Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

drtomaso wrote:

Literal machines have literal designers, and there is simply no evidence or testability behind that notion. All you have shown here are metaphors to machines.

So its wrong to consider something that looks and functions like a machine to be a literal machine if we don't know who designed it?

 

[jem]

Quote from kjkent1:

A verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the original cause of living organisms on Earth is an intelligent designer.

So, I'll ask again -- is there any verifiable evidence to support intelligent design?

I believe your testing is backwards. You should have a verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the original cause of living organisms on the Earth is not intelligent Design.

In my opinion - that would be the correct way to set up the test. Where is James to lecture us on the null hypothesis.

Until you can prove the hypothesis set up by me you must grant that there is a chance of design.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

gawsh jem, I certainly do seem to rattle your cage. What are you so interminably angry about?

The thing about The Scientific Method which persistently evades you is , it doesn't matter what high priests of science assert, it's what they prove scientifically which actually counts.

You may not have noticed , things are completely opposite in your world. Where priests lead you by the nose through only assertion and superstition, under fear of an irrational threat of eternal proportions. And that is then what you say understanding should be based upon.

I do see how you would get so frustrated when religious assertion was all you could achieve from the posing of these questions. But I think you are very foolish to then take it out on science and scientists by trying to distort or demean them or what they say, to fit with your religious beliefs the way you do , just because they can prove stuff.

And for some (perverse) reason, you still think multiverses will allow a gap for God to sit in.
In any case there are still as many scientists whose views do not coincide with those multiverses you have latched onto, as there are whose do. It's what becomes the most scientifically validated that will make a difference.

Once again Stu misleads.

You say there is no evidence of design. I provide you with quotes from a Stanford chair - one of the founders of string theory - who says if there are not trillions of parallel universes then the universe looks spectacularly designed.

You try and turn science into a priest thing. Your beliefs have no merit on this subject - nor do mine. This is not a priest thing. It is a scientific debate. If you are going to say that there is no evidence of design - on what basis are you making that argument. duh. Science.

I provided you with arguably some of the most qualified people to comment on the subject. You seem to prefer to remain ignorant of science in order to stick with your belief. You are welcome to do so but stop trying to claim your belief is scientific. You can no longer say science says.... no design.

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from Teleologist:



So its wrong to consider something that looks and functions like a machine to be a literal machine if we don't know who designed it?

Absolutely. Its not just that we dont know who designed it- we cannot even show that it is, in fact, designed at all.

I was slightly imprecise when I called this a "weak analogy" - its actually even worse: a "question-begging weak analogy". I would state that since all literal machines by definition have designers, you would have to prove conclusively that this molecular machine has a designer in order to call it a literal machine.

But we can go even further. As Stu correctly noted, theres some big differences between "molecular machines" and literal machines- namely they are chemical, not mechanical. I am sure a molecular biologist or chemist could come up with a few more. As a lowly computer scientist, I will have to defer to them.

Now, while this by itself certainly doesnt rule out design, it does show that this is not a valid argument for demonstrating design.

The design inference, as espoused by several ID proponents in several different ways, always reduces to a logical falacy of "weak analogy", or for Monty Python fans, the "duck-wood-witch" argument.

 

[Turok]

>I believe your testing is backwards. You should have
>a verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the
>original cause of living organisms on the Earth is not
>intelligent Design.

Yes Stu, along with a test to disprove that the original cause is NOT Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot nor my Aunt Elma.

Looks like you're gonna be busy, since clearly it's YOUR job to disprove rather than the other way around.

Stu, sometimes you just blow me away with inability to realize how things really should be -- thank goodness for Jem.

JB

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from jem:

I believe your testing is backwards. You should have a verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the original cause of living organisms on the Earth is not intelligent Design.

In my opinion - that would be the correct way to set up the test. Where is James to lecture us on the null hypothesis.

Until you can prove the hypothesis set up by me you must grant that there is a chance of design.

This is exactly why Intelligent design is not scientific and is purely theistic. No such test exists.

Of course there is a chance for design- no one denies it. We simply point out that no scientific, or I would argue, even logical argument can be made about it.

If the sole test is that the theory that cannot be disproven wins, then Evolution/Abiogenesis also wins, as does Pastafarian Creation, Iroqois Giant Turtleism, Christian Genesis Creationism, etc. If you allow arguments of logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, in this case), anything can be argued true.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from drtomaso:

This is exactly why Intelligent design is not scientific and is purely theistic. No such test exists.

Of course there is a chance for design- no one denies it. We simply point out that no scientific, or I would argue, even logical argument can be made about it.

If the sole test is that the theory that cannot be disproven wins, then Evolution/Abiogenesis also wins, as does Pastafarian Creation, Iroqois Giant Turtleism, Christian Genesis Creationism, etc. If you allow arguments of logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, in this case), anything can be argued true.

Yes, but the following is generally ignored by evolutionists: evolution can be reasonably proven through much of the spectrum of life. However, it cannot be proven across all spectra. So the assumption is made that since evolution can be proven on 10% or 50% (or whatever # you pick) of life's branches that evolution therefore is responsible for explaining all life.

Why could evolution not be responsible for 80% of life as we know it? It certainly is a possibility given the vast amount of supernatural phenomenon that we see on planet earth, i.e. there is no solid reason to discount this possibility.

And where I'm headed is that "100% Evolution and Evolution Only" can therefore only be supported by Logical Fallacy as well.

 

[jem]

First turok -

Whose says you should have the benefit of the burden of Proof. The person who say this universe came about by some Random process?

We all know science has no idea how the universe came into being. So a creator is as reasonable as any other theory.

Now with respect to Dr. Tomaso's science argument.

If top physicists were to say the universe appears designed would you still make the statements you just made.

Would you consider noble prize winners credible. How about people who hold chairs in the physics department at Stanford.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Turok:

>I believe your testing is backwards. You should have
>a verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the
>original cause of living organisms on the Earth is not
>intelligent Design.

Yes Stu, along with a test to disprove that the original cause is NOT Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot nor my Aunt Elma.

Looks like you're gonna be busy, since clearly it's YOUR job to disprove rather than the other way around.

Stu, sometimes you just blow me away with inability to realize how things really should be -- thank goodness for Jem.

JB

You just can't resist, can you?

The basis of your argument is, I believe, the following:

1. There is no evidence for the supernatural on planet earth.
2. Therefore, any arguments for supernatural intervention on planet earth are in the realm of fantasy, i.e. the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot, etc.

Now imagine just for a minute that the earth was actually filled with spiritual appearances and supernatural incidents and there was actually solid evidences for the same.

In that case #1 is eliminated, of course, and #2 becomes shaky at best.

Yes, we could argue of course. But if there really is a lot of supernatural activity on planet earth, then it really isn't that unreasonable to assume that there may have been supernatural intervention at various points in earth's history, eh?

I mean, why not? And where I was headed is that in that case the burden of proof is about 50/50 imo. In that case you can't so easily dismiss things...

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Why could evolution not be responsible for 80% of life as we know it? It certainly is a possibly given the vast amount of supernatural phenomenon that we see on planet earth, i.e. there is no solid reason to discount this possibility.

And where I'm headed is that "100% Evolution and Evolution Only" can only be supported by Logical Fallacy as well.

First of all, I repeat: there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." The proper term is "biologist" or more colloquially, "scientist."

Second, there are no observed supernatural phenomenon. None. Only observations of natural phenomenon whose natural causes are not immediately apparent to science. Further, positing that an observed event is "supernatural" automatically implies that it is non-scientific, cannot be studied, reproduced, etc, and we are automatically discussing something that cannot ever be scientific.

Lastly, if we were making a purely logical argument for evolution, you would be correct. Luckily for evolut^h^h^h^h^h^hbiologists, we get to make a scientific argument, and we need not show that 100% of all species were "evolved"- only that the mechanism covers all of the major trunks-o-the-tree and that research methods exist to cover all the rest. ie: if you take a biologist, and pick any animal, there is a scientific process by which its evolution can be traced. It may not have been tested yet, but no one is seriously worried that the 3-toed tree salamander may not fit evolutionary theory.

Further still, no one espouses "100% Evolution and Evolution only"- evolution as a scientific theory has a 150+ year development history during which it has gone under significant scrutiny (it is after all, not a very popular theory, except among scientists), had several major additions (Genetics, molecular biology, etc) all of which have proven complimentary. Science has this nifty feedback mechanism- theories are constantly questioned and challenged, and as such made stronger or abandoned for better theories. Evolution has been tested, retested, challenged, etc, for 150+ years and passed every single test.

ID can never be such as it simply isnt a theory. It explains nothing because it explains everything, sans the need for any research, experimentation, observation or logic.

Do not delude yourself- evolution as a scientific theory is not in jeopardy (its only in jeopardy in the US- the rest of the world will happily continue progressing without us if we continue to abandon the natural, materialistic scientific method).

ID and other Creationisms have no appeal to science- they are unfalsifiable. They must resort to logos and inconsequential attacks on evolution itself. Unfortunately, that doesnt work too well either, and their logical arguments all reduce to fallacy. I have yet to hear an argument for ID that wasnt a blatant fallacy.

If you have a true ID theory, please share it with the world. but we warned: it also has a 150+ year track record- one of failure.