Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Michaelo]

tonyrey:

I have already pointed out that the probability of Design increases in direct proportion to the improbability of non-Design.

This is logically false as it presents a false dichotomy.

Once again, you mistakenly assume that evolution’s deficiencies also support ID.
Charlemagne II:

If the argument from accidental abiogenesis is so highly improbable (so far no one in this forum has proven otherwise, nor do I think anyone in this forum has the credential to prove otherwise), then the next most probable argument is the one that science should look at. The next most probable (in fact the only other possible) argument is ID.

You are entertaining the same logical fallacy that tonyrey has. You nor he has demonstrated why only two options exist.

Once again, please offer a scientifically positive argument to defend ID. If you still haven’t grasped what that means, you must avoid discrediting abiogenesis or evolution as a means of corroborating ID because you would yet again be falling prey to false dichotomy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

It seems to me that dialogue for you is a one way street. I think you need to answer some questions before I can be convinced that you know what you’re talking about.

Let me see the range of your reasoning powers. So far all you do is ask questions. How about answering some?

Do you have no answers to the two questions I asked?

 

[Michaelo]

Michaelo

It seems to me that dialogue for you is a one way street. I think you need to answer some questions before I can be convinced that you know what you’re talking about.

Let me see the range of your reasoning powers. So far all you do is ask questions. How about answering some?

Do you have no answers to the two questions I asked?

It is you, not I, who is obligated to answer questions. The burden of proof is on you, as per the subject of this thread, to demonstrate ID’s scientific merits. You are merely stalling this process by demanding that I pass some intellectual litmus test.

 

[tonyrey]

This is logically false as it presents a false dichotomy.

Once again, you mistakenly assume that evolution’s deficiencies also support ID.
You are entertaining the same logical fallacy that tonyrey has. You nor he has demonstrated why only two options exist.

Why is the choice between Design and non-Design a false dichotomy. What other alternative is there?

 

[rossum]

Why is the choice between Design and non-Design a false dichotomy. What other alternative is there?

The choice between ID and evolution is a false dichotomy. In science the default position is “we do not know”. If we found a fossil Cambrian rabbit tomorrow, hence disproving evolution, then science would revert to its default position. At that point ID proponents would need to produce positive evidence for ID in order to move science away from “we don’t know” towards the ID position.

There is always at least a trichotomy in science: A, not-A and “we do not know”.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The choice between ID and evolution is a false dichotomy. In science the default position is “we do not know”. If we found a fossil Cambrian rabbit tomorrow, hence disproving evolution, then science would revert to its default position. At that point ID proponents would need to produce positive evidence for ID in order to move science away from “we don’t know” towards the ID position.

There is always at least a trichotomy in science: A, not-A and “we do not know”.

rossum

“We do not know” is not an explanation but an argument from ignorance. which takes refuge in obscurity. A more scientific approach is to accept the best available explanation even if it is incomplete. Design is based on our personal experience of the power of intelligence to which the success of science is also ample witness.

Not only that. Design means “produced by intelligence”, non-Design means “not produced by intelligence”. Please explain how there could be an alternative explanation.

There are two theoretical possibilities that have not been mentioned:

1. A combination of intelligent and unintelligent activity. This amounts to partial Design - which I suspect is not what you have in mind.
2. A force which is more powerful than intelligence, i.e. a superhuman being (which is what Design really amounts to) - which I also suspect is not what you have in mind.

The onus is on you to provide another possibility. Otherwise you are taking refuge in obscurity…

 

[Namesake]

“We do not know” is not an explanation but an argument from ignorance. which takes refuge in obscurity. A more scientific approach is to accept the best available explanation even if it is incomplete. Design is based on our personal experience of the power of intelligence to which the success of science is also ample witness.

Not only that. Design means “produced by intelligence”, non-Design means “not produced by intelligence”. Please explain how there could be an alternative explanation.

There are two theoretical possibilities that have not been mentioned:

1. A combination of intelligent and unintelligent activity. This amounts to partial Design - which I suspect is not what you have in mind.
2. A force which is more powerful than intelligence, i.e. a superhuman being (which is what Design really amounts to) - which I also suspect is not what you have in mind.

The onus is on you to provide another possibility. Otherwise you are taking refuge in obscurity…

That isn’t true. When a scientist says he doesn’t know, that’s exactly what he means. It’s intellectually dishonest to invent an explanation instead of admitting that there is no known explanation.

To admit that there is no known explanation is the first step toward finding an explanation that makes sense.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*It is you, not I, who is obligated to answer questions. The burden of proof is on you, as per the subject of this thread, to demonstrate ID’s scientific merits. You are merely stalling this process by demanding that I pass some intellectual litmus test. *

So long, and God bless.

 

[tr1954]

That isn’t true. When a scientist says he doesn’t know, that’s exactly what he means. It’s intellectually dishonest to invent an explanation instead of admitting that there is no known explanation.

To admit that there is no known explanation is the first step toward finding an explanation that makes sense.

That is illogical…is like saying…I did not buy a lottery ticket, but voila!..I won the lottery!

If a scientist revert to a non position by admitting that he “does not know” the answer to a particular question, then he forfeits the right to challenge any alternative explanation…after all, he just doesn’t know!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Namesake

*That isn’t true. When a scientist says he doesn’t know, that’s exactly what he means. It’s intellectually dishonest to invent an explanation instead of admitting that there is no known explanation. *

I would accept the agnostic position only as an admission of ignorance. It certainly is not a third alternative to explaining abiogenesis. The evidence for abiogenesis by accident is virtually non-existent. The likelihood that irreducible complexity implies intelligent design is very high, based on both common sense and mathematical computations. It is therefore the only plausible answer. It is a logical inference. There is no other.

It’s interesting that when atheists ask you to prove God, they want the burden of proof to fall on you. But when you ask them to prove abiogenisis by accident, they still want the burden of proof to be on you that it is not so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I’m still looking for an answer to these two questions:

*1. Why should anyone regard accidental abiogenesis as a scientific concept?

1. Would you expect to see, and would you defend, accidental abiogenesis written up as a possible explanation for the the origin of life in a science textbook for high schools? What scientific authority would you recommend be cited in the book for that position?*

Any takers?

 

[rossum]

“We do not know” is not an explanation but an argument from ignorance.

No, it a place holder to show that we are currently ignorant in that area. If you would feel better then replace it with “We don’t know, but we are working on it”, “Watch this space” or “Coming real soon now”.

A more scientific approach is to accept the best available explanation even if it is incomplete.

Usually yes, unless the best available explanation has been shown to be wrong. For example Einstein’s gravitation has been shown to be wrong close to black holes and to the Big Bang. For that reason it is not used in those situations and is temporarily replaced by “we don’t know, but we are working on a theory of quantum gravity to fill in this gap”.

Design is based on our personal experience of the power of intelligence to which the success of science is also ample witness.

Science has no problem with design. Archaeologists and forensic scientists look at design all the time. Astronomers considered the LGM (Little Green Men) hypothesis to explain the first pulsar, though in the event that hypothesis was rejected.

Not only that. Design means “produced by intelligence”, non-Design means “not produced by intelligence”. Please explain how there could be an alternative explanation.

How about “produced by forglesnarf” where forglesnarf is orthogonal to intelligence. Forglesnarf may be either intelligent or non-intelligent but it is always forglesnarf.

The onus is on you to provide another possibility. Otherwise you are taking refuge in obscurity…

Not on me. The onus is on you to show why science should change its default value of “we don’t know”.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That isn’t true. When a scientist says he doesn’t know, that’s exactly what he means. It’s intellectually dishonest to invent an explanation instead of admitting that there is no known explanation.

To admit that there is no known explanation is the first step toward finding an explanation that makes sense.

You are assuming that explanation in terms of intelligence does not make sense. It makes far more sense than the explanation that personality, consciousness, intelligence, freedom and purpose have been produced by random combinations of molecules and random mutations of genes.

Our explanation is not invented but based on the evidence of personal experience and observation that intelligence produces complex organization and co-ordination. We have no such experience or evidence of complex organization and co-ordination produced by fortuitous events. It is fanciful to imagine that we are no more than combinations of atomic particles. :banghead:

 

[rossum]

I’m still looking for an answer to these two questions:

1. Why should anyone regard accidental abiogenesis as a scientific concept?

Because abiogenesis works with chemicals, and chemistry is perfectly good science. Here is a recent example of scientific work in this area: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Do you see anything unsicentific there?

2. Would you expect to see, and would you defend, accidental abiogenesis written up as a possible explanation for the the origin of life in a science textbook for high schools?

Currently no. Abogenesis is not settled enough for putting in a textbook yet. There is still a great deal of work to be done on the chemistry of early life and pre-life. At some time in the future there may be enough known that it can start getting into the textbooks. Even then it will not be in school textbooks. New work starts off in postgraduate textbooks; then it makes its way, in a simplified form, into undergraduate textbooks. Only then can an even more simplified form be considered for school textbooks.

One of the issues scientists have with ID is that they are trying to jump straight into the school textbooks without doing the postgraduate and undergraduate textbooks first. Those levels of textbook require a great deal more detail than ID currently has. ID is seen as trying to shortrcut the normal process, and are getting the treatment that queue jumpers normally get.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Usually yes, unless the best available explanation has been shown to be wrong.

The Design explanation has not been shown to be wrong.

The onus is on you to show why science should change its default value of “we don’t know”.

The default value of science is not an intellectual vacuum but the best available explanation. After all, you admit science has no problem with design.

 

[Michaelo]

So long, and God bless.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer basic questions about ID if you think it’s a legit scientific theory?

rossum:

The choice between ID and evolution is a false dichotomy. In science the default position is “we do not know”. If we found a fossil Cambrian rabbit tomorrow, hence disproving evolution, then science would revert to its default position. At that point ID proponents would need to produce positive evidence for ID in order to move science away from “we don’t know” towards the ID position.

There is always at least a trichotomy in science: A, not-A and “we do not know”.

Well said

 

[Michaelo]

For those who don’t think that “we don’t know” is a valid option, watch this video from about 0:16-1:50

 

[rossum]

The Design explanation has not been shown to be wrong.

Currently evolution is the better scientific explanation.

The default value of science is not an intellectual vacuum but the best available explanation.

The best available working explanation. Einstein’s gravity is a good theory and it works for many circumstances. It does not work in other circumstances and in those cases “we do not know” is better than getting an incorrect answer. Once we have the theory of quantum gravity worked out we will be able to fill those gaps.

After all, you admit science has no problem with design.

It does not. It does have problems with ID as currently constituted because ID has insufficient detail to allow falsification. “Some designer did something at sometime” is not exactly precise or falsifiable.

Tell me what ID theory tells us about when the designer operated? Is the designer operating now? What experiment could we set up to detect the designer operating now?

I can show you experiments that demonstrate evolution operating now. Where are the equivalent experiments for ID? Curenttly evolution is the better scientific explanation.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Currently no. Abogenesis is not settled enough for putting in a textbook yet. There is still a great deal of work to be done on the chemistry of early life and pre-life. At some time in the future there may be enough known that it can start getting into the textbooks.

A lot of supposition and faith in future inquiries here. I agree that you can’t argue to put abiogenesis by accident in textbooks, not because there is not enough evidence, but because there is too much indication of the opposite conclusion to be drawn … that the odds are highly against it. What would future studies prove? They cannot recreate the conditions on earth present at the first sign of abiogenesis, and therefore would only be speculative, just as astronomers cannot recreate the conditions present at the time of the Big Bang to explain it. If they could, they would have a scientific explanation, but they can’t. So they have to keep it out of the textbooks, and when inquiring young minds ask difficult questions, like “How did life first form?” they will just shrug their shoulders instead of biting the bullet and admitting that accidental abiogenesis is the least logical of explanations (unless they are atheists, and then they will assert triumphantly that it becomes for sure the only possible explanation)!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Because abiogenesis works with chemicals, and chemistry is perfectly good science. Here is a recent example of scientific work in this area: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Do you see anything unsicentific there?

No scientist can pretend to **objectively recreate **the conditions on earth at the time of the creation of life. Entirely unscientific, you must think, since it is an *intelligently designed *experiment!