Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"If a series of events continues unpredictably, such that its distribution curve cannot be estimated, then the events are random."

Say you observe the actions of a person. The person has decided to intentionally behave in a manner that appears random, making decisions on the basis of a random mental program he created to generate the appearance of random actions. He has scripted this out mentally. He then acts on the script. You observation of his actions indicate that the actions are random, and conclude that he is acting randomly.

Are the actions really random? Or are they appearing random by design...

Ahhhh, there's the rub...

Without full knowledge, all you get are ignorant speculations...

Once again, I don't care if you believe random or not, chance or not, but projecting it as truth...when it is not known as truth, is the problem.

Quote from john dough:

The above statement is utterly false. Randomness is testable within limits. If a series of events continues unpredictably, such that its distribution curve cannot be estimated, then the events are random.

Ultimately there might still be a pattern, just as their may be a pattern to the decimal series produced when calculating PI.

The only question is: when is the scientific method satisfied? And the answer is: when the hypothesis is confirmed for all practical purposes.

The singular and continuing dilemma posed by this thread is that the design advocate wants a definitive answer which is impossible to obtain, before the hypothesis of evolution is confirmed -- where as the evolution advocate merely requires reasonable certainty within limits.

One position is reasonable -- the other is not. Design is thus an unreasonable conclusion -- and it will continue to be treated as such, until someone demonstrates a scientific experiment confirming design, that is reasonably measurable within limits.

 

[Jampilier]

Quote from I am...:

A man or woman shall decree a thing and it shall be so.

The next guy is also making his decrees which may conflict with mine. Retreating into the imaginary "godhood" of an infant is not what is meant by being as a child to enter the Kingdom.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I'm too lazy to type a long post here but really a short post won't do justice. But I'll give it a try.

You look at how our universe has evolved to today's shape, and wonder, "wow, that's remarkable. There is no way all of this could have happened without a really clever design." But you're really fooled by the randomness.

The purpose or "design" you see in nature, is similar to what in the market is called "survivor bias." All poor designs, bad ideas, those without real "purpose," happened but then failed the test of nature.

Here is a good analogy. Once I asked one of my military friends what he considered as a great general. His answer was that if someone won five major battles in a row then he would be considered a great general. Then I asked what he thought the percentage of great generals were among all the generals in history. He thought about it for awhile, and then answered, "maybe 3%."

I laughed. If you flip coins 5 straight times, the chance of 5 straight heads is 3%! So were these 3% really great generals, or were they just lucky?

As a feeble human, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question. Then why I am against the ID theory? Because it's worse. Not only it won't bring anything to the table as far as our knowledge goes, it prevents scientific thinking. It makes us lazy, makes us less likely to question our own thinking, less likely to challenge false observation. All of this are harmful to science.

I find this post ironic. But I do believe you represent the vast majority of the "rational intellectuals" with whom I have a problem. While I am sure you are smarter I put you in the same camp as the 99.9% of the people who think we evolved from monkeys who attend school board meetings. They too think anyone arguing against their understand of evolution is an uneducated religious wacko. A little statistics in the wrong hands can be very dangerous.

You need to reassess your understanding of coin flips vs major battles.

for instance the outcome of a superbowl is either winner or a loser. Just like heads or tails. I could construct a coin flip chart showing that a coin flips are just like superbowls.

does that mean the steelers and the cowboys were lucky... When they won all those superbowls.

 

[Jampilier]

Quote from john dough:

The only question is: when is the scientific method satisfied? And the answer is: when the hypothesis is confirmed for all practical purposes.

This confirmation is a subjective state of the scientist. All proofs by logic are incomplete, so too therefore is the scientific method on its own terms.

The objective verification pursued by the scientist is only an idealism, a faith of sorts.

 

[Teleologist]

In order to get new biological structure/order/design) one needs something to produce a positive (+) evolutionary vector.

Darwin's alleged great insight was to invoke Natural Selective Destruction -- a function that always "weeds out' (-) (destroys) but never weeds in (+) or creates (+) ...

..and randomization (-)

"Random Variation" only adresses and randomizes (destroys) the timing of the output (the timing at which variations appear. That is to say, the slot machine is already pre-structured with the three-lemons and all other variations in a large probablistic "solution space." Only the timing sequence is addressed and randomized.

In "random mutation" however, randomness is permitted to randomize, not just the timing sequence of the output, but the actual genetic information --information that depends on its non-randomness/specificity for its very functioning.

The problem is that in both cases the mechanisms invoked are all negative (-) when what is needed is a positive (+)-----> evolutionary vector

"Reproduction" (which has to pay for all the destruction) cannot provide the evolutionary vector either. Its motion is orthogonal to what is needed. It can only amplify information that is already in the "solution space" - in the set of all available solutions for any given species.

The problem for Darwinism therefore comes to the logical statement that by definition Natural selective destruction (-) cannot produce its opposite -- construction (+) and that by definition randomization (-) cannot produce its opposite -- order (+).

What is needed is a positive (+) and Darwin has given us two negatives. I fail to see this as a great insight.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Jampilier:

This confirmation is a subjective state of the scientist. All proofs by logic are incomplete, so too therefore is the scientific method on its own terms.

The objective verification pursued by the scientist is only an idealism, a faith of sorts.

Everything is ultimately taken on faith. My point is that the real world functions because reasonable people conclude reasonably, based on reasonable evidence.

Evolution is a reasonable conclusion drawn from a large amount of reasonable evidence -- whereas Design is not.

Design may be true, but Evolution is more reasonable, based on the weight of existing evidence.

If this weren't true, then Design would be more reasonable, and would be the preferred conclusion.

But, it's not. Yet the Design advocate cannot stand up, accept this reality and then try to prove Design with reasonable evidence.

Instead, the Design advocate will continue to demand that the Evolution advocate prove the negative: that Design is not only unreasonable -- it is impossible.

This cannot be done, and the Design advocate knows this. Which is why such a position is "unreasonable."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Thanks.

You have nicely framed the argument in exactly the way it really is.

The argument you are making is this:

Scientific faith is superior to non scientific faith.

My argument, is that we should not be indoctrinating children into any particular faith, scientific or non scientific.

The movement to push scientific faith by claiming superiority as to the unknown and unknowable, which is just another misrepresentation of science of course, is just an atheistic movement dressed up in fancy scientific language and pseudo science.

People are being duped in the name of real science, it is a fraud upon the people of America.

There is an agenda at work, which is atheistic, and political in nature.

Atheists of course have the right to their own beliefs, and push for them, be political for them...in the same way theists do.

However, to publicly fund these beliefs, so that they may be used to brainwash children in the public school system is wrong, wrong, wrong...

We need to teach children how to think, how to reason, not what to think, nor what conclusions they should be reasoning to...

Quote from john dough:

Everything is ultimately taken on faith. My point is that the real world functions because reasonable people conclude reasonably, based on reasonable evidence.

Evolution is a reasonable conclusion drawn from a large amount of reasonable evidence -- whereas Design is not.

Design may be true, but Evolution is more reasonable, based on the weight of existing evidence.

If this weren't true, then Design would be more reasonable, and would be the preferred conclusion.

But, it's not. Yet the Design advocate cannot stand up, accept this reality and then try to prove Design with reasonable evidence.

Instead, the Design advocate will continue to demand that the Evolution advocate prove the negative: that Design is not only unreasonable -- it is impossible.

This cannot be done, and the Design advocate knows this. Which is why such a position is "unreasonable."

 

[Teleologist]

John dough wrote:

Design may be true, but Evolution is more reasonable, based on the weight of existing evidence.

This statement makes no sense to me. You are pitting ID against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis, the supposition that the evolutionary process is devoid of design.

Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. If evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose.

Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design. ID is an investigation into these possibilities.

 

[Teleologist]

John dough wrote:

Instead, the Design advocate will continue to demand that the Evolution advocate prove the negative: that Design is not only unreasonable -- it is impossible.

It's actually the opposite. It's the ID critics that demand that ID supporters prove a negative by showing that evolution is impossible. Also, the only evidence the ID critics will accept for ID is observing the designer in action. In other words, they're looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock them into belief.

I, take my cue from history, where extraordinary theories have been supported by circumstantial evidence, gradually gathered through an open-ended investigation. What's so great about all of this is that I don't have to convince you. I don't need the consent of critics to proceed with thinking about things from a teleological perspective. In the end, there's only one judge to determine who is right: Nature, with the clues she gives us.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So it is more reasonable to think something comes from nothing, life comes from non life, that order comes from chaos, that intelligence flows from ignorance, that reason comes from the unreasonable...

Fascinating what people will come up with to remain in their atheistic faith...

Quote from Teleologist:

John dough wrote:


It's actually the opposite. It's the ID critics that demand that ID supporters prove a negative by showing that evolution is impossible. Also, the only evidence the ID critics will accept for ID is observing the designer in action. In other words, they're looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock them into belief.

I, take my cue from history, where extraordinary theories have been supported by circumstantial evidence, gradually gathered through an open-ended investigation. What's so great about all of this is that I don't have to convince you. I don't need the consent of critics to proceed with thinking about things from a teleological perspective. In the end, there's only one judge to determine who is right: Nature, with the clues she gives us.