Discontinuing research about ID

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.It is a religious belief masquerading as science in the hopes of fooling a few school boards or a court somewhere. In both of these it has failed.ID certainly meets none of the requirements of a scientific theory.Below is some information on what a scientific theory is:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

For more information on what a court found ID to be, see: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court

There was no scientific theory of ID ever presented in Dover. None existed at the time. But there is one now, so get used to it:

Gary Gaulin? You're here to explain and support Gary Gaulin? Really? Gary Gaulin the widely known master of a constantly varing computer program with absolutely no connection to any observation of or fact about the real world?Gee, I gotta let some people know that after all these years Gary's got a disciple.Gary's too much for the loony bin known as Uncommon Descent. That might tell you something. But almost certianly not, if you're so gullible as to fall for Gary freakin' Gaulin.

Hi GaryG, and welcome to the fray. Sorry, I had trouble discerning what your theory is clearly. It seems to me that you are essentially stating that atoms have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how molecules are formed, molecules have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how they combine into larger structures (DNA/RNA making cells), that these larger structures (organisms) have an intrinsic intelligence guiding behavior and formation of more complex organisms, and this guides behavior and eventually information processing.But that is your observation, not a theory. Ah the old computer analogy. Still observation, still not a theory. And still observation, and still not a theory.For it to be a (scientific) theory it needs to start with a hypothesis that makes predictions and those predictions are tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid. Yes: what is your theory? In other words you cannot state your theory simply. I looked at your "50 words or more" and all I see is wishful thinking, not a scientific hypothesis and certainly not a theory.Curiously I can both state the theory of evolution simply and then show how it explains intelligence. I don't need to write a novel before getting to the theory. Actually Evolutionary theory does quite well at explaining the origin of intelligence and it's development. How it works is a function of it's existence. And the science of abiogenesis explains the origins of life. Quite right: the theory of evolution has no competition. Certainly not from a pile of words pretending to be a theory. Lets start with the operational definition: intelligence at it's most basic is the means of interpreting sensations to enable an organism to survive and reproduce.Thus, it is relatively obvious that intelligence is an emergent property of developing senses -- sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing -- as each of these senses emerge in organisms, to enable it to increase survival and reproduction. The senses do not develop at the same time but each can become more complex over time by evolution as they enable increased survival and reproduction. Consider that different types of eyes have developed and that snakes can perceive heat while bats can echo-locate, and thus the senses than an organism has are dependent on their evolutionary history rather than any intrinsic design.There is evidence that supports this.What is your theory and what is your supporting evidence?Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : typo

You don't have a theory. At best you have a hypothesis.

You can model pretty much any nonsense on a computer. It doesn't have to have any connection to reality; it only needs to be self-consistent. I once had a teacher who said that if you can't explain it to an eight-year-old you don't understand it.

Pssh it says "in each other's image, likeness"; that's straight out of the Bible! Okay, well, what is the hypothesis? And how was it tested?FWIW: I've modeled Brownian Motion in electromagnetic fields using computer simulations. That's a cop-out. Scientific theories should be able to be summarized fairly succinctly. If it can't be summarized in a couple lines, then it probably isn't a scientific theory. Aren't you familiar with the concept of an Abstract? You've completely misunderstood. I wasn't saying anything about the orifin of life or intelligence. I was providing you with an example of what I was looking for: A short succinct summary of a scientific theory. The theory I summarized was the Theory of Evolution - which also gets pretty detailed and complicated. But it can be summarized pretty shortly like a good scientific theory should.That you cannot provide a summary of this theory that you've proposed causes serious doubts that its scientific.Alrighty, I've read the big copy n paste that you provided in Message 330.This is not a scientific theory.At best, it looks like a proposal. Some properties, behaviors, and processes of matter were re-described in terms that made them sound like they had some kind of intelligence behind them. But there is no null hypothesis, and no hypothesis testing has been shown. Basically, the "theory" is that natural spontaneous processes can be talked about as if there was an intelligence behind them. But that doesn't provide any reason to suspect that there actually is an intelligence behind them.And the author seems to have failed to realize that chemical reactions occur spontaneously and require no intelligence to happen. Of course that doesn't stop them from talking about them like there is an intelligence behind them, but making stuff up is not a compelling reason to believe it.

Hi Gary,Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory, could I suggest that you post a proposal to discuss your theory over at Proposed New Topics. Once I promote your thread discussion would shift over there.

Hi Percy,
That's an interesting suggesting. After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory, then wait for a possible reply. I'm currently getting another computer model of interest to the AI field ready for submitting and should be working on that, not getting tied down in another anti-ID forum that has no interest in cognitive science models and ass-kicking theory.I am honestly better off devoting my time to those who have an interest in learning and advancing science. But for the sake of those in this forum who might possibly want to have a scientific discussion I could ignore the insults, so I'm considering your offer. It just seems though that anyone who would be interested in such a challenge have already given up on this gang, and are now gone.

So the suspicion that you do not actually have a (scientific) theory is now validated.From your link:

quote:

---

Quote (JohnW @ June 09 2015,18:03)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2015,15:50)

That is perhaps why academia is so polarized by the ID controversy...

​

Citation needed.

​

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Curiously what the wiki link says is that ID is not considered science because it hasn't done science. Or as N.Wells Posted: June 09 2015,18:53 on the other forum said: Just as you have so far failed to present a theory here, and failed to show how your concept even became an hypothesis that was, or could be, tested (one of those nasty prerequisites for doing science).Instead of whining about being rejected for not doing science, perhaps you could consider doing science ... ?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page:

I love when cdesign proponentists pretend there's an actual controversy among true biologists. It's so much fun.Remember the Project Steve in response to the "Scientific dissent from darwinism"?Project Steve - WikipediaThat comeback was classicBy the way GG, are you enjoying spamming the entire interwebz with your crackpottery?Edited by dazz, : No reason given.

Please let's take the quality of debate up a notch and get on topic. If GaryG wishes to have a thread to discuss his work on a theory of ID then he will propose one over at Proposed New Topics. This thread is for discussing Dubreuil's work on a theory of ID.

Wait, in Message 322 you told me:

quote:

---

I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?

---

So which is it?From Message 341:

quote:

---

Percy writes:

​

Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory,

​

And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page:

​

Me writes:

​

They appear to be attempting to find evidence that a theory is possible, not present a theory of ID.

---

So, what do you think about their attempt? They failed pretty miserably, no?And why do you think that they thought that they actually had presented a theory on ID? They say that their results indicate that ID does exist, and also that the patterns they found support a triune God. From their abstract:

quote:

---

The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. The found law-like pattern supports a triune God with a residual uncertainty of 1 : 10^3.

---

Do you think its just coincidence that this ID "theory" and your ID "theory" both have references to the trinity?
You said that you weren't religious, but when I look to that other thread you linked to, in the message posted on Oct. 31 2012,14:51 you have the following image: That's similar to another image you posted here except that instead of arrows pointing you have the God character from Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.That makes you look religiously motivated, just like the Martin guy who posted the OP. Do you think they are religiously motivated?Why would you use religious iconography, like God from a painting, and concepts, like a trinity in its own image/likeness, to explain your "theory" if you are not motivated by religion?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make small version of diagram a little larger.

The link that GG provided (not repeated here) is to a discussion in which this GaryG is getting totally, thoroughly, and apropriately lambasted.Coupling that with his BS, overhyped entry here, and one might easily question whether there is anything worth pursuing in another thread. If there is another thread, then I'll show up, but I am not expecting much. GG may be doing some math and programming, but he does not seem to be doing much science.But perhaps the same thing might have been said about Einstein during the 8 years or so he spend working on General Relativity. Much of that time was spent refining a hypothesis to develop some predictions that could be tested.