Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?

You continue to ascribe base motives to those who reject ID as scientific. The rejection has nothing to do with distaste for the idea, nor with spiritual suicide or wanting to find disorder as you claimed in another thread. It is related to the lack of scientific support for the ID concept. Those of us who value science as a way of understanding our universe do have a strong distaste for efforts that promote ID as if it had already fulfilled the requirements of science when it has not, and this is perhaps what you are sensing.ID concepts like CSI (Complex Specified Information) have no formal definition. By way of contrast, Shannon information does have a formal definition, to the point where you can calculate precisely how much information can be contained on a computer hard disk or in human DNA. While there can be a very precise answer to the question, "How much Shannon information is in human DNA?", because CSI has no formal definition and no standard of measurement there is no possible answer to the question, "How much CSI is in human DNA?"Put another way, CSI has no more substance than the "aura" that spiritualists claim they can detect. If a spiritualist told you that you have an aura and I don't, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there's no way to measure. And if an IDist said humans have more CSI than rabbits, once again, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there is no way to measure.When IDists start writing papers with titles like "Measurement Methods for CSI" and "Calibration Techniques for Measuring Irreducible Complexity" then you'll know that ID is starting to place itself on a scientific footing by creating the possibility of testability and replication. But ID lacks these qualities at the present time, and for this reason, and also because of the obvious religious ties that you make so clear with your references to God, ID could not possibly be considered science.--Percy

You've misunderstood the point. I'm not defining science so as to exclude ID, I'm just telling you what the definition is. Science already had a definition long before ID started pounding on the doors of public school science classrooms, and that definition includes replicability and falsifiability. Anything which lacks these qualities, such as ID, cannot be considered science.Presumably, since you're arguing the other side, you should be looking for ways to demonstrate that ID does possess the qualities of science, instead of speculating about other's distaste for ID or about evolution's destructiveness.--Percy

Intuition is extremely subjective. I think you've somehow ventured out of hard science and into some other field, perhaps psychology. If it can't be formalized, how can you study it scientifically? But this "clear evidence" of CSI is based upon intuition, which is the opposite of "clear evidence."--Percy

I guess I'm just not able to follow wherever it is you are going. If you've found a non-scientific but scientific-sounding argument against ID that ID believers will find persuasive then more power to you, though it feels like you're countering a misconstrual with an appealing fallacy. But I grant that trying to explain the nature of science to creationists has not been an enterprise filled with success, and I guess it doesn't hurt to explore other avenues.--Percy

Mine is a valid argument, too (misconstrual is "detecting CSI allows us to infer non-physical causation", appealing fallacy is "CSI is detectable"). I agree with your basic approach, but I just don't see how a successful argument can be built upon postulating the detectability of something with no formal definition. I think you'll ultimately bog down in digressions over what CSI really is, at which point you'll have to agree upon a definition, which brings you back to what I thought was the more significant issue, CSI's lack of any formal definition. But hey, give it a try!--Percy

Maybe, but this is what I was going by: --Percy