scientists disagree with you. Did you read the article I linked to? Would DNA replicate outside of a cell? No because it needs proteins to help it.PS:
Taking apart a bacterium as we see it today gives the appearance of being IC, but most of the processes that are included could have evolved to aid DNA replication, and thus reproduction.John Paul:
That is the assertion but can you substantiate it with any evidence?