|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The design inference | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by John Paul: John Paul:You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it. Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- brachinus:I'm not talking about trying to figure out who designed the designer, merely to settle the question of whether the designer was designed. John Paul:When you have it settled be sure to let us know. brachinus:Shouldn't ID be able to figure that out? John Paul:Possibly, once we know who or what the designer is. ID, as it stands today, only concerns itself with the apparent design we observe in living organisms. ID first wants to detect that design and then understand it. brachinus:And if we take a putative designer (Jehovah, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn), shouldn't we able to examine their traits to determine whether they could have arisen by law, by chance or by design? John Paul:I suppose, but first things first. Evolutionists often accuse Creationists of putting the horse before the cart. Here is a classic example of two evolutionists almost forcing ID to do that. What would be the purpose of doing this? Why would someone want ID to do something it wasn't intended to do? ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: schrafinator:I disagree. If you are saying that something in nature is designed, it is a natural question to wonder who did the designing. John Paul:Being a natural question is of little relevance as to the focus of ID. Heck, I'm curious about that too. But I realize first things first. Do you read the last chapter of a mystery novel first and try to figure out how it all came together? Or do you read it one chapter at a time, in sequence, try to figure it out and then read the last chapter to see if you got it right? quote: schrafinator:No, inference hasn't been conducted. John Paul:Yes it has. schraf:For inference to have been conducted, there would have to be an actual hypothesis proposed, positive evidence, and potential falsifications. John Paul:Potential falsifications have been provided and we use the knowledge available to do the rest. schraf:Only analogy has been conducted, and one cannot do science with only analogies. John Paul:More than that. Biochemical systems are no longer being compared to machines, they are machines: quote: schraf:One cannot make positive claims about natural phenomena by pointing out the lack of an explanation by another theory of the same phenomena. John Paul:What natural phenomenon? You can't call something a natural phenomenon without anything to substantiate that claim. To you everything is a result of a natural process until proven otherwise. quote: schraf:There is no way to provide evidence for a negative. John Paul:I didn't ask you to. I want you to provide the positive evidence to support your claim that purely natural processes can give rise to life from non-life. schraf:This is pretty basic logic. I can't provide evidence that invisible unicorns aren't flying over my apartment building right now. Does that mean they exist? John Paul:So I take there isn't any positive evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. IOW your extreme bias is all that is required for you to infer that it did. Thanks. schraf:Perhaps we tend to think that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations because this is the basis for scientific inquiry. John Paul:So you are saying life is just a result of a natural phenomenon. That bias works every time. Doesn't make for good science though. schraf:Perhaps we also have a log history of claims of "Godidit" being explained by science eventually. John Paul:That could be true or it could just be hearsay. This isn't a game where we keep score. There are still many things science cannot explain. quote: schraf:Not true. John Paul:True. schraf:When we don't know the explanation for something, we simply say "We don't know". John Paul:Not true. schraf:Perhaps Behe didn't now about the blood-clotting mechanism work that was ongoing when his book was published... John Paul:Did you even read the book? It was a challenge, not a refutation. schraf:How do you tell a designed system from a narual system that we don't understand? John Paul:How can you call it a natural system if we don't understand it? quote: schraf:We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem. John Paul:We have a very, very good idea. Ther is a better case for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes. quote: schraf:Well, you haven't made your case, so if you are quitting, I'll consider that you have conceded the point. John Paul:But you have made no point at all. To you everything that can't yet be explained is attributed to some phantom natural process. Sad part is you don't even see the double-standard you are applying. quote: schraf:Behe has not made his case that the ordering of components couldn't have arisen naturally, as has been explained previously. John Paul:Hello? No one has made a case that they could. As has been explained to death. And yes, mind correalation is a part of detecting design. Behe isn't the only IDist who has a say in this. Perhaps you should read how CSI is being defined and refined. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?"
John Paul has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that the Intelligent Designer is not the priority of the study of ID. However, it seems to me that this statement is nothing other than religous discrimination. You should not be able to use Behe's religion to undermine his theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brachinus Inactive Member |
brachinus:
I'm not talking about trying to figure out who designed the designer, merely to settle the question of whether the designer was designed. John Paul:When you have it settled be sure to let us know. Brachinus:I'm not the one who claims to have a tool capable of settling the issue of whether a given life form was designed. You're the one who claims to be able to do that. brachinus:Shouldn't ID be able to figure that out? John Paul:Possibly, once we know who or what the designer is. Brachinus:But didn't you say earlier that ID isn't concerned with who the designer is? JP:ID, as it stands today, only concerns itself with the apparent design we observe in living organisms. ID first wants to detect that design and then understand it. Brachinus:But isn't the designer a living organism? brachinus:And if we take a putative designer (Jehovah, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn), shouldn't we able to examine their traits to determine whether they could have arisen by law, by chance or by design? John Paul:I suppose, but first things first. Evolutionists often accuse Creationists of putting the horse before the cart. Here is a classic example of two evolutionists almost forcing ID to do that. Brachinus:I would never accuse creationists of putting the horse before the cart -- it's been my experience that they tend to do the opposite. ;-) JP:What would be the purpose of doing this? Why would someone want ID to do something it wasn't intended to do? Brachinus:Um, because searching for knowledge is good?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
You know JP you still haven`t answered this from post 5 in any substantive fashion.....
quote: Its this definition of SC that seems, to me, to cause fatal problems to the EF, after all from 2 above an object or event is complex if it has alow probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention. Note low not no is the word preceeding probability. Its origin, natural or designed, presumeably is independant of its specifity, therefore following these definitions a natural object can be CS.... We then look at what the EF has to say:
quote: Where did the possible natural CS go? somewhere between the original definitions and the filter it seems to have gone MIA..... Also if it was included the filter would have to include a line that evaluated the probability of a possible designer exsisting i.e: ...... goto 3) 3)Does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If No we attribute it to chance,if yes is there reason to attribute E to a designer? If yes E could be the result of design OR nature, if no then E can be attributed to nature. Untill the EF contains the possibility of natural CSI it is spurious and circular as a means of discerning design from nature.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: JP has REPEATEDLY tried to evade the question given that Behe considers bacteria to be IC its a pretty fair bet that a naturally occuring IDer is not a viable solution to the ID of the IDer as it were.... So that leaves us with..... Goddidit... I agree that under normal circumstances a persons religion should not be used against their theories, however in this case his theory is based solely on religious conviction...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Joz: This is the whole problem with Dembski's filter: specified complexity can only come from intelligent design, because any specified complexity known not to have an intelligent origin is not really specified complexity (i.e., it is "apparent" complexity). This of course means that anything examined by the filter where the origin of it is not known defaults to "intelligently designed".
Basically, design must be determined a priori because to use the filter you have to assign a meaningful pattern to some phenomenon or object before you can determine the probability of it occurring (since CSI theory doesn't take into consideration orgins or causation). As a low probability of natural occurrance is a requirement for design, anything with a low probability of natural occurance AND which contains some observer-assigned "meaning" by definition exhibits specified complexity and hence is designed. Can you say "circular reasoning"? This is, of course, why allegedly IC systems or structures are ALWAYS detected by the EF as containing CSI - they were determined IN ADVANCE to be designed because they are defined as irreducible. I wonder if JP, whose vast knowledge of this subject is humbling, could possibly explain whether the EF can be used to detect other design in nature? Specifically, whether design is apparent in higher order systems such as a tropical rainforest biome? I think this would be a wonderful example of CSI. Here we have a highly complex system exhibiting emergent properties that are much more specified than would be evident from a mere summing of the components. Do CAS exhibit design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
I can say circular....
I`d also throw in the EF is spurious and simply an assertion that CSI=Design with meaningless mathematical garnish.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you could summarise this 'better case' in bullet points ? Also, please explain how we have a very, very good idea about how to detect design, and perhaps you could pass that on the themarine archeaologists and geologists who are agruing about the man-made or natural formation of undersea structures off the coast of India (I believe). How CAN you be sure that a 100 X 100 grid of trees was planted ? What would be the tolerance acceptable on that alignment beforeyou would conclude lack of design ? Step 1:: Does E have a high probability of ocurring ? This is the whole stumbling block of Dembski's design filter forme. In whose opinion is this probability formed ? If we do not understand the mechanisms by which life WAS formed (and life has arisen somehow) how can we assign probabilites to it ? If E is natural emergence of life on earth, I assign that a highprobablity based upon various readings about thermal vents, and such like ... so I assign the emergence to regularity. I've even seen statistical probablitities against abiogenesis, which,if the assumptions upon which they are based are challenged, reduce the odds to mathematically acceptable without pointing out that statistical probability doesn't really mean anything (especially ater the event).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"JP has REPEATEDLY tried to evade the question given that Behe considers bacteria to be IC its a pretty fair bet that a naturally occuring IDer is not a viable solution to the ID of the IDer as it were...."
Yeah, well on a different planet, anything is possible. "So that leaves us with..... Goddidit..." Nope. That leaves us with: Intelligentdesignerdidit. "I agree that under normal circumstances a persons religion should not be used against their theories, however in this case his theory is based solely on religious conviction..." Really? Actually, Behe claims that he was perfectly fine with the idea of a God that used evolution... but then he looked into it. In fact, many God-fearing men are perfectly fine with the idea of evolution. It seems to me that it is the atheists that are driven mostly by religous conviction. But you don't see me going around saying "Evilution is only for atheist non-believing scum!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
John Paul, while I am new to this board I am not to the debate. I have one question for you before entering this fray. Do you think that a key biological/biochemical component of the ID concept is Irreducible complexity as espoused by Dr. M. Behe of LeHigh University?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Only if you assume that on another planet the natural laws we observe in the rest of the universe are completely meaningless... 2)And given that Intelligentdesigner is semanticaly equal to God that leaves us with Goddidit..... 3)a)So if its a scientific theory rather than a religious belief in a lab coat why has the dear Dr not published his work in any form other than a popular press book? Its been 6 years, if he hasn`t published yet the chances are that he has nothing that validates his claims... With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief... b)Yes the rational ones... c)Athiests driven by religious conviction????? Que????? And WTF is the last bit about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it. Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you. [/B][/QUOTE] Actually John Paul, the main group of ID, namely the Discovery Institute, cares very much who the "designer" is and that it eventually be identified as the christian version of God. This has been well outlined in the Wedge concept promoted by a key founder of the movement,P. Johnson, and was at one point clearly defined in the Discovery Institute website. The file outlining the wedge strategy and the ultimate designer has recently been deleted from the site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, that's why I asked.
quote: So you are not going to answer my question?
quote: So, there isn't a designer? Only a design?
quote: But don't you think that it might be important to know who the designer is and how he(?) was designed... or would that be created?
quote: Well, I did say "if".
quote: Yes, I would have all kinds of questions about the designer of that bridge.
quote: Yes, if the designers bridges had all failed, it might influence the outcome.
quote: Oh, gee. Does that mean that you won't answer?
quote: I think you're holding out on me JP. Well, remember, naturalism will welcome you back with open arms.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024