Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 1 of 47 (240571)
09-05-2005 12:36 PM


edit 6-9; changed the text a bit
I know the core reasoning of the "rebuttal" below is present in many of these arguments, but I haven't seen it worded exactly like this. Probably also because it is worded a little more simplistic than usually (due to me being a relative layman and not English-speaking). But (if it makes enough sense) it could be a useful approach towards a public of people who are less knowledgable in some of the rocket-science that is used to fight around ID?
My reasoning goes like this:
First of all, we have to acknowledge that,IF ID is true, then the final consequence inevitably is that some questions simply can't be tackled by science. And the reason is, that the answer "intelligent designer" is an end-point. The answer "it was designed" is a black box, with no opportunity to ask further questions. What further questions are there to be asked? There simply aren't any openings left, any hooks available. You could think of it as a roadblock: "Do not tresspass; further investigation is futile. What lies behind this, is unknowable". This, of course, resembles a lot the infamous "God of the Gaps".
Yes, ID-proponents who don't want to be labeled as religiously inspired, might point towards the possibility of for example extraterrestrials in the role of "designers". But in the end that is just a relocation of the problem, not fundamentally changing the issue. It's either ending up in an infinite regression of different extraterrestrials designing each other, or putting "God" at the end to break through the vicious circle, and thus setting up the "roadblock"
The first obvious thought is of course that this is very untypical for science. Absolute "roadblocks" aren't exactly a motivating idea, and quite opposite to what we normally recognise: an answer that is produced by science, tends to cause a whole lot of new questions, which we didn't even know could be asked before. In some sense, science that way continuously increases our ignorance, since it probably produces more questions than answers, reducing the ratio of answers to questions...
But at first sight, one could argue that there needn't be anything impossible, in principle, about finding out inherent limits to science (the "roadblocks") through science itself. Maybe that is indeed possible, and ID has discovered one of those "roadblocks"? After all, Gdel's Incompleteness Theorem kinda does the same for mathematics.
I guess that is exactly what ID claims, although it doesn't like focussing on it this way. ID likes to focus on the fact that they found an answer ("design"), not on the fact that the answer is of a type that excludes future questions.
The fundamental problem that I see with it, is this:
History shows, and surely the prominent ID'ers will (have no other choice but to) agree, that science has faced quite a few situations in the past where "final answers" or "roadblocks" turned up. Only to find out that this was misleading. In fact, right here and now there are probably thousands of unanswered questions standing open. So, clearly, the discovery of one "roadblock" does in no way indicate that all the currently open questions can be expected to ALSO be "roadblocks". In fact, from experience we can say that most of them (or even ALL of them if you accept that ID is the only exception thus far) will not be "roadblocks" at all.
How can we discern currently unanswered questions that coincide with a "roadblock" (like ID supposes to identify) from the questions that DO have answers waiting to be discovered just behind the corner?
Since we do not have some magical source available which tells us where the "roadblocks" are, continuing the scientific inquiry is the only available option. You simply have to continue asking the questions and trying to answer them. There is no other option, because there is no absolute certainty in science. Every conclusion is tentative. The nature of science is such, that it keeps driving and HAS to keep pushing. When it stops, it stops being science.
This of course means that, if ID is science, it also can't claim to be infallible or absolutely certain. Which, in turn, HAS to leave open the possibility that it is a flawed conclusion. Which, in turn, means that it can not possibly adapt a stance of "that was it, we've had it!".
One would think that, seeing how many of the supposedly "irreducibly complex" structures have been explained in a plausible way since they were first proposed, ID would recognise this. Instead, its main goal seems to be to stiffle the increase of understanding. What ID seems to be aiming at is nothing more but giving a negative proof of the ToE, and leaving it at that. There is absolutely no interest in making progress. Establishing a "roadblock", no matter what shape it takes on, seems to be the single most important goal that ID is working towards.
If, on the other hand, ID were science, it would consider itself as a preliminary conclusion that should not stand in the way of continued research. In fact, the possibility that ID might be a final answer, shouldn't in any way be supposed to discourage further attempts to remove that "roadblock".
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that ID can not be considered scientific. Even without anything like a detailed look into the arguments presented. In practice, the ID argument is reduced to a "roadblock" that is always on the move (it moves a step back with every next plausible explanation that science offers). As such, it is pretty much meaningless, vague and useless in the scientific sense. It is simply "God of the Gaps" dressed up differently.
This message has been edited by Annafan, 06-09-2005 10:49 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 09-06-2005 9:00 AM Annafan has not replied
 Message 43 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-14-2010 6:32 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 47 (240793)
09-06-2005 8:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 47 (240796)
09-06-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Annafan
09-05-2005 12:36 PM


What if, for a moment, we accept the ID deception that "we're not saying who the designer is". In that case it doesn't rule out the possibility of a natural designer - now, in theory were it so, we'd be able to carry on doing science studying that designer and their origins. Just because life on earth is designed does not proclude the possibility of undesigned life elsewhere.
This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-06-2005 09:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Annafan, posted 09-05-2005 12:36 PM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 09-06-2005 9:25 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 47 (240800)
09-06-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
09-06-2005 9:00 AM


Part of the problem with 'Not accepting god' as the 'intelligent designer', is that the "I.D" proponents want to cut off any speculation or investigation about the characteristics of the 'intelligent designer'. They don't want to accept that the question "How did the intelligent designer come about" is valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 09-06-2005 9:00 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 09-06-2005 9:42 AM ramoss has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 47 (240804)
09-06-2005 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
09-06-2005 9:25 AM


Well, yeah, they're Creationists under a new name. But we should be able to consider the ideas seperately from their advocates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 09-06-2005 9:25 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ramoss, posted 09-06-2005 12:44 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 15 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 10:42 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 6 of 47 (240823)
09-06-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
09-06-2005 9:42 AM


Yes, however, I.D. does not propose any mechanism, does not have any explanitory powers (It is a Black Box).. Behe might have called evolution Darwin's black box, but the mechanisms were proposed, and are testable. The same can not be said for I.D.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 09-06-2005 9:42 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-06-2005 3:36 PM ramoss has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 7 of 47 (240850)
09-06-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ramoss
09-06-2005 12:44 PM


I agree yet disagree. All theoretical work operates at some level of abstraction. Every theory has pieces that are "black boxes"--not specified how they work internally, just specified in how their inputs and outputs work.
It's like saying classical physics of Newton was invalid because nobody was describing how the underlying "stuff" worked that allowed the system to work. Or saying that psychology is invalid because we don't know how neural computations map to macroscopic behaviors.
The power of ID will reside in how much ID-ists can define and limit the "designer". A omnipotent, intelligent designer offers very little explanatory and predictive power. But the more work that is done in defining what "intelligence" is and why it's thought to be necessary to have created life, will shape the designer more clearly.
Science is a progression, a step-by-step process of trying to follow a path to get closer to the answer. We're on a landscape of understanding, and we're hoping to tumble towards a minimum... and hoping the minimum is maximally minimal.
Hope that made some sense.

I don't want a large Farva, I want a goddamn liter-a-cola.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ramoss, posted 09-06-2005 12:44 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ramoss, posted 09-06-2005 4:32 PM Ben! has not replied
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2005 4:45 PM Ben! has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 8 of 47 (240867)
09-06-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
09-06-2005 3:36 PM


THe I.D'ist arent' trying to define that intelligent designer. They are more interested in entering the political arena to try to get 'ID' taught in schools, and leave the "Intelligent Designer" undefined.
Thus far, the basic arguement of the I.D. proponents have been attacks on evolution, with 'We don't understand how this works, it must be an intelligent designer'. THat basically what Irreduciable COmplexity boiled down to. Every example in Behe's book has been solved, and shown not to be 'irreduceably complex'. He moved onto other examples from things that were being investigated, and was proven incorrect on those too.
Dembski has come up with 'laws' that no one else accepts in his attempt to 'prove' id, such as the "Law of conservation of information'. No way to test it, and it basically is meaningless.
If the unlikely event that the I.D> propoents actually do come up with a workable testable model, then I will look at it. Until that time, their playing around in politics does not impress me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-06-2005 3:36 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 47 (240869)
09-06-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
09-06-2005 3:36 PM


The power in ID will reside in how well statements like "If ID were true we should see this, while if ID were not true we should not see this" hold up under observations and experiments.
So far, there isn't much "this" that can be stated for ID.
Behe tried; he tried to say, "If ID were true we should see irreducibly complex things; if ID were not true, we should not see irreducibly complex things." Unfortunately, the second statement is not true. Evolution can also produce irreducibly complex things (according to Behe's orginal definition of irreducible complexity).
Dembski's statement is even more absurd, "If ID were true then there should be things that I cannot figure out in terms of evolution. If ID were not true, then there should not be things that I cannot figure out in terms of evolution."
So we are (still) waiting (not necessarily patiently) for a testable prediction based on ID.
Edited to correct a typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-Sep-2005 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-06-2005 3:36 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 2:05 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 47 (240950)
09-07-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
09-06-2005 4:45 PM


No Road Blocks Here!
Chiroptera writes:
The power in ID will reside in how well statements like "If ID were true we should see this, while if ID were not true we should not see this" hold up under observations and experiments.
If the random beneficial mutation process of evolution were true, we should expect to see volumes of DNA that has no express purpose and is simply "left overs" from useless mutations - what evolutionists have largely discarded as not worthy of further investigation in recent years.
If ID were true, we should expect to see intent and purpose in virtually all DNA that neo-Darwinists have termed "Junk".
The evolutionary approach has neglected to devote much effort studying the seemingly extraneous "junk" DNA.
The ID approach persists in finding a better understanding in the hidden treasures.
That hardly seems like a "road block" to me!
While neither evolutionists nor IDists can "prove" anything, this type of evaluation is useful in determining where to look for new discoveries. A Google will reveal some interesting developments.
We are likely just scratching the tip of the iceberg.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2005 4:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 09-07-2005 2:31 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 3:02 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 47 (240951)
09-07-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Ponce
09-07-2005 2:05 AM


Re: No Road Blocks Here!
If ID were true, we should expect to see intent and purpose in virtually all DNA that neo-Darwinists have termed "Junk".
I don't see why this is neccessarily the case at all, I have heard several contrary arguments stretching from the idea that geenetic perfection has undergone severee degradation since 'The Fall' to the point that the intelligent designer doesn't have to be constantly tinkering and interfering with everyones genes, he is only needed at those few points in evolution where a system must be created which is irreducibly complex and therefore unevolvable, supposedly, and the rest of the time he can leave evolution ticking over on its own. Both of these would be ID and neither would require virtualy all DNA to be imbued with purpose.
The evolutionary approach has neglected to devote much effort studying the seemingly extraneous "junk" DNA.
Thats funny, because none of the reams of work based around the discovery of functions for DNA previously thought to be junk seems to have come from the ID camp, and much of it has come from the evolutionary approach. In fact one of the best ways to identify functional DNA of any type is to look for conservation of particular sequences across a broad range of species, a technique rooted in the evolutionary approach.
Where is the ID based work on this issue? Surely that is what we should really expect to see if this idea is so fundamental to ID?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 2:05 AM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 11:21 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 12 of 47 (240954)
09-07-2005 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Ponce
09-07-2005 2:05 AM


Re: No Road Blocks Here!
If ID were true, we should expect to see intent and purpose in virtually all DNA that neo-Darwinists have termed "Junk".
This is not necessarily correct. For example, much of "Junk" DNA can be unsolved code without it having been designed.
For example, a bit of DNA can code for resistance to Black Plague. That could have easily evolved within the species, but discovering that that is what it's for might be very difficult.
A better, more accurate, statement of ID might look like this:
"If ID were true, we'd expect to see no features in man, or any animal, which serves no useful purpose." Appendix, vestigal tail, wisdom teeth, dew claws, genetic disorders, etc.
Frankly, if I had hired an architect as "intelligent" as this designer, the building would be uninhabitable by today's standards.
Imagine random closests which can't be used to store equipment, but which randomly explode, potentially taking down the building. Or, desks which sometimes grow out of walls sideways. etc.
No, the proponents of ID don't believe in an "intelligent designer". The simple test is this - "Is it okay to teach this in schools if we use the name Mohammed for the Intelligent Designer?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 2:05 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 13 of 47 (240970)
09-07-2005 6:59 AM


Mr.Jack wrote:
What if, for a moment, we accept the ID deception that "we're not saying who the designer is". In that case it doesn't rule out the possibility of a natural designer - now, in theory were it so, we'd be able to carry on doing science studying that designer and their origins. Just because life on earth is designed does not proclude the possibility of undesigned life elsewhere.
Farva wrote:
I agree yet disagree. All theoretical work operates at some level of abstraction. Every theory has pieces that are "black boxes"--not specified how they work internally, just specified in how their inputs and outputs work.
It's like saying classical physics of Newton was invalid because nobody was describing how the underlying "stuff" worked that allowed the system to work. Or saying that psychology is invalid because we don't know how neural computations map to macroscopic behaviors.
The power of ID will reside in how much ID-ists can define and limit the "designer". A omnipotent, intelligent designer offers very little explanatory and predictive power. But the more work that is done in defining what "intelligence" is and why it's thought to be necessary to have created life, will shape the designer more clearly.
Science is a progression, a step-by-step process of trying to follow a path to get closer to the answer. We're on a landscape of understanding, and we're hoping to tumble towards a minimum... and hoping the minimum is maximally minimal.
Hope that made some sense.
I disagree with this view.
I would be able to agree if, and only if, there were other, independant indications of the existence/availability of such a "non-God" designer. Like, finding remains of artificial structures that are billions of years old. Or detecting signals from candidate ETs. This still wouldn't prove that life on earth is engineered, but would at least open up the possibility that it is a sensible alternative. In the absence of these, suggesting a "non-God" designer is unnecessary ballast. Why complicate the issue by introducing an "intermediate level" for which there is no need? As long as there are no independant indications for such a "non-God" designer, the question "how did life arise and evolve on earth" is essentially 100% equivalent to "how did life arise and evolve in the universe". And only a naturalistic answer to that is scientifically acceptable.
I wonder whether someone could suggest ANYTHING we could possibly find out about a "designer". Is there ANY scientific way to open up, or at least peek inside that black box? If we don't forget what we know now, and nevertheless accept an "intelligent designer", what would our knowledge tell us about that "designer"? Remember that it should be more than just speculation, it needs to have some sort of scientific ground.
It's nothing more than a roadblock, period.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 7:12 AM Annafan has not replied
 Message 26 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 9:51 AM Annafan has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 47 (240971)
09-07-2005 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Annafan
09-07-2005 6:59 AM


It seems to me the issue is what a "non-God" designer contributes to discontinuity rather than continuity. There are plenty of continuous constructs availale in the here and now to make designs from non-god wise guys etc. if we so chose. We do not. Why? because logic has not made in-roads, to connect out of purposeful constructions from natural products to quantum mechanical uncertanTy (anti-matter etc). Why does the US not have any new, nuclear power plants?
My guess is that we are still too much influenced by (the)wwII/generation rather than any hope of uncovering new stock captial.
These things will have to be dealt with once recursion is applied in tissue. That is scary to contemplate, but if we think it, someone will do it.
We might come to the realization that we need to know how photons change energy orbitals if we are going to "cure" disease if we find that DNA computers simply are only useful for a discontinuous part of unhealthy life.
So if the business cycle DOES NOT apply to this biologically, this IS an "indpendent" thought, implicating 'dependent' continua compared with any economic engine that will change continuously the discontinuty I suspect.
So it only matters what DISCONTINUITY the non-gods provide.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-07-2005 07:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Annafan, posted 09-07-2005 6:59 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 09-07-2005 11:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 47 (241182)
09-07-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
09-06-2005 9:42 AM


Mr Jack writes:
But we should be able to consider the ideas seperately from their advocates.
Couldn't agree more! I think it is very good advice for anyone engaged in analysis. Attacking an opponents character and motivation rather than ideas is a sure sign of weakness, ar at least emotional bias, in one's position.
I suggest folks like Annafan and Nuggin are remiss to believe all or most proponents of ID are just religiously motivated or even "liars for Jesus".
In my experience, people of many disciplines, and especially engineers, are advocates of some form of ID - perhaps because they understand by experience how difficult a process it is to design reliable functionality (even with tons of education and intelligence).
Regardless, lazy debate tactics may be fun and appear to win a battle but yet they often lose in the war of ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 09-06-2005 9:42 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 12:28 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 12:40 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 22 by Annafan, posted 09-08-2005 6:23 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 39 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 11:03 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 1:04 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024