Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is all about the notion of ignorant chance being validated, which it is not...

The rest is smoke and mirrors...

Oh, and math does have a measure for infinity:

<img src=http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/ap/img/infinity.gif>

That which is not finite, is infinite...

Doh!

Just because we were not able to measure something in the past, does not mean it was not measurable.

Doh!

More arguments from incompleteness, ignorance, and hubris from the "scientists."

It doesn't matter, because you have no measurement of ignorant chance, but ignorance of design...

Quote from john dough:

You're right. Science does break down around concepts of infinite, eternal and unlimited...

Science requires measurability, and Infinity is not measurable. However, the scientific method routinely uses Calculus as a means of hypothesizing and then measures as far as reasonably possible, even though it is recognized that the limit of a function cannot be ascertained with absolute precision.

So your comments about limitlessness, while valid, are irrelevant to determining the scientific reliability of evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is measurable within reasonable limits.

Conversely, ID is not measurable within limits, because if it were, then someone would have measured it by now.

If Dembski's formulas were so terrific, IDers would be able to measure the specified complexity of any object and thereby quantify the amount of intelligent design therein.

The math could be use to determine, for example, whether an artifact which looks like an ancient stone axe, is actually one, or whether it only looks like one.

There are pattern matching algorithms which can be used analyze a digitized portion of a painting and determine if it is an original or a forgery.

An ID advocate should use said algorithms to various organic DNA and see if any life form falls far outside the normal distribution. If one does, then maybe that life form was designed by an alien rather than being the product of natural evolution.

But, all of this ducks the real issue. There is no scientific test that can ever discover anything about a limitless creator, because as you have pointed out, science breaks down in this area.

So, you are left with a public policy statement. Science cannot absolutely rule out a creator, therefore the creator should be given equal weight in the biological sciences, even though all of the measurable evidence rejects the influence of a creator.

That's fine as public policy. But it's not science, because science reasonably excludes attempts at measuring the unmeasurable. If this wasn't the case, there would be no science. Everything would be philosophy.

Which is, obviously, what you want, because it's what you continuously preach without interruption.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


That evolution occurs has been tested and confirmed but ID doesn't dispute that evolution occurs. The dispute is over what causes evolution. Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). Science has no test that can confirm that any major evolutionary innovation originated through accidental mutation and coincidental selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection.

The simple explanation is that the cause of past events mirrors present causes. If Lenski can evolve new traits in his bacteria by subjecting them to environmental stress, then it's reasonable to conclude that past environmental stress caused past evolutionary changes.

It is not reasonable to conclude that the past environmental stress was created by an external designer, because unlike with the current environmental stress, which we know is designed by Lenski, there is no such evidence demonstrating that some external designer was involved in ancient evolutionary changes.

So, if you believe that some ancient Lenski was involved in making major changes to DNA, then get some proof for your hypothesis, and then you will have a scientific discovery.

Until then, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer is not science -- it's just speculation.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Ignorant chance is not science, it is just speculation...

Quote from john dough:

The simple explanation is that the cause of past events mirrors present causes. If Lenski can evolve new traits in his bacteria by subjecting them to environmental stress, then it's reasonable to conclude that past environmental stress caused past evolutionary changes.

It is not reasonable to conclude that the past environmental stress was created by an external designer, because unlike with the current environmental stress, which we know is designed by Lenski, there is no such evidence demonstrating that some external designer was involved in ancient evolutionary changes.

So, if you believe that some ancient Lenski was involved in making major changes to DNA, then get some proof for your hypothesis, and then you will have a scientific discovery.

Until then, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer is not science -- it's just speculation.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is all about the notion of ignorant chance being validated, which it is not...

The rest is smoke and mirrors...

Oh, and math does have a measure for infinity:

<img src=http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/ap/img/infinity.gif>

That which is not finite, is infinite...

Doh!

Just because we were not able to measure something in the past, does not mean it was not measurable.

Doh!

More arguments from incompleteness, ignorance, and hubris from the "scientists."

It doesn't matter, because you have no measurement of ignorant chance, but ignorance of design...

A symbol of infinity is not a measurement. It's just a symbol. There is no scientific means of measuring infinity.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Ignorant chance is not science, it is just speculation...

Ahem, yes. You've mentioned your opinion on this point, without interruption. Nevertheless, your opinion is not scientific.

Science measures as much randomness as can be measured. You declare that it's not science unless the measurement can be made to infinity. This cannot be done. But, within the bounds of what science can measure, it finds randomness, so that's what it reports.

It doesn't measure randomness and report design, because no design is measured.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Infinity is measured when we reach a limit.

Is the universe finite or infinte?

Since our instrumentation is limited, can we claim the universe is also limited?

LOL!

More measurements from ignorance, just like the claim of ignorant chance with no means to verify it as so...but ignorance.

Quote from john dough:

A symbol of infinity is not a measurement. It's just a symbol. There is no scientific means of measuring infinity.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Tell me exactly what would be the proof of design? What is the test? What is the measurement? What is the instrumentation? You are ruling something out without an ability to even measure it?

LOL!

You can conclude ignorant chance based on nothing but ignorance, so what would verify design?

Quote from john dough:

Ahem, yes. You've mentioned your opinion on this point, without interruption. Nevertheless, your opinion is not scientific.

Science measures as much randomness as can be measured. You declare that it's not science unless the measurement can be made to infinity. This cannot be done. But, within the bounds of what science can measure, it finds randomness, so that's what it reports.

It doesn't measure randomness and report design, because no design is measured.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Tell me exactly what would be the proof of design? What is the test? What is the measurement? What is the instrumentation? You are ruling something out without an ability to even measure it?

LOL!

You can conclude ignorant chance based on nothing but ignorance, so what would verify design?

The "young earth creationist" theories have been substantially ruled out via scientific tests.

Now, can you propose a test to prove design?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I am not a young earth creationist, and don't care.

Design is in evidence, requires no proof.

Now, rule out that statement, show how it is false.

See, your foundation of ignorant chance is just a guess too...

Quote from john dough:

The "young earth creationist" theories have been substantially ruled out via scientific tests.

Now, can you propose a test to prove design?

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Infinity is measured when we reach a limit.

Infinity is definitionally limitless, so stating that it is measured when we reach a limit, is no different than stating that an apple is measured when we reach an orange, because an apple is not an orange.

Silly comparison.