Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

The question is not what you can't test and why or whatever other dodge is flavor du jourthe question is what you can test.How do you test the validity of the ID concept?
How can it be falsified?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The point of my post was that I simply don't see HOW postulating an intelligent designer as an answer to certain questions could EVER "Help expand our understanding of biotic reality"I don't disagree that adaptationist thinking also features "design-type reasoning" on some level. After all, the basic idea is that random mutation together with natural selection results in a process that mimics "design in order to serve a purpose". As such, I would say the "design-type thinking" is used as some sort of working hypothesis that leads scientists to the right questions to ask.What I was getting at is: although they apply this kind of design-oriented thinking, they WON'T accept "intelligent design" as an endpoint to work towards. They will always intend to break down the answer "designed" into smaller constituents."It appears designed, but HERE are the deeper reasons/mechanisms WHY/HOW it comes accross as intentional design"ANY "deeper understanding of biotic reality" comes from the second part of the sentence. The 'conclusion' design in itself is useless as long as it doesn't lead to meaningful research behind it.

At least he used the word probably.The reason some idiots such as my self do not write off the possiblity of intelligent design is because the very orgin of our universe emerged from a singularity which is beyond the natural laws that govern how reality is manifested. The math don't werk. Can you say supernatural? I know it sticks in your crawl that word.Yes naturalism explains the natural world. Yes it makes sense to believe the simplist of explainations is most likely the answer.
Except the simplist explaination is something wants there to be something. Rather than there is something from nothing; that there is a universe that came into existance just because it did.
And the singularity responsible is the orgin but the singularity itself existed just because it did. ????
Occams razor cuts it's own throat by assuming the simplist explaination is even a option. There are no free lunches in the cosmos.
If I reach in my pocket and my wallet is not there: A. I misplaced it : or B. It was stolen.
How about reducing that to a quantum event. The wallet tunneled out of existance.
M-theory suggest that the cosmos is possibly like a fabric/membrane consisting strings, and that reality operates within eleven dimentions manifesting the fundamental forces that allows for things to exist.
Atheist suggest that the universe exist because it does.
Ok fine. Then if the universe exist because it does then why is this the natural state of things and not nothing?
And if Intelligent design is untestable then that further illustrates a intelligence that not only prevades existance, but for the moment elludes all sentient inquiry.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

First, there may not have been a singularity at all.Second, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to a question where the answer is unknown. I don't see the sense of equating "I don't know" = "It was intelligently designed."Edited to add:
P.S. I wouldn't call a person who accepts the possibility of an intelligent designer an idiot. The idiots are those who believe in an intelligent designer and expect the rest of us to be impressed with their arguments.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Sep-2005 09:16 PM

1.61803,
Interesting moniker

quote:

---

And the singularity responsible is the orgin but the singularity itself existed just because it did. ????

---

I have some doubts that everything began with a singularity. I know that there has been a huge amount of effort designing and mathematically testing theories on this, but I don’t think any of them have sufficient justification to claim that they have been validated.The question of ultimate origin is difficult at best and probably impossible to resolve. I have a tendency to think that the matter and energy that make up this universe has always existed. However, that concept is a bit untenable. Intuitively, everything should have a beginning, but it must also have an origin in that something must have caused it.

quote:

---

Atheist suggest that the universe exist because it does.

---

Do you refer to one of the two members whose user ID begin with Atheist or to atheists in general? I certainly don’t suggest that the universe exist “because” it does, just that it is obviously here for some reason. We have a lot of clues, but we really don’t know why. That does not imply any supernatural force.

Hello Chioptera,
Nice to hear from you. Maybe your right. But from my understanding of the subject a gravitational singularity occured at plankes time and is theoretically responsible for the event we call "The Big Bang" which is currently a accepted theory. The gravitational singularity is predicted by General relativity and verified by a number of observations and data. I know you know that. Quantum gravity as of this post has not been verified.
But maybe I am drawing on old and outdated information. Me either. Not knowing the answer and saying It was not intelligently designed while may be logical to presume says nothing of whether it is correct or otherwise. Awaiting further data/evidence before a conclusion is drawn is usually the prudent thing to do. Well said. And might I add that even idiots are sometimes able to disiminate between a blanket statement of certainty in the absence of facts from a statement of uncertainty in the presence of principal.
Which is kinda the point after all, the uncertainty principal seems to prevade.
PS. I sounded like an asshole in the post you responded to, but thats because I was in a asshole-ish mood. Take care.

Hi bkelly, Well the singularity is an observation that is verified and available at the present time. And that is fine to believe. But according to what I have read the universe is the result of gravitational singularity that began space/time as well as the fundamental forces to exist.
Matter did not exist prior to the Big bang, Time did not exist, Space did not exist. I think it was Carl Sagen that said "The Cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be."
The universe up to this point is plotted back to Plankes time. What happened before t=0 is unknowable. What caused it or why is unknowable. And I prefer it that way, how boring it would be to know all the answers. Dont you agree? For what ever the reason energy through all it's manifestiations has evolved into a sentient conciousness that continues to probe and understand all that can be known. It is a fasinating story. Take care.

Hello, 1.

quote:

---

But from my understanding of the subject a gravitational singularity occured at plankes time and is theoretically responsible for the event we call "The Big Bang" which is currently a accepted theory.

---

I don't think the singularity is "responsible" for the event -- the singularity is the event. It is, and may forever be, unknown what is responsible for the "appearance" of the singularity.If there was a singularity, that is. The singularity appears when we extrapolate the current expansion of the universe backwards in time. Eventually, we reach a time when the universe was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. If our current understanding of the laws of physics are correct, that is; as a matter of fact, we already know that our current understanding of the laws of physics are not complete, and, in particular, are not appropriate for the universe very, very shortly after the singularity. People are currently working on extending our understand of the laws of physics -- so-called "quantum gravity", a theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics. Many people, including Stephen Hawking, believe that under the correct theory there is no singularity.-

quote:

---

Awaiting further data/evidence before a conclusion is drawn is usually the prudent thing to do.

---

As is avoiding adding unnecessary details, like intelligent designers and magical skymen.-

quote:

---

I sounded like an asshole in the post you responded to, but thats because I was in a asshole-ish mood.

---

Me too.

Hi Chioptera,
Dr. Stephen Hawking is definatlely a theoretical physics genius.
Dr. A. Einstien as well .. And not to take away from they're contributions to the world of physics both of them are not without errors in they're predictions .The reason I say this is because many times when a discussion of the orgin of the universe comes up Dr. Hawking's theories as well as out of context quotes from his "A brief history in time." are played out like so many trump cards. Almost as bad as fundies quote mining creationist websites.
He believed that the universe was uncaused. He believed that virtual time is what makes a "before" real time that came into existance at t=0 possible. He also concluded mistakenly that the universe is finite and will collapse. He also believed intitially that time would go "backwards" due to a math error that he later had corrected thanks to some of his students cranking the formulas. He also believed that space is unbounded but shaped like a sphere and also finite and will collapse.Ok. fast forward to 2005.......> According to NASA as of March 2005 It is now believed that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The universe is flat. The universe will expand forever.And I agree with you there is a missing piece of the puzzle as far as a unified theory of everything. M-theory and Matrix theory seem to be the newest addition to reconciling the 5 string theorys of the 90's. The predictions made using 11 dimentions and incredibly complex calculations have revived this particular sect of theoretical physics and who knows if within our lifetime a new theory will put that missing piece right in place. I am skeptical though. Personally I am of the belief that reality will always remain a mystery and dispite ever increasing human intelligence we will probably never be able to know the most fundamental question. But I also know humans will never cease looking. Take care.

And here's my main problem with ID: it has an aura about it of unwillingness to investigate further. As if the proponents feel somekind of RELIEF that they finally found something that seems to indicate the existence of a barrier against naturalism.

Hello Annafan, There are a good deal of cosmologist, physicist, geologist, and just about any field of science you care to mention who believe that the concept of Intelligent Design should not be dismissed outright because of the very reason that this "barrier" as you put it exist at the present time. But that does not mean they are not diligentley going about they're whole lives actively increasing the body of knowlege of humanity through scientific inquiry.There are many variations of Intelligent design proponents ; from
certified dyed in the wool litteralist / creationist to agnostics.
Just as there are many types of Christians, Muslims, etc. I am sure that there are those Christian fundalmentalist types who do indeed wish to surpress any evidence that may refute they're religious beliefs. My point being that one should not assume because someone takes Intelligent design seriously makes them a back woods ignorant fundie. Have you ever wondered why it seems that nature is dualistic?
The photon can be a particle or a wave. We can observe velocity or position but not both. The body and the mind. Male & Female
Positive charge and negative charge. Order and entrophy.
Energy or mass. Life or death.Nature it seems does not want to be singular.
Nature it seems does not want to cease to exist.
Nature it seems does not want to be reduced to a mathmatical expression.Humans can design computers but a computer will never be capable of the same sentient content the mind is cabable of.
Humans can design and manipulate genes and life.
But we are unable to reproduce abiogenisis.
Humans can Intelligently design. But we can not surpass nature. The conservation of energy and mass. The ability to maintain order from entrophy and remain homeostatic.
The very density of the of the universe perfectley homogenous to insure a infinite existance.In my opinion it appears to me that the more humans discover about nature the more beautiful and inspiring it seems.So if a athiest wants to dismiss our existance as a "just because thats how it is." I have no problem with that.
If an athiest wishes to reduce everything down to there is no reason or purpose for the existance of the universe. I have no problem with that. If a atheist is able to accept the evolution of energy to sentient conciousness as a arbitrary event. Then thats they're business. I prefer hope as opposed to nihlism. I am not intellectually brave enough to look into that pit. I am a foolish dreamer.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

But what if Truth is in that pit that you won't look into.

If humanity ever verifys that Universe is nothing more that a arbitrary and absurd state of to "be or not to be." Then what choice will I have but to accept it. And as a man of science I will embrace this knowlege. Even if we somehow mangage to glean this truth does not mean humanity is without hope, our very triumph over this mystery would be cause to celebrate. But for now as we probe and gain more insight the debate over caused or uncaused continues and there is still room for dreamers like me. Take care.

These are questions the "default" position might not be remonstrably placed to answer. Sorry but that is raw me. I have some problems with current assertions that Natural Selection is a two-step aposteriori phenomenon where group selection of population in the physicist's sense does not exist. Ok that is default but it is also at fault If I can keep answering these questions by challenging the status quo. It seems that one can find the lack in the current teaching by looking at non-design as well as what was smarter in the design. Evidence for the designer might remain with GOD. We just might not be smart enough.

quote:

---

Are there possible adaptive non-designs NOT produced by natural selection? Did dielectric breakdown invert ontogenetically plant leticel phylogeny?? Can the cost of water balance ecosystem engineering per matter GO UP with increased biomassproductvity rather than down as a simple analogy to economics would rather suggest???

---

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to respond,but it would be off-topic.Maybe a new topic about why a world without god would be a world without room for dreamers?