Intelligent Design

[Peter_Plato]

Your particular preference is irrelevant, but the question is central to the whole discussion. You are saying that we should look at the evidence, but the evidence is inadmissible.

I guess that is the difference between us, then, Bradski.

I am interested in the truth of the matter, untainted by human preferences or presumptions. You seem to have a distinct bias against uncovering the complete truth by making one possibility inadmissible by a sheer act of will or point of technicality on your behalf.

I see no reason why evidence need be inadmissible if the complete truth of the matter is behind that evidence.

You are interested in the complete truth, are you not, Bradski?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Although God is an intelligent designer the title diminishes Him. He is our loving creator.

The embedding code in the above post (#773) is messed up and ascribes a claim to me what I did not write.

No need to feel bad about that, just making it clear that…

Actually intelligent designer is a better term that God, because God has far to many meanings, that change completely, with the religion.

… are not my thoughts.

 

[Bradski]

I am interested in the truth of the matter, untainted by human preferences or presumptions.

I honestly don’t know how you can type those words…

Science ignores the supernatural because it is (and this may not come as too much of a surprise to most people) super natural. But ID already presumes God so you are laying down ground rules which the leading proponents of what you suggest completely and utterly ignore.

The fact that you know this beyond any doubt whatsoever but will not admit it does you no credit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ID already presumes God …

ID presumes the possibility of God. Big difference.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science ignores the supernatural because it is (and this may not come as too much of a surprise to most people) super natural. But ID already presumes God so you are laying down ground rules which the leading proponents of what you suggest completely and utterly ignore.

Utterly ignoring God is what you do. As Peter has asked before, why is it that science must exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer unless it has already excluded the possibility of God?

And how is excluding the possibility of God a scientific principle?

Science can ignore philosophy, but by whose authority does it get to annihilate philosophy?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Science ignores the supernatural because it is (and this may not come as too much of a surprise to most people) super natural.

And, of course, the “supernatural” is defined as that which science ignores.

Very convenient, all around, especially for the naturalists who get to determine what it is that science actually does ignore because they get to define what science ignores.

And, then, there are the really clever ones who define the universe as “everything that exists” and from there define out of existence everything that cannot be detected as part of the observed universe because it doesn’t meet their criteria for existence: that which science does not ignore.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And, of course, the “supernatural” is defined as that which science ignores.

Very convenient, all around, especially for the naturalists who get to determine what it is that science actually does ignore because they get to define what science ignores.

No, we have had this discussion before, Peter. The methodological naturalism of science (the search for natural causes of natural effects) was developed by believers who wanted to find out the laws of nature that God had given (the term laws of nature is of theistic origin, implying a lawgiver). Science without methodological naturalism is impossible. If you want me to go home tomorrow from my job and want to destroy my career and livelihood as a scientist, then please keep insisting that science should look at “at a wider scope of options” of investigation. Thank you, thank you so much.

You really have no clue how science works, how science by definition must work (as defined by its earliest practioners who were all believers), because you have never ever spent a day of your life in the lab. I really don’t need your arm chair philosophizing on this issue. As I have said before, you have so many great things to say on so many topics, but please, we don’t need your '‘expertise’ on this one. You thnk I am angry? You bet I am.

For the umpteeth time, how science defines itself has nothing to do with naturalism (metaphysical naturalism, that is).

And, then, there are the really clever ones who define the universe as “everything that exists” and from there define out of existence everything that cannot be detected as part of the observed universe because it doesn’t meet their criteria for existence: that which science does not ignore.

That’s an entirely different issue. Not one of justified methodology, as described above, but of stupidity of blinders with which the world to see.

 

[rossum]

So evo theory is unfalsifiable?

It is both modifiable and falsifiable. It was modified when Mendelian genetics was incorporated in the early 20th century, and modified again when Kimura’s neutral theory was incorporated in the 1970s.

It is falsifiable, as Darwin said:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.

The first of these was used by Professor Behe to try to falsify evolution with the concept of IC. Behe triggered much useful work and succeeded in modifying evolutionary theory for the better. It now includes the fact that IC systems can only evolve by indirect routes, not by direct routes.

Other potential falsifications are the legendary Cambrian rabbit (or any organism with no possible ancestors), or a living pegasus – an organism with a mixture of characteristics from different clades that cannot interbreed. Birds and mammals in the case of pegasi.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Let me answer your simple question.

What I “prefer” is completely irrelevant.

Either the cosmos and life ARE intelligently designed or they ARE NOT.

Principle of non-contradiction.

I really appreciate the rest of your post 767. That means that it is printed as an source of information. A source that needs some in depth concentration.

In the meantime…

Searching my memory bank, back a few years on CAF, there was the comment that the universe is intelligible. I can see that a related question to be resolved is – Either the universe is intelligible or it is not. What I “prefer” is completely irrelevant.

 

[grannymh]

Your particular preference is irrelevant, but the question is central to the whole discussion. You are saying that we should look at the evidence, but the evidence is inadmissible.

I am replying in general.You may debate the scientific (inductive) method if you wish. But I sincerely doubt you can change a standard method of reasoning.

One of the basic points in post 767 is that when the scientific (inductive) method is used, individual evidence, no matter where or how it is found, has to be properly examined before anyone can conclude that it is inadmissible. Properly means that the presented evidence (usually determined by methods and materials) is examined independently from positions such as ID, Creationism, Catholicism, Atheism, and other ism’s.

Granted that I often post that science is in the material/physical realm and Catholicism is in the spiritual realm. Problems can occur when these two realms intersect. This is a separate issue from the main issue which is that all evidence should be examined without prejudice.

This is why it is proper for me to say that what I personally prefer is completely irrelevant. Technically, I am using a simple common sense approach.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I am replying in general.You may debate the scientific (inductive) method if you wish. But I sincerely doubt you can change a standard method of reasoning.

One of the basic points in post 767 is that when the scientific (inductive) method is used, individual evidence, no matter where or how it is found, has to be properly examined before anyone can conclude that it is inadmissible. Properly means that the presented evidence (usually determined by methods and materials) is examined independently from positions such as ID, Creationism, Catholicism, Atheism, and other ism’s.

Granted that I often post that science is in the material/physical realm and Catholicism is in the spiritual realm. Problems can occur when these two realms intersect. This is a separate issue from the main issue which is that all evidence should be examined without prejudice.

This is why it is proper for me to say that what I personally prefer is completely irrelevant. Technically, I am using a simple common sense approach.

Everything, that you attribute to existing in the spiritual realm, actually exist in the physical realm, as spirituality is a product of the human mind, which is a physical thing.

Amen

 

[Bradski]

I am replying in general.You may debate the scientific (inductive) method if you wish. But I sincerely doubt you can change a standard method of reasoning.

One of the basic points in post 767 is that when the scientific (inductive) method is used, individual evidence, no matter where or how it is found, has to be properly examined before anyone can conclude that it is inadmissible.

You might have read an earlier post when I mentioned that biology is an incredibly complex subject. Unless we have many years of experience and study under our belt, we take what we read on trust.

May I ask if you would trust a report on the limited damage smoking will do if it was by a company funded by a tobacco company? Surely, whatever the merits of the scientific method used to produce the report, you would consider it as not being trustworthy.

If a paper was written claiming benefits for homeopathy, funded by a company selling homeopathic treatments, wouldn’t you claim that the conclusion, however obtained, was tainted?

If you read an article claiming that astrology was much better at predicting the share market, would you treat it any differently if it was written by a member of the American Astrology Association?

How about a report on how much safer you’d be with a gun at home written by a member of the NRA?

Now we have a paper written by people pushing ID who are funded by the single largest organisation in the US pushing their rebranded form of creationism and we are meant to treat it differently. We are meant to ‘read the science’. We are mean to ignore why the paper has been written. We are asked to put aside the stated aims of this organisation and treat the paper as an unbiased piece of scientific fact.

There must be a new definition of the word gullible of which I am not aware.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You might have read an earlier post when I mentioned that biology is an incredibly complex subject. Unless we have many years of experience and study under our belt, we take what we read on trust.

May I ask if you would trust a report on the limited damage smoking will do if it was by a company funded by a tobacco company? Surely, whatever the merits of the scientific method used to produce the report, you would consider it as not being trustworthy.

If a paper was written claiming benefits for homeopathy, funded by a company selling homeopathic treatments, wouldn’t you claim that the conclusion, however obtained, was tainted?

If you read an article claiming that astrology was much better at predicting the share market, would you treat it any differently if it was written by a member of the American Astrology Association?

How about a report on how much safer you’d be with a gun at home written by a member of the NRA?

Now we have a paper written by people pushing ID who are funded by the single largest organisation in the US pushing their rebranded form of creationism and we are meant to treat it differently. We are meant to ‘read the science’. We are mean to ignore why the paper has been written. We are asked to put aside the stated aims of this organisation and treat the paper as an unbiased piece of scientific fact.

There must be a new definition of the word gullible of which I am not aware.

You nailed it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You really have no clue how science works, how science by definition must work (as defined by its earliest practioners who were all believers), because you have never ever spent a day of your life in the lab. I really don’t need your arm chair philosophizing on this issue. As I have said before, you have so many great things to say on so many topics, but please, we don’t need your '‘expertise’ on this one. You thnk I am angry? You bet I am.

Well, thanks a lot, Al!

You have made my armchair very uncomfortable this morning.

My question to you, however, is: Why should you become angry at “arm chair philosophizing” if the methods of science can so clearly be defined as to remain unquestioned in the minds of everyone?

I suspect it is precisely because both practitioners of science AND those outside of the field have begun to question the boundaries of those methods and what the methods can plausibly address that creates the discomfort.

It is also because so much hangs in the balance - not just with regard to your career - but with regard to the future of where science is headed that makes the issue a contentious one.

By the way, I am not offended by you raising the points you do. You provide precisely the club on the noggin I need to keep me in my place. :tiphat: I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
However, don’t think that I will stop making points merely because you are angered by them, but feel free to keep applying the club.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You might have read an earlier post when I mentioned that biology is an incredibly complex subject. Unless we have many years of experience and study under our belt, we take what we read on trust.

May I ask if you would trust a report on the limited damage smoking will do if it was by a company funded by a tobacco company? Surely, whatever the merits of the scientific method used to produce the report, you would consider it as not being trustworthy.

Applying your own standards, why should we accept your dismissal of a scientific paper by you (an avowed atheist) on the superficial grounds that the paper is of no merit purely because the presenters are theists? Why should your atheism be the presumed neutral ground from which to dismiss “Creationist” papers without a proper reading merely because YOU (as an atheist with your own axe to grind) claim they were written by those who must necessarily be biased by their Creationist views? The knife cuts both ways, Bradski.

You see, this is where you are advantaged by their disadvantage since you can claim your atheism directly aligns with the disavowal of the supernatural by science. You can hide the bias of your atheism behind the scientific method at the same time as you go around discrediting theists for being biased by their theism.

That is why I claim the work of Axe, et al, ought to be judged on its own merit, just like any other scientific paper. We do not dismiss the work of atheists on the pretext that their work is biased by their atheism. Neither should we - unfairly, I might add - dismiss the work of theists merely because their work could be contaminated by their theistic views.

There ought to be a clear neutral ground. You seem to be claiming that ground is determinably the atheistic one merely because the method is constrained to naturalistic assumptions.

From my perspective you are using the scientific method as a cudgel to beat up on theists BEFORE they have the opportunity to defend their views using the method itself.

Pace, Al.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, thanks a lot, Al!

You have made my armchair very uncomfortable this morning.

My question to you, however, is: Why should you become angry at “arm chair philosophizing” if the methods of science can so clearly be defined as to remain unquestioned in the minds of everyone?

I suspect it is precisely because both practitioners of science AND those outside of the field have begun to question the boundaries of those methods and what the methods can plausibly address that creates the discomfort.

It is also because so much hangs in the balance - not just with regard to your career - but with regard to the future of where science is headed that makes the issue a contentious one.

Obviously my career does not hang in the balance at all. Ever heard of the term ‘hyperbole’?

Anyway, there is not threat to methodological naturalism *) in the least, notwithstanding fantasies that you or others who think like you might have. Rather, if there is any threat, then it comes from the theoretical physics community where some have questioned the reliance on observation and experiment (hint: string theory and the multiverse can’t be tested). However, this is no threat for the parts of science that are still grounded in (experimental) reality, such as my own field, biochemistry.

This being said, I am glad that I have made your armchair very uncomfortable this morning

---

*) Newsflash that deserves to be repeated: The history of science shows that methodological naturalism has a theistic origin. There is nothing “atheistic” about it. Theists, unlike some ignorant atheists, should not be the ones mistaking methodological naturalism (a method) for metaphysical naturalism (a worldview).

 

[buffalo]

It is both modifiable and falsifiable. It was modified when Mendelian genetics was incorporated in the early 20th century, and modified again when Kimura’s neutral theory was incorporated in the 1970s.

It is falsifiable, as Darwin said:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.The first of these was used by Professor Behe to try to falsify evolution with the concept of IC. Behe triggered much useful work and succeeded in modifying evolutionary theory for the better. It now includes the fact that IC systems can only evolve by indirect routes, not by direct routes.

Other potential falsifications are the legendary Cambrian rabbit (or any organism with no possible ancestors), or a living pegasus – an organism with a mixture of characteristics from different clades that cannot interbreed. Birds and mammals in the case of pegasi.

rossum

What are the evo steps for the ATP synthase motor?

 

[rossum]

What are the evo steps for the ATP synthase motor?

What are the designer steps for the manufacture of the ATP synthase motor?

Evolution does not yet know the answers to all questions. Nor does ID. In both cases, it is easy to find unanswered questions. The existence of unanswered questions does not invalidate either science, or ID.

What did Jesus eat for breakfast, if anything, 12 days after His 21st birthday? Have I just invalidated Christianity?

Unanswered question are what keep scientists interested in science. Once all the questions are answered, science will be reduced to looking up the answers in Wikipedia, which is not interesting at all.

Science works to answer unanswered questions. If ID wants to be recognised as science, then it would do well to start doing the same.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

What are the designer steps for the manufacture of the ATP synthase motor?

Evolution does not yet know the answers to all questions. Nor does ID. In both cases, it is easy to find unanswered questions. The existence of unanswered questions does not invalidate either science, or ID.

What did Jesus eat for breakfast, if anything, 12 days after His 21st birthday? Have I just invalidated Christianity?

Unanswered question are what keep scientists interested in science. Once all the questions are answered, science will be reduced to looking up the answers in Wikipedia, which is not interesting at all.

Science works to answer unanswered questions. If ID wants to be recognised as science, then it would do well to start doing the same.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I guess that is the difference between us, then, Bradski.

I am interested in the truth of the matter, untainted by human preferences or presumptions. You seem to have a distinct bias against uncovering the complete truth by making one possibility inadmissible by a sheer act of will or point of technicality on your behalf.

I see no reason why evidence need be inadmissible if the complete truth of the matter is behind that evidence.

You are interested in the complete truth, are you not, Bradski?

I think if a competent panel of judges were assembled, the unbiased evidence for certain assumptions would fail. If materialists could posit aliens or a multiverse are part of the answer, I think they would be comfortable with those claims, but couldn’t provide any credible evidence. The only truth being offered here are dogmatic materialist statements, followed by gentle, or not so gentle, admonitions, that materialist only forces created living things and religious/supernatural claims are nonsense. There is only one source of knowledge.

An old debate but one that will continue until all succumb… agree to the a priori assumptions.

Ed