Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 304 (242995)
09-13-2005 2:48 PM


Being scientific
I hope this is in the spirit of the OP. I want to look at what ID theorists should be doing to make ID scientific.
They currently have a concept of specified complexity. They should start with that, and develop a measuring procedure whereby they could measure the degree of an object, whether that object be a rock, a snowflake, a geode or a mouse.
Since they want to deal with design, they should also be investigating empirical procedures for locating/identifying the designer.
With those two parts in place, they could then attempt an empirical investigation on what the degree of specified complexity implies about design.
Comment 1: I suspect that a measuring procedure for specified complexity will turn out to present an unsolvable problem. I am inclined to suspect that the concept itself is ill conceived. But perhaps if they attempted to find a measuring procedure they could develop an alternative to specified complexity.
Comment 2: Finding the designer will probably be an easier problem. I suggest "follow the money" as a methodology. That is, look for the beneficiary of the design. Moreover, I expect that this investigation will reveal that there are very clear distinctions between designed things and evolved things.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2005 4:41 AM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 304 (243409)
09-14-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tusko
09-14-2005 4:41 AM


Re: Being scientific
I was intrigued by your idea of "looking for the beneficiary of design". Could you elaborate a little on this, because I don't think I quite understand.
Take the example of a watch. If we were Martians visiting Earth, we could probably find something about its design. We would first see how it is used. Then we would see how it is acquired. We could probably discover that the watch user acquired it at a store. Then we could see where the store acquired it. The trail might be long, but it should lead us back to the designer. That's the "follow the money" approach.
If we tried similar methods with a bee hive, or a birds nest, we again should be able to find the designers.
Suppose we tried this with the mouse (as a species). It seems to me that all trails would lead back to the mouse species. The only reasonable conclusion would be that it is self-designed. I would see being self-designed as the evidence of something that has evolved.
In the case of symbiotic species, you might reach the reasonable conclusion that they were co-designed, which would be evidence of co-evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2005 4:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tusko, posted 09-20-2005 8:52 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 304 (243532)
09-14-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
You seem to be hinting that information carrying capacity implies complexity. But you never actually define complexity, and you certainly do not provide any indication on how to measure it.
Only a Deity could invent a object infinetly smaller than a chip and have it contain infinetly more information.
"Infinitely smaller than a chip" implies size 0. Where is the information in something of size 0?
Complexity is measured in contrast to the best and most complex any intelligent person can produce.
Measured how?
Can any Darwinist describe or re-phrase the Dawkins quote without using terminology inferring design ?
Dawkins' own wording will do. I already fail to see any basis for inferring design.
No, what is apparent is that the status quo refuse to credit a Creator lest they give what they hate any legitimacy.
We see ordinary biological processes creating new organisms. We don't see a creator doing it, except to the extent that biological processes can be considered creative.
We now know complexity is the mark and m.o. of the Divine - which is logical.
Do we? Are you implying that the Divine has been operating my paper shredder? There sure is a lot of complexity in the shreds of paper in its bin.

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

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 304 (244695)
09-18-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2005 7:29 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Obviously I did not postulate a mathematical measurement and/or equation.
And why not? It was you who introduced the subtitle "How to Measure Complexity" in Message 18. Were you being deliberately obtuse?
FACT: The brighter a person is equals the increased ability, capacity, and capability to understand and produce complexity.
The output from the random number generator on my computer is very complex. Are you asserting that there is a very bright person hiding in the computer, and typing in those random numbers?
Complexity is measured by comparison to known undisputed examples. Any astronomic disparity in favor of increased complexity equals ID unless of course your philisophy does not allow the conclusion.
Then you must really believe that there is some sort of intelligent designer typing in those random numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 7:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 304 (308096)
04-30-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by inkorrekt
04-30-2006 5:22 PM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
If everything is so simple, then why is it that no one has ever synthesized a living cell yet?
That's an argument against ID. Thus far we have no evidence that an intelligent designer could design a living cell. Perhaps a living cell is the kind of thing that could only arise via evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by inkorrekt, posted 04-30-2006 5:22 PM inkorrekt has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 206 of 304 (334325)
07-22-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by inkorrekt
07-22-2006 5:48 PM


Re: learn math please
None of you understood what I wrote. The probability of aminoacids assembling into proteins is LESS than 1 raised to the power of 42.
I think they understood that. The problem is that it is an utterly useless and pointless statement. The problem that you will still be alive tomorrow is LESS than 1 raised to the power of 42.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 5:48 PM inkorrekt has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 210 of 304 (348177)
09-11-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 12:13 PM


Can inteligent design be tested?
Only by our understanding of what inteligence and design is.
Based on my understanding of intelligence and design, evolution itself is an intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 12:13 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:08 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 213 of 304 (348202)
09-11-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:08 PM


Is intention necessary to your view?
Our understanding of the word "intention" is too closely tied to human social interactions. Insisting that it is necessary takes a problem out of the realm of science.
In the case of "intelligence", there have at least been attempts to separate the concept from our use of it with humans. Psychology has attempted to find objective ways of measuring it, and AI has attempted to emulate it on a machine. If we can have a weak sense of "intention" that is not restricted to humans or animals, and could in principle be applied to other kinds of systems, then it might be appropriate to tie it to notions of "intelligence" and "design".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:08 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:05 PM nwr has seen this message but 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