Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ddunbar]

Quote from kjkent1:

Ultimately, everything is subjective, because observation depends upon the objective accuracy of the observer's measuring instruments. However, if you fall back on everything "boils down" to this, then you may as well pack up your equipment and go to church, because there's no longer any point in doing science.

Why jump to this conclusion? Scientist openly admit that everything is subjective and nothing is known with 100% certainty, yet science prevails. There's nothing particularly wrong with subjectivity. Deny it is where a problem would present itself.

If a dead body has a gun lying next to it with one cartridge expended and the slug in the brain of the corpse, with ballistic marks matching the barrel of the gun, is it subjective or objective that the victim was killed by that gun?

There comes a moment when the coincidence of many subjective circumstantial facts lead to an inescapable result. Is there always some minutia that permits an alternative conclusion? Yes.

In the case above, a barrel of a second gun could have been etched in advance to produce the ballistic pattern identical to the first gun.

Occam's razor cuts against this sort of analysis. I prefer to accept the answers which flow from the evidence, and not the answers which might be true, but which have little evidence in support of them.

But if you believed that the person didn't commit suicide because you believe you knew that person and you stood to gain the proceeds of a life insurance policy which will not pay in cases of a suicide, I bet you'd hopr the investigators didn't rest their laurels on Occam's razor. See?

So if you want to conclude that the fossil evidence of evolution is too weak to be anything more than speculation, that's your prerogative. But, most reasonable scientists will disagree with you.

Again, another leap. I didn't say it was weak. Nor did I imply it. I simply stated a fact. It's subjective. Scientist know this and that's why they continue to review the evidence, review each others findings and conclusions(peer review), and debate, at times hotly, certain thoughts on the subject. That's why they use the phrase "considered to be" when discussing most aspects of evolution.

BTW, all science is ultimately speculative. But that is the beauty of science. It wouldn't be scienctific if it was otherwise.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:

Actually, the history of paleoanthropology started with the idea that there were observed similarities between great apes and humans. That observation started the inquiry into whether or not there was any viability in the idea. Think about Huxley. There were no fossils found yet. Or at least not understood at the time what the relation of the fossil found (neanderthal) with human evolution was. There was scant and highly contested evidence of evolution as far as humans were concerned.

It's not that evidence was found first which started a hypothesis. It was the other way around. That's why to dismiss ID out of hand is unscientific. There appears to be an unchanging order to the universe. How that came about or why it exists in this particular order is truly unknown. What literally started the theorethical process of abiogenesis is not completely known, nor has it actually been observed other than the creation of macro molecules in a controlled lab environment. Perhaps, that too is "evidence" for an ID. We know so little in the grand scope of things. But nothing we know or yet have found precludes the possibility of an ID. Only the ability to perhaps detect one is out of our grasp at the moment.

I'm not dismissing ID out of hand. I'm simply suggesting that the ID advocate produce some evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed.

If you go into court, you have an affirmative duty to prove the case. You can't go in and say that because there is no evidence to deny your allegation, other than the denial of your opponent, that therefore you should be granted judgment. You have to produce some affirmative evidence to support your allegation(s).

Negating your opponent's evidence is a defensive tactic. It can never lead to a win. ID supporters can chip away at evolution until nothing is left except the bare claim that evolution is true, and ID will still not be proven true as a consequence. All that will have occurred is that evolution will have been discredited sufficient to render it non-science. But, ID will not suddenly be rendered scientific. For that, you need some affirmative proof.

Do you have some affirmative proof of ID? If so, what is it?

 

[Teleologist]

Teleologist wrote:

The only one's that are going to investigate the possibility that life is designed are those that think life looks designed.

kjkent1 replied:

Your first paragraph is false, because if a scientist were to accidently stumble upon a physical message obviously intended for an extrinsic audience etched into biological organisms, then that would lead to a search for design, even though no one was previously looking for design.

This supports my contention that the only one's that are going to investigate the possibility that life is designed are those that think life looks designed. If scientists discovered a message etched into biological organisms, that would cause them to suspect design. Based on that suspicion they would then begin an investigation into design. How this is suppose to rebut what I said escapes me.

Teleologist wrote:

Do you know what evidence supporting the design of life would look like? If not, then your conclusion that life is not designed is baseless.

kjkent1 replied:

Your second paragraph attempts to force a conclusion which is not supported by the evidence.

What are you talking about? You claim there is no evidence of design. I'm simply asking how you know this if you have no idea what evidence of design would look like? Evidence of design could be right in front of your face and you wouldn't recognize it.

kjkent1wrote:

So, just find a modern, unique species with no fossil trail...

ID doesn't dispute common ancestry.

kjkent1wrote:

.. or find a creature whose parts are actually "irreducibly complex," and you'll have your evidence of design.

But what about your "who designed the designer" argument? I thought this was suppose to trump any evidence of design. Have you changed your mind?

kjkent1wrote:

You're making your proof unreasonably difficult to come by. Stop inferring design, actually do the science, and produce the results for peer review -- your Nobel Prize awaits.

You keep confusing inference with proof. I never claimed I could prove design. From my perspective design is always inferred, it's never a direct intuition. You seemed to have grasped this for a moment when you said above that scientists would suspect design if they found a message etched into a biological organism. Based on nothing more than a suspicion they would then launch an investigation into design. The only difference between your senario and what design theorists are doing right now is that design theorists don't need something as spectacular as a message written in an organism to trigger a suspicion of design.

Something as spectacular as a message written in an organism, is in my opinion, closer to proof of design than merely something capable of triggering a suspicion of design.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:

Why jump to this conclusion? Scientist openly admit that everything is subjective and nothing is known with 100% certainty, yet science prevails. There's nothing particularly wrong with subjectivity. Deny it is where a problem would present itself.

But if you believed that the person didn't commit suicide because you believe you knew that person and you stood to gain the proceeds of a life insurance policy which will not pay in cases of a suicide, I bet you'd hopr the investigators didn't rest their laurels on Occam's razor. See?

Again, another leap. I didn't say it was weak. Nor did I imply it. I simply stated a fact. It's subjective. Scientist know this and that's why they continue to review the evidence, review each others findings and conclusions(peer review), and debate, at times hotly, certain thoughts on the subject. That's why they use the phrase "considered to be" when discussing most aspects of evolution.

BTW, all science is ultimately speculative. But that is the beauty of science. It wouldn't be scienctific if it was otherwise.

Re subjectivity: I didn't say that subjectivity was wrong. I said that subjectivity is inescapable, but that eventually enough subjective facts may make for a pretty inescapable objective conclusion, and at the moment, those facts point to evolution and not ID.

Re the investigation example: What I might hope from the investigators is irrelevant. If I see a benefit to further investigation which outweighs the risk of leaving the matter entirely within the hands of others, then I would investigate so as to obtain the advantage. And, that's exactly the problem. The ID advocate doesn't investigate further. Instead, the ID advocate is content to sit back and complain about the lack of investigation conducted by evolution advocates.

Nothing is preventing evidence of ID from being produced, except for its apparent non-existence. I am not discounting the possibility that some evolution advocates might be so fixated on their own beliefs, that they might not sabotage or misrepresent results in order to prop up their own position (and in fact, I know of an example where this has occurred on the net, even in the face of a peer group published paper which refutes a previously believed correct scientific study re evolution of considerable importance).

Nevertheless, if sufficiently compelling evidence of design were available, some credible scientists would speak out.

The evidence heavily favors evolution, and there is no credible evidence of design, except from those who take it as self evident that the universe is designed, and therefore, that every conclusion drawn from results must be that design is true and evolution is false.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from kjkent1:

I'm not dismissing ID out of hand. I'm simply suggesting that the ID advocate produce some evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed.

If you go into court, you have an affirmative duty to prove the case. You can't go in and say that because there is no evidence to deny your allegation, other than the denial of your opponent, that therefore you should be granted judgment. You have to produce some affirmative evidence to support your allegation(s).

Negating your opponent's evidence is a defensive tactic. It can never lead to a win. ID supporters can chip away at evolution until nothing is left except the bare claim that evolution is true, and ID will still not be proven true as a consequence. All that will have occurred is that evolution will have been discredited sufficient to render it non-science. But, ID will not suddenly be rendered scientific. For that, you need some affirmative proof.

Agreed.

Do you have some affirmative proof of ID? If so, what is it? [/B]

Not yet. ID is in the early stages. It's partly a rethink of creation stories, a rethink of abiogenesis, and perhaps a rethink of what guided evolution. But it doesn't deny evolution. At least not as far as I understand it. I see ID as no less viable than say, the theory of multiverse. Or the concept behind abiogenesis. Macro molecules of the building blocks of life aren't life itself. So the experiments that had the right conditions inorder for these macromolecule compounds to form only proved that macro molecules will form under certain conditions. Nothing more, but also nothing less. But that's true for many compounds.

You know, the flipside of this would be to ask evolutionists for proof that life came non-life. There is none yet. It just seems "natural." But that doesn't stop abiogenesis from being attached to evolution (which has nothing to do with abiogenesis or cosmology for that matter given that evolution only deals with the change in species over time) in classrooms or in the thoughts of many scientists. They merely accept it because it seems more rational and/or accords with their present worldview.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:You keep confusing inference with proof. I never claimed I could prove design. From my perspective design is always inferred, it's never a direct intuition.

Inference: to draw a conclusion from a predicate fact.

Proof: Evidence which tends to make a material fact more or less probable.

I have steadfastly advocated testing predicate facts rather than drawing conclusions. However, there are cases when many facts exist and all inferences drawn from those facts lead to the same conclusion, that a particular conclusion becomes more than mere inference -- it tends to become statistically more or less probable.

So, I am not confusing either inference or proof. Given enough facts and circumstances leading to the same place, the inference becomes proof.

Your above-stated position is that you never claimed to be able to prove design and that design is always inferred. But, as I've just shown, sufficient inferences leading to the same place can become statistical proof.

So, where are all of your inferences leading to the same place?

The theist will fall back on the position that everything is designed, because God exists. This means that all inferences must lead to the same place and that place is God.

However, if you are a scientist, then you must ignore God as the answer, and this means that you cannot rely on the a-priori conclusion that evidence may be inferred as designed.

So, now you need proof of how all the various inferences which you choose to draw all lead to the same conclusion: design.

OK, has anyone laid out all of the inferences and shown how they all must reasonably lead to the single design inference? Or is it just the opposite: ID advocates that design is self evident, therefore all inferences lead to design.

If it's the former, then I've yet to see anyone produce a credible analysis. And, if it's the latter, then that is just another name for theism: God is the answer.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:



You know, the flipside of this would be to ask evolutionists for proof that life came non-life. There is none yet. It just seems "natural." But that doesn't stop abiogenesis from being attached to evolution (which has nothing to do with abiogenesis or cosmology for that matter given that evolution only deals with the change in species over time) in classrooms or in the thoughts of many scientists. They merely accept it because it seems more rational and/or accords with their present worldview. [/B]

Agreed.

I think that the reason why the scientist tend to favor the "natural" answer is simply because the alternative is a supernatural answer. Some may argue that God is a natural actor, because God is in everything. But, if that's true for scientific purposes, then God must be scientifically measurable in everything, and since God is not scientifically measurable in anything, therefore God must be supernatural.

I doubt that it will be more than a decade more before we are able to produce a living organism from non-organic chemicals. However, this will not end the debate, because the design advocate will simply declare that we have proven that a designer was necessary.

Thus, I doubt that any experiment, no matter how compelling will ever be sufficient to demonstrate that life arose by purely natural processes, because ultimately, every experiment we conduct is the product of human design.

The scientist would be satisfied -- but not the theist.

 

[Teleologist]

kjkent1 wrote:

But, as I've just shown, sufficient inferences leading to the same place can become statistical proof.

And you think you have this for a non-teleological origin of life?

 

[Teleologist]

kjkent1 wrote:

I'm not dismissing ID out of hand. I'm simply suggesting that the ID advocate produce some evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed.

There is evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed, but I haven't been able to get into this due to all the red herrings you keep bringing into this debate. For example, why should I bother to present evidence of design if in the end you are going to dismiss it all with your "who designed the designer" nonsense? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants me to prove evolution impossible or wants me to show them the designer in action? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants extraordinary evidence that'll shock them into belief?

The case presented for a non-teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case. Likewise, the case presented for a teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case. I don't want to waste my time presenting an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case to someone that will only accept extraordinary evidence or to someone that has a philosophical need to see no design in nature.

Investigating ID involves being sensitive to subtle clues. So why don't you tell me what subtle clues would cause you to merely suspect ID? If you are looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock you into belief, I don't have it.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

kjkent1 wrote:


There is evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed, but I haven't been able to get into this due to all the red herrings you keep bringing into this debate. For example, why should I bother to present evidence of design if in the end you are going to dismiss it all with your "who designed the designer" nonsense? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants me to prove evolution impossible or wants me to show them the designer in action? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants extraordinary evidence that'll shock them into belief?

The case presented for a non-teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case. Likewise, the case presented for a teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case. I don't want to waste my time presenting an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case to someone that will only accept extraordinary evidence or to someone that has a philosophical need to see no design in nature.

Investigating ID involves being sensitive to subtle clues. So why don't you tell me what subtle clues would cause you to merely suspect ID? If you are looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock you into belief, I don't have it.

I'm completely open to your proof, if it is based on some verifiable test (including a statistical test inferring a certain conclusion).

However, if your proof is not based on any verifiable test, then it's not scientific, so it's not proof.

So, what proof do you have?