Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences

The place where ID fails as a 'field of science' is the predictive part.

By definition, if everything were planned, the only way to really know what's coming is by asking the designer.

Evolution is a science insofar as you can put a species (like say, bacteria for convenience) in certain conditions, and predict what mutations might survive, what won't, and how long it might take for a population to change based on natural selection.



*Detecting* if ID was true could be a science, like forensics.

In extreme examples (like, if we discovered our DNA played Metallica's 'Ride the Lightning' if coded into an mp3) - almost anyone would be convinced.

However, extensive evidence to the contrary would also imply the negative.

Such as fossils showing complete species transitions from dinosaurs to birds over millions of years. in response to the environment.



Lastly - it doesn't matter if Kevn is a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Satanist. It doesn't matter if Chip is an anthropomorphic ferret (not that he is, but just saying). Ideas stand or fall on their own.

Though as someone once said, if you can get someone in a trance and convince them they had an epiphany, well, maybe that comes into the mix too.

Arguing with a Creationist on wether or not life came about through evolution is real is like arguing with a devout Muslim wether or not the meteorite in the middle of Mecca was sent by Allah... It may very well have been sent by Allah. Whatever God there may be may very well have created the basis for Evolution and set it in motion.

This could be likened to a snowball rolling down a bottomless hill. As it rolls down, it picks up speed and mass. It gets bigger and bigger. As it gets bigger, bits of it fall off and roll down and they too get bigger. Before you know it, you have millions of snowballs of various shapes and sizes all from the one...

Now, the person who created the original tiny little snowball didn't create all the extras. They just created the first snowball and set it in motion...

Mind you, I'm scientifically agnostic. That is to say that I only believe in what I have evidence for. I have seen no direct evidence of God. God has never come face to face with me. And if some old guy walked up to me and claimed he was God, I might be inclined to think he was crazy unless he could show me miracles that are undeniably miracles. Then he'd have to prove to me that I wasn't halucinating... And THEN I'd believe in him as having god-like powers...

He could say he's he's the Christian God or that he's an avatar of Vishnu and I'd require further proof... Just because he proves he has god like powers doesn't mean that I'm going to believe him on his word when he says that he's Maitreya Bodhisattva incarnate, come to claim his Dharmic throne. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Personally, I have seen enough evidence supporting evolution to believe that that is how life got here today. How the snowball of evolution got rolling is beyond me, but I'd be more likely to believe natural causes than this that or the other religion which was founded LONG after the fact telling me that it was this that or the other god that did it.

Kevin that guy you quoted sure can talk! His argument was first proposed in the middle ages and I believe it was called the telelogical argument for the existence of god. It holds as much validity now as it did then, zero, because it is not based on facts like Evolution is.

Nice try though.

I didn't say the method he describes was incorrect, merely that his assumption (and direct statement to that effect), that this is the *only* way to design was incorrect. I also said that his statement that "everyone" knew this and would agree with him was incorrect and indicated a bias.

My personal visual design process:

1) While having a bath or brushing my hair (or any number of other activities), I have a "vision" in full colour surround sound etc. of the thing in question. The apparent time elapsed is usually about a second, maybe less.

2) I go to the basement, store, office etc. and gather the necessary things to draw, paint or otherwise assemble and put it together the thing until it looks like the vision in my head.

If it works, it is the exact same thing in the vision, if it doesnt, it usually doesn't get made.

There are times when I use more rational processes like the guy describes, but I usually only do this if I am collaborating with someone or I am forced for some extraneous reason to explain to someone else what is is I am doing or why I am doing it. I generally concoct such explanations in order not to seem insane, and to avoid talking about the "vision" thing. I have got very good over the years in making up explanations on the spot that seem very rational indeed.

(you should understand this well in that this is basically "revealed knowledge," as opposed to cognition, and is the basis of a lot of religious stuff)

This example is a little extreme of course but my original point stands.

There are many ways to approach design and many different design heuristics. To start off an argument with a quick definition of "design process" that is not backed up, and not referenced is foolish at best and again, denotes both a bias and a certain lack of research and knowledge of the subject. (IMO) Even if you are talking explicitly about rational design processes, I am sure there are many more ways than his "four point plan."

It's like George Bush starting off by saying that "everyone knows that we have to give up some freedom to be safe," and then building a whole argument on that. Not everyone will agree with the premise of course. It's one of those logical fallacy thingies although I can't remember the name of it right now.

Maybe if I brush my hair ....

Admitting that a belief is required for a point does indeed undermine the point. If you will take the time to read the court decision, you will see ID supporters saying a belief is required for ID to appear valid. So it is not wrong to deem someone incorrect in their stance when they essentially say they are.

To elaborate, if I proposed a theory that required the flying spaghetti monster but made no effort toward describing, proving, or otherwise providing evidence of said monster (or means of discovering previous about said monster), it would require belief to work with any other part of the theory. So if I went on to say my theory says that the monster designed life as we know it, we can then be pretty sure it's not worth the time I spent writing it as it requires belief in the prior cause (which happens to be a spaghetti monster), for the theory to work.

Please respond to this thread, Kevn:
/112/9a/79647/1.html

I'll give ya the 'Question Everything'. Its questions that will eventually settle these kind of things. The only problem I have with info on the web is it's a bit tough to verify a source. Not always tho. At least with a book you have someone to blame for the misinformation.

LOL... My sentiments exactly!

The position with which one starts experiments will influence the end result. If one starts an experiment with the solid BELIEF there is no guiding hand in the beginning of life, then any results will fit that BELIEF. The same can be said when the reverse is true.

When a "scientist" experiments with evolution, she will not allow any results showing a weakness in the theory to be published. The reason for that is evolution has become a religion. Should anyone dare question its dogma, the "scientific" community will come down hard, denouncing the one who questioned their religion, labeling them a fundamentalist.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I only hope to open some minds to other possibilities. But it's hard to get people to break away from their indoctrination.

And when you start a thread as a troll, then anything you write will look like it came from a troll. Fancy that.

I do, however, consider you an expert on dogma but you don't know a bloody thing about science. I don't expect you to change your mind, and despair of opening your mind as you've pretty well locked it to any such openness. It is very hard to get people to break away from their indoctrination, especially when they have god backing them.

What a strange thing to say! It appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."

Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, USA], "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man,"

This from a professor at a highly respected university. Would you say he indoctrinated a few students in his time?

I'm sure he used the scientific method to come to this conclusion.

What a strange thing to say! It appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

You've confused a general interpretive statement of the nature of the world as informed by science with the practice of science. I'm not all that surprised that you've made such a mistake.

Keep digging though, I have scientifically proven that trolls like to live underground.

Better still, read a farking book that presents a view contrary to the one you've already pre-ordained to be true. And in anticpation of your retort, yes, I have in fact read far too many writings that advocate your unsupportable view.

Errors abound in these discussions because people keep assuming the existence of arguments which had not actually been brought in yet. The possibility that some intelligence or guiding force had a hand in creating life forms does not preclude the possibility of mechanisms such as natural selection, and vice versa.

It is crucial not to overlook that, because the instant you step beyond the documentation of phenomena you are into philosophy about the meaning of life, rather than simply making a scientific investigation. Assertions of rightness about life are very dangerous. Assertions about God have gotten millions of people killed in previous centuries. But don't forget - assertions that evolution is the only guiding principle and that man is nothing but an animal have themselves caused millions of people to be killed in the 20th Century.

The hubris of scientists in suggesting that this question has really been answered shows they have no more wisdom than do theologians, and are similarly unqualified to decide what we should be thinking.

The philosophers of science have declared that the proposition "god exists" ranges anywhere from being a matter outside the realm of investigation to being an ill-formed linguistic construct.

No serious scientist that I've ever known or read interprets any scientific endeavor as confirmation for the non-existence of god. As a matter of pragmatism, scientsts exclude god from theoretical constructions because it does not help the investigation nor is it necessary for the sort of explanations that science deals in. If we are talking about god as conventionally construed, god is capable of working outside of natural "law" and so literally anything could follow. As science is engaged in explaining regularities and patterns in the natural world, supernatural causes would - if nothing else - be a huge confounding factor in scientific explanations.

That said, I find myself equally puzzled that theists find the discoveries of science to be so threatening to their faith. To me the two realms are as orthogonal as the X and Z planes in SL which can co-vary with total independence.

If anyone has read anything I've said as evidence for the non-existence of god, please forgive me for expressing myself so poorly. If you've read me as saying that god is not necessary to explain broad classes of natural science, then you understood my point.

As you've been told time and time again, Evolution does not address or even attempt to address a designer or causal nature toward what caused evolution. ID is doing exactly that and needs to describe the leg it's standing on before it has scientific merit.

If you're going to proposing a designer or designing agent, you must define that agent. Otherwise your theory requires belief in said agent or designer before it can be accepted.

And thus, the concept of faith was born... and shortly after that, organized religion... God save us.

Kevin I have a serious qustion for you. Why do you create these threads if you have no intention of debating the very issue you brought up? You quote your faith over and over again while many of us point out our ideas based on fact and not on belief. Maybe you could at least someday give someone some credit for using their brains.

By the way please read Alfred North Whitehead's "Origins of Religion". Not that you would believe it.

Susie,

It's all belief. Macro-evolution is a religion.

I should think the realisation that Man is an animal like other animals would, at this point in time, be both obvious and humbling. Those who kill millions of people tend to be filled with self-righteousness, and think themselves somewhere between the human and the divine.

Dear Kevn,

You're wrong.

Reply:

I've been on vacation (and will be for a while longer) and thought I'd pop in to see how things are going in Off Topic. I'm quite happy to see you're all still beating back the ghost of medieval thinking (Kevn) with fact, reason, and humor.

~Ulrika~

It's amazing how upset the evolutionist faithful get when discussing their faith. It reminds me of how Catholics react to the suggestion Mother Mary isn't sinless. It's clearly an emotional reaction.

I broke away from the Catholic church because I question everything. I hope a few evolutionists could break away from their faith long enough to see through the smoke.