Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,251 Year: 5,508/9,624 Month: 533/323 Week: 30/143 Day: 3/17 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 4 of 304 (242907)
09-13-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
09-13-2005 10:07 AM


To test ID
One way would be to understand the designer. Once we've done that we can then say what we would expect that designer to do, and test to see if that is what we find. So, perhaps something like "I am the alpha" appearing at the start of all DNA sequences.
This is exactly what ToE does and is subject to testing. It defines the designer - mutations coupled with selection (to simplify), and then uses that to make tests of what we would expect to find.
However, the ID movement refuses to actually define their designer, rendering testing for its involvement impossible. The only part of their designer they seem willing to define is 'intelligence'. We don't know what kind of intelligence we should find or what the goal of this intelligence was. As such we cannot detect if that kind of intelligence was involved.
ID does things backwards. It says, if something cannot be explicitly explained with natural explanations, it must have been guided by an intelligent agent. Just like Lightening was Thor. This leaves ID with the position of 'since we don't know exactly how x occurred, it must have been our explanation.'
Until we actually have a description of our intelligent designer I don't think it can be tested, anymore than evolution could be tested before a description of the natural designer was formulated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 09-13-2005 10:07 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2005 4:33 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 304 (243278)
09-14-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
09-13-2005 10:07 AM


Another test
What would be interesting would be to test this 'specified complexity' stuff out. First we can use intelligence to design something, then we can use an evolution like system to evolve it. Then we test for specified complexity and see if it can tell the difference.
Unfortunately IDists think that by designing the environment, there is an IDer which would invalidate this research. However I don't think that's true. Evolution would be a fine theory even if God/whoever designed an appropriate environment for it to happen in.
I guess we need to wait on the ID movement to help out on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 09-13-2005 10:07 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Indiana Jones, posted 04-07-2006 5:00 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 304 (243835)
09-15-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
As Dembski himself says:
Does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? The jury is still out.
I say maybe it does. However, the onus is on the IDers to demonstrate that this specified complexity is not a feature of any design rather than just intelligent design. So far all they are doing is saying "Everything that is designed by humans has an intelligent designer. Therefore everything that is designed through some process must have an intelligent designer".
Its one hell of a leap of logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2005 8:00 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 109 of 304 (302175)
04-07-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Indiana Jones
04-07-2006 5:00 PM


Re: Another test
Wow - Indiana Jones has replied to one of my threads
Welcome!

The test you propose does not test 'specified complexity', which is the nature of the test I was proposing in the post you were responding to here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Indiana Jones, posted 04-07-2006 5:00 PM Indiana Jones 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