Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will continue to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence…

This assertion implies the laws of nature will continue to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence for no reason whatsoever! What reason do you offer?

2.Persons will always be regarded as free, responsible agents whose activity is not caused entirely by physical events and will never be scientifically explained in every respect.

This is philosophical statement about free will and a shot across the bows of materialism.

Irrelevant.

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

An assertion which implies that persons will always be regarded as free, responsible agents for no reason whatsoever! What reason do you offer?

3. The power of reason will always be more valuable, trustworthy and significant than purposeless processes.

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

An assertion which implies that the power of reason will always be more valuable, trustworthy and significant than purposeless processes for no reason whatsoever!
What reason do you offer?

4. Everyone except lunatics will continue to live as if life is objectively valuable, purposeful and meaningful - in stark contrast to the materialists’ endorsement of futility with their claim that life is objectively valueless, pointless and meaningless.

Another philosophical statement.

Irrelevant. Your statements are also philosophical statements. They are certainly not scientific!

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

It is directly related to Design because it gives a definite reason why everyone except lunatics will continue to live as if life is objectively valuable, purposeful and meaningful. What reason do you offer?

Let’s be clear about what we mean when we say a theory makes predictions. If it is a scientific theory, and ID makes such a claim, then it has to make scientific predictions. You can’t use the theory of relativity to make predictions about sociology for example.
But what Tony is doing is making philosophical predictions – statements in actuality, that have zero connection with ID from a scientific perspective.

Design is a philosophical theory which makes scientific predictions.** Science itself is based on philosophical principles such as the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.**

He is well known for coming out with one liners that have only a fleeting connection with the posts they purport to address.

An argumentum ad hominem which also makes a false allegation.

They’re just his philosophical position being repeated. The quotes above are a case in point.

These personal attacks statements merely highlight your to provide a rational basis for science in addition to your failure to give a rational basis for the predictions - the truth of which you have also failed to refute…

He could learn something from Buffalo, who has brought some valid predictions to the table that he suggests are scientific predictions based on what is argued to be a scientific theory (post 390). At least, valid in the sense that they actually relate to ID in a scientific and testable manner.

A false dilemma! The validity of scientific predictions does not invalidate the validity of philosophical predictions. There is no conflict between science and philosophy in a **rational **interpretation of reality but the reduction of reasoning to purposeless processes and the derivation of persons from impersonal particles justify any absurd conclusions whatsoever!

 

[tonyrey]

Predictions of ID

1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
5. The re-use of basic building blocks will be found - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
6. Sophisticated programming will be found -http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
7. More early complexity will be found - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg

irrefutable facts for those who are open-minded!

 

[tonyrey]

Wanstonian:

Is that what I said, or is it what you divine that I said? Go back and re-read.

All of these are steps that may, or may not, be taken after a rigorous dialectic and a rational conclusion. I point you to Walter Reed and his scientific conclusions concerning how yellow fever was spread.

What loop? Wanstonian, c’mon. When Walter Reed posited that it was mosquitoes that transmitted yellow fever, can you imagine how many experiments he had to perform on healthy volunteers to prove it? I got it: let’s infect a few hundred healthy subjects just so that we can say we followed some “scientific method!” Good grief, man!

Isn’t it about time for you to swim across?

Humour in addition to fact!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m well aware of what it says, and what it means. The effect is that government sponsorship of religion is unconstitional. Meaning that public school sponsorship or endorsement of religious activities is illegal.

That is not what it means. At all. That is a myth invented by the ACLU and it is steadily being refuted in courts across America now that someone (namely the ADF) is actually standing up to them. The whole concept of religious liberty is dependent upon the freedom of the people to bring those beliefs into the public sphere. Let me ask you: Do you think it’s fair to permit LGBT groups in schools but to ban Christian clubs? This is what’s happening in this country, and it’s completely hypocritical.

The First Amendment has never been interpreted in such a way until the 1940’s, and even then, it was so by the willful distortion of the ACLU whose founders have stated that their ultimate goal is to get rid of the Constitution.

I strongly recommend reading this book; perhaps you can find it at your local library: The ACLU vs. America. I understand you’re a nonbeliever and will go ahead and warn you that the authors do speak openly about their faith throughout the book, but the legal and historical documentation is solid and irrefutable. Do we really want an organization who has pushed for the legalization of child pornography to be the arbiter of our Constitution?

This is the institution that has given most Americans today (particularly secularists) their understanding of the First Amendment. Oddly enough, this institution is trying to do away with our national sovereignty and move us towards submitting to international law.

But anyway, are you familiar with the history of religious persecution in England? Namely, the system of penal laws that essentially made practicing a religion other than the Anglican faith a crime? That was what the First Amendment was aimed at preventing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_law

 

[Bradski]

Predictions of ID

1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

Behe claims that ID is correct because he says that he has found examples of irreducibly complex structures. You’ve just told us one of the definitions of ID. That’s not a prediction. That’s like me saying that I have a theory called Bondi Gold which I based on the fact that I found gold in my backyard. And it predicts…well, that you will find gold in my backyard.

A theory is meant to be more than the sum of its parts. It must tell us more than we already know.

Notwithstanding that Behe has discovered fool’s gold. What can seem irreplaceable may not have been so in the first instance. For example, it’s very difficult to build a stone arch without some initial support. When you finish the arch it is reducibly complex – that is, you can take any stone away without the arch collapsing – as long as the support remains.

If the support deteriorates and collapses after a time, then the arch remains but is then irreducibly complex. Behe turns up and says: that’s impossible to build.

This is a quote from H.J. Muller:
“… an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary.” Muller, H. J. (1939) “Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics.” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.

Note that that was written nearly 70 years ago and he wrote similar papers in 1918. Behe’s theory was shot down years before he was born.

1. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

That’s an argument against evolution and not for ID. ID (now) defines itself as holding that certain features of living things (and Behe works on the molecular level) are designed as opposed to being evolved. It says zero about the fossil record. If you find something in relation to ID that does, let me know.

1. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

So you’re saying that there are functional parts and genes common to unrelated organisms? Perhaps you could define unrelated because I think that’s one up for Darwin, seeing as everything alive today has a common ancestor.

1. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

Not ‘much’ dna? I think that you’re hedging your bets here because we don’t know enough about junk dna to say that it is indeed junk. But if there is junk dna then it’s not much of a design. Or would you say it proof of ID. Let’s face it, you could jump either way once the jury is in.

1. The re-use of basic building blocks will be found.

Another goal for Darwin. How else would life evolve unless it used the same basic building blocks? It it were designed, then everything could be made of anything. The fact that all life is made of the same ‘stuff’ is pretty much a convincing argument for common descent.

1. Sophisticated programming will be found.

If you mean complex, then no-ones going to argue with you. The cell is extraordinarily complex. We knew that before ID came on the scene and the complexity had already been explained.

1. More early complexity will be found.

Yet more complexity! And earlier as well…maybe you could expound on this. I’m not sure what ID has to do with it.

 

[Bradski]

Design is a philosophical theory which makes scientific predictions.

Tony, you are either not following the course of the thread or you are ignoring it.

It has been said that a scientific theory must make predictions. However you want to slice and dice ID, there’s one thing it is not and that is a philosophical theory. This from the Discovery Institute’s own web page:

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Now it has been said that ID does not make predictions and by that it should be obvious to all, seeing as ID is self defined as a scientific theory, that we mean scientific predictions.

Personally, I am not, in relation to the questions of predictions, interested in your philosophical phrase for the day. If you have any science that you would like to bring to the table, it would be welcome. Although I have a nasty feeling I’m going to get something along the lines of:

‘Science itself is based on philosophical principles such as the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe’.

 

[buffalo]

Behe claims that ID is correct because he says that he has found examples of irreducibly complex structures. You’ve just told us one of the definitions of ID. That’s not a prediction. That’s like me saying that I have a theory called Bondi Gold which I based on the fact that I found gold in my backyard. And it predicts…well, that you will find gold in my backyard.

A theory is meant to be more than the sum of its parts. It must tell us more than we already know.

Notwithstanding that Behe has discovered fool’s gold. What can seem irreplaceable may not have been so in the first instance. For example, it’s very difficult to build a stone arch without some initial support. When you finish the arch it is reducibly complex – that is, you can take any stone away without the arch collapsing – as long as the support remains.

If the support deteriorates and collapses after a time, then the arch remains but is then irreducibly complex. Behe turns up and says: that’s impossible to build.

This is a quote from H.J. Muller:
“… an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary.” Muller, H. J. (1939) “Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics.” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.

Note that that was written nearly 70 years ago and he wrote similar papers in 1918. Behe’s theory was shot down years before he was born.

That’s an argument against evolution and not for ID. ID (now) defines itself as holding that certain features of living things (and Behe works on the molecular level) are designed as opposed to being evolved. It says zero about the fossil record. If you find something in relation to ID that does, let me know.

So you’re saying that there are functional parts and genes common to unrelated organisms? Perhaps you could define unrelated because I think that’s one up for Darwin, seeing as everything alive today has a common ancestor.

Not ‘much’ dna? I think that you’re hedging your bets here because we don’t know enough about junk dna to say that it is indeed junk. But if there is junk dna then it’s not much of a design. Or would you say it proof of ID. Let’s face it, you could jump either way once the jury is in.

Another goal for Darwin. How else would life evolve unless it used the same basic building blocks? It it were designed, then everything could be made of anything. The fact that all life is made of the same ‘stuff’ is pretty much a convincing argument for common descent.

If you mean complex, then no-ones going to argue with you. The cell is extraordinarily complex. We knew that before ID came on the scene and the complexity had already been explained.

Yet more complexity! And earlier as well…maybe you could expound on this. I’m not sure what ID has to do with it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=730

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=729

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=728

Figure C: Even if sub-section “S” can have a function (i.e. stand) on its own outside of the arch, this does not imply that the arch as a whole is not irreducibly complex – capable of being built in a step-by-step manner. Thus, the appropriate test of irreducible complexity asks if the entire system can be built in a step-by-step manner using slight modifications only. It is important to note that the system does not become “reducibly complex” simply because one part remains functional outside of the final system.

Please show the evolutionary pathways to the ATP synthase motor that fuels life.

Convergent evolution show the many times the same features have “evolved”. A better explanation is they were designed in. The camera eye has evolved 7 times.

A few months ago evo’s stood on their belief that most of the genome was junk. I am sure you are up to date on the latest that at least 80% has function.

So how exactly does natural selection call upon these common building blocks? Randomly or by design?

Oh really - just 40 to 50 years ago the cell was thought to be a blob on a microscope slide and really pretty simple at that. Then we started to learn the machinery in the cell is like a huge city with all kinds of machines doing all kinds of work called upon when needed. Again, show me the evo pathways to get there. Think you have enough time for random mutations and natural selection?. Me thinks you have chosen the wrong horse to ride. You really have to be quite faithful to hold onto that kind of belief. But of course your faith in the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) is a religion.

And yes what I listed are predictions and research will strengthen them every day.

Natural selection is a conservative process and random mutations are fought against. Evo now needs trillions of years. :bigyikes:

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, you are either not following the course of the thread or you are ignoring it.

The boot is demonstrably on the other foot - with ten points you have ignored:

Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will continue to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence…

                            It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.                                 This assertion implies the laws of nature will continue to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence **for no reason whatsoever**! What reason do you offer?

No response

2.Persons will always be regarded as free, responsible agents whose activity is not caused entirely by physical events and will never be scientifically explained in every respect.

This is philosophical statement about free will and a shot across the bows of materialism. Irrelevant.

No response.

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

An assertion which implies that persons will always be regarded as free, responsible agents for no reason whatsoever! What reason do you offer?

No response

1. The power of reason will always be more valuable, trustworthy and significant than purposeless processes.

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID. An assertion which implies that the power of reason will always be more valuable, trustworthy and significant than purposeless processes for no reason whatsoever!
What reason do you offer?

No response

4. Everyone except lunatics will continue to live as if life is objectively valuable, purposeful and meaningful - in stark contrast to the materialists’ endorsement of futility with their claim that life is objectively valueless, pointless and meaningless.

Another philosophical statement. Irrelevant. Your statements are also philosophical statements. They are certainly not scientific!

No response

It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

It is directly related to Design because it gives a definite reason why everyone except lunatics will continue to live as if life is objectively valuable, purposeful and meaningful. What reason do you offer?

No response

Let’s be clear about what we mean when we say a theory makes predictions. If it is a scientific theory, and ID makes such a claim, then it has to make scientific predictions. You can’t use the theory of relativity to make predictions about sociology for example.
But what Tony is doing is making philosophical predictions – statements in actuality, that have zero connection with ID from a scientific perspective.

Design is a philosophical theory which makes scientific predictions.** Science itself is based on philosophical principles such as the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.**

No response

He is well known for coming out with one liners that have only a fleeting connection with the posts they purport to address.

An argumentum ad hominem which also makes a false allegation.

No response

They’re just his philosophical position being repeated. The quotes above are a case in point.

These personal attacks merely highlight your to provide a rational basis for science in addition to your failure to give a rational basis for the predictions - the truth of which you have also failed to refute…

No response

He could learn something from Buffalo, who has brought some valid predictions to the table that he suggests are scientific predictions based on what is argued to be a scientific theory (post 390). At least, valid in the sense that they actually relate to ID in a scientific and testable manner.

A false dilemma! The validity of scientific predictions does not invalidate the validity of philosophical predictions. There is no conflict between science and philosophy in a **rational **interpretation of reality but the reduction of reasoning to purposeless processes and the derivation of persons from impersonal particles justify any absurd conclusions whatsoever!

No response

It has been said that a scientific theory must make predictions. However you want to slice and dice ID, there’s one thing it is not and that is a philosophical theory. This from the Discovery Institute’s own web page:

You are constantly falling into the trap of equating Design with ID:

Design - **a philosophical explanation of reality **-
is reinforced by
**ID **- a scientific explanation of certain aspects of physical reality.

The fact remains:

**Science is based on philosophical principles such as the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. **

Do you accept or reject this fact? If you reject it what is your reason for doing so?

 

[pig]

Then you’d say that if they were designed, it wasn’t very good effort.

No. A good design is one that is efficient, economical, and above all, works. The whale skeleton fits all three of my requirements well.

And guess what you’ve just described. For ‘designer’, substitute ‘natural environment’ and you’re on to a winner. Just can the term ‘rapidly’.

…

You can can. How long did it take the whale to loose its hind legs?

 

[Bradski]

You are constantly falling into the trap of equating Design with ID

Thanks for pointing that out, Tony. I’ll try to stay focused.

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

These personal attacks merely highlight your failure to provide a rational basis for science in addition to your failure to give a rational basis for the predictions - the truth of which you have also failed to refute…

No response

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for pointing that out, Tony. I’ll try to stay focused.

It’s easy to overlook. Many people fail to recognise the difference, Brad.

 

[tonyrey]

The choice between Design and non-Design is absolute with regard to the **ultimate **explanation of reality. The universe is intended to exist or it isn’t. It has a rational origin or it hasn’t. The two explanations are mutually exclusive and exclusive of all other explanations. There are no half-measures in questions of fact.

But it doesn’t follow that everything in a designed universe is purposeful. In a vast, immensely complex system with countless events occurring at every second there are bound to be purposeless events and situations. Within the framework of order there is an element of disorder. This is not a defect but an inevitable effect of richness and abundance.

Absolute perfection is an unattainable myth in a physical universe. Every advantage has a corresponding advantage. Yet in a designed system there is a limit to the degree of imperfection. If disorder prevailed Design would be a myth. If most events were negative and destructive the universe would be unintended, a brute fact without rhyme or reason.

Design is detected by the success of the system and the quality of its results. By any standards there has been an incredible amount of progress in the universe since the Big Bang. The development from particles to persons is an outstanding achievement no imaginary observer could have predicted. To deny there has been progress is unrealistic.

The immense value of existence alone is a sufficient reason for believing it is not an accident. When existence is also rational the case for Design is conclusive. In an undesigned universe there would be no reasons for anything because reasoning would be an illusion…

 

[tonyrey]

The choice between Design and non-Design is absolute with regard to the **ultimate **explanation of reality. The universe is intended to exist or it isn’t. It has a rational origin or it hasn’t. The two explanations are mutually exclusive and exclusive of all other explanations. There are no half-measures in questions of fact.

I describe non-Design as "an explanation"because it implies the universe is purposeless - which is not self-evident. That belief is based on the unverifiable assumption that rational activity is a product of non-rational events rather than a fundamental reality.

 

[ReapReason]

Within the framework of order there is an element of disorder. This is not a defect but an inevitable effect of richness and abundance.

Its an inevitable fact of natural physical development, regardless of the question of whether or not there is an ultimate purpose to it. Natural evolution and purpose are not mutually exclusive terms. Whereas your arguments tends to suggest there is an exclusivity between those ideas, which is the very same thing that Atheists argue in their defence.

I really don’t understand the point of attempting to debunk natural evolution in favour of design; since the attempt would imply that you agree with the premise that if natural evolution is true then teleological purpose does not exist; which is a false conclusion. Can you not see how you are helping the neo-atheists to succeed in parading this false idea.

It does not help people to believe in God by promoting a conflict between natural evolution and design; but rather it pushes people away from the faith since they would sooner trust scientists and science as an investigative method before ever considering ID as an alternative to natural evolution. Therefore where it matters you will always find yourself on the losing team in terms of convincing anyone that Natural evolution theory is some how flawed rather than just incomplete pending scientific advancement.

 

[JDaniel]

OK, let’s look at them…

This is a Mom and Apple Pie statement. Who is going to argue with it? It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

Bradski:

So? What’s wrong with mom and apple pie? All things are, if we’re privy to sufficient precursor information, predictable. All things. Actually, you should be telling the pro-ID’er what things are unpredictable. But even then, providing there is some semblance of reasonable logicality to the claim, even the unpredictable is predictable.

Another philosophical statement. It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

Why not?

Let’s be clear about what we mean when we say a theory makes predictions. If it is a scientific theory, and ID makes such a claim, then it has to make scientific predictions.

Good idea! When we say that that a “theory makes predictions,” we actually mean that a theory makes selectable predictions. In other words, the scientist can select the predictable outcome, based upon a proper and diligent and systematic dialectical inquiry.

You can’t use the theory of relativity to make predictions about sociology for example.

The point is, without some measure of design built in, you wouldn’t know that.

But what Tony is doing is making philosophical predictions – statements in actuality, that have zero connection with ID from a scientific perspective.

Ah. There’s the rub! “Scientific perspective!” I wonder how early man made it all the way through to the Enlightenment?

He is well known for coming out with one liners that have only a fleeting connection with the posts they purport to address.

Actually, re-read the post he is addressing, then, re-read Tony’s response. They are, as he likes to say, “irrefutable!” Tony is always inviting refutation. If you see Tony introduce a Red Herring, by all means, point it out and we can discuss it.

He could learn something from Buffalo, who has brought some valid predictions to the table that he suggests are scientific predictions based on what is argued to be a scientific theory (post 390). At least, valid in the sense that they actually relate to ID in a scientific and testable manner.

Not to denigrate from anything Buffalo has stated, my question is, "Why must everything of ‘truth value’ align with your definition of (rigorous) science?

I don’t think he’s correct and if I’ve time later I’ll address that post, but he at least knows what we’re looking for.

By all means, do.

God bless,
jd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by pig
…you’ll see fingers, - finger bones on the whales flipper/arm. Whales have flippers and do not need fingers.

Then you’d say that if they were designed, it wasn’t very good effort.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t your conclusion of bad design here assume that the “finger bones” left behind in the whale are in fact useless, when perhaps they might be designed to be useful for further evolution of the whale into some other creature later on?

That might be the problem with entering into the middle of the story and making blanket statements about the utility of facts found there without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.

 

[buffalo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t your conclusion of bad design here assume that the “finger bones” left behind in the whale are in fact useless, when perhaps they might be designed to be useful for further evolution of the whale into some other creature later on?

That might be the problem with entering into the middle of the story and making blanket statements about the utility of facts found there without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.

Without knowledge of the designers intent one cannot determine if it is bad or good.

 

[pig]

Without knowledge of the designers intent one cannot determine if it is bad or good.

The fingers might let the whale 1. support the ‘flipper’ when moving it through the water.
2. might allow fine-tuning the shape of the flipper for delicate changes or maneuvers.

 

[tonyrey]

Its an inevitable fact of natural physical development, regardless of the question of whether or not there is an ultimate purpose to it. Natural evolution and purpose are not mutually exclusive terms. Whereas your arguments tends to suggest there is an exclusivity between those ideas, which is the very same thing that Atheists argue in their defence.

I really don’t understand the point of attempting to debunk natural evolution in favour of design; since the attempt would imply that you agree with the premise that if natural evolution is true then teleological purpose does not exist; which is a false conclusion. Can you not see how you are helping the neo-atheists to succeed in parading this false idea.

It does not help people to believe in God by promoting a conflict between natural evolution and design; but rather it pushes people away from the faith since they would sooner trust scientists and science as an investigative method before ever considering ID as an alternative to natural evolution. Therefore where it matters you will always find yourself on the losing team in terms of convincing anyone that Natural evolution theory is some how flawed rather than just incomplete pending scientific advancement.

I haven’t stated or implied that natural evolution and purpose are mutually exclusive! They are mutually exclusive only if evolution is regarded as explicable **entirely **in terms of natural causes.