1221 replies to this topic

[maxwatt]

I want to stand up for the "Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design " statement.... calling it an equation or not is a semantic distinction we needn't quibble over, but there is something to it. Just maybe not quite what the Shadowhawk had in mind,

I will now present an argument from analogy comparing the "equation" to a neural network that uses back-propagation.

(For those not familiar with such networks. in its simplest form it consists of three layers of "neurons", each layer comprising a number of bits "neurons", computer variables that hold a number between 0 and one. Input layer receives data from the environment, or the program that is running; the "hidden layer" takes is a similar percentages of each input layer (represented as a coefficient between 0 and one) and feeds this in turn to an output layer. The network is trained by presenting the input layer with data having a known or desired output, using an algorithm to adjust the various coefficients in the network via feedback to the input and hidden layers, until they give correct or desired output. Then the network is then tested against novel data to see if it gives correct output. Such are used in optical recognition systems and robotics.)

Now "evolution" is analogous to the neural network, being self adjusting in increments through the feedback of "natural selection" until presto! you have a working eye! This can be considered design, but oddly, there seems to be no need to invoke a designer to make it work.

[Turnbuckle]

I want to stand up for the "Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design " statement.... calling it an equation or not is a semantic distinction we needn't quibble over, but there is something to it. Just maybe not quite what the Shadowhawk had in mind,

I will now present an argument from analogy comparing the "equation" to a neural network that uses back-propagation.

(For those not familiar with such networks. in its simplest form it consists of three layers of "neurons", each layer comprising a number of bits "neurons", computer variables that hold a number between 0 and one. Input layer receives data from the environment, or the program that is running; the "hidden layer" takes is a similar percentages of each input layer (represented as a coefficient between 0 and one) and feeds this in turn to an output layer. The network is trained by presenting the input layer with data having a known or desired output, using an algorithm to adjust the various coefficients in the network via feedback to the input and hidden layers, until they give correct or desired output. Then the network is then tested against novel data to see if it gives correct output. Such are used in optical recognition systems and robotics.)

Now "evolution" is analogous to the neural network, being self adjusting in increments through the feedback of "natural selection" until presto! you have a working eye! This can be considered design, but oddly, there seems to be no need to invoke a designer to make it work.

Okay, I'll buy that, especially if it's written:

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time → Design

There's no outside god in it (no Biblical god), and no intelligence (unless we consider the universe itself intelligent).

Edited by Turnbuckle, 19 October 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[shadowhawk]

If ID were to be believed, God is must be fond of Rube Goldberg type arrangements.

You don't need ID to believe in god, nor to explain biology or evolution. If I were designing a universe, I'd make it self-starting so once set in motion it would keep "ticking" by its own internal logic. This would leave the creator free to do other things. Evolution seems a pretty good mechanism for a deity to have used to populate his or her creation. Problem is it's such a good mechanism you don't need to invoke "God" to explain the results.

If one is studying biological systems, intelligent design adds nothing except satisfying an urge to believe in an omnipotent being behind it all.

Anyone that understands ID knows it is not about God. You are right, you don’t need ID to believe in God. Nor do you need God to believe in ID.

There are many Theistic Evolutionists. The Roman Catholic Church has almost taken this position.

I would be willing to watch you build a better universe than the one we have but I don’t think you have anywhere near enough knowledge or capacity to do it. There are many more galaxies in the universe than cells in your brain.

You discovered your last statement scientifically? Biology says this? Nope.

[shadowhawk]

Oh you caught a typo but you didn’t tell me why you don’t think Evolution does not make sense. What is wrong with it?

No, there was no typo. I was merely pointing out in a nice way that you probably don't know what an equation is, just as the ID people have no idea what science is. If you want to explain your equation, have at it, but I don't expect you to, because it doesn't mean anything.

And nice try saying that I think evolution doesn't make sense. Either you are really disingenuous, or have poor comprehension, or both.

You don’t have a clue what evolution is and despite repeatedly being asked whether you agree or not, you resort to this.

I wasn’t trying to define science but evolution. The philosophy of science is vast and there is little agreement on what it is. No philosophy of science has been proven by science to be the only way to knowledge.

I know it is hard when all you have is name calling. My past questions remain.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 October 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[shadowhawk]

indeed, Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
is no equation, since there are no quantifiable parameters anywhere except for time. and adding time will just result into some number - not relating in any way to a quantification of design.
furthermore, mutation is not 'random', although it may approximate randomness.

What I am describing is the process of evolution not some math problem.

You are saying Mutation that caused new information to appear is not random? Where does the new information come from?

let's see if your equation could work. assume that random mutation and natural selection are quantifiable, but for instance that they are 0. if we set time at 1 000 000 s, then design=1 000 000 s. Think this is an equation? where's the problem? you have no units for any of the variables, except for time, which certainly means that you have no way to convert the units from the left to the one on the right, especially not via a simple addition.

You do not understand do you.

[Deep Blue]

Here is my definition of the theory of evolution. Do you agree with it?

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

That equation does not compute. Explanation for each component of the equation has not been provided. Explanation for why these components should be put together in the first place has not been provided. Explanation for why the components of the equation are equal to design has not been provided.

What ID is.

http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

Your source:
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

The above argument in list form:

Premises:
1. Intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
2. If natural objects are designed, they will contain high levels of CSI.
3. Natural structures containing irreducible complexity are evidence for CSI.
4. There is evidence for irreducible complexity.
Conclusion:
5. Natural structures were designed by an intelligent designer.

Premise 2 and 4 are where this argument falls apart.

Premise 2 is an assumption instead of a fact. Natural structures need not be designed in order to be complex. Therefore, a designer is unnecessary. The human eye is an example of a structure that is complex and does not have a designer, instead being produced by evolution by natural selection.

Premise 4 is false. There is no scientific evidence for irreducible complexity. State an example and it will be examined here.

5.

The conclusion does follow from the premises, assuming premises are true: the argument is logically valid.
However, the premises are false: the argument is not sound.

The argument for intelligent design is therefore not tenable.

Edited by Deep Blue, 19 October 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Oh you caught a typo but you didn’t tell me why you don’t think Evolution does not make sense. What is wrong with it?

No, there was no typo. I was merely pointing out in a nice way that you probably don't know what an equation is, just as the ID people have no idea what science is. If you want to explain your equation, have at it, but I don't expect you to, because it doesn't mean anything.

And nice try saying that I think evolution doesn't make sense. Either you are really disingenuous, or have poor comprehension, or both.

On rereading your comment I'll admit I missed the double negative. Of course, though, you also "don't think evolution does not make sense," because you yourself said you belived in it. At least, you said you believed in "natural selection," and I don't know how you can fancy one and not the other.

I asked you a question and again you don't answer it. I would love to see if all the name calling you have done is justified?

[Turnbuckle]

4. There is evidence for irreducible complexity.

If this is ever found, it would be in viruses, certainly not humans. But imagine the PR problem: a god that creates viruses in his own image!

[shadowhawk]

let's see if your equation could work. assume that random mutation and natural selection are quantifiable, but for instance that they are 0. if we set time at 1 000 000 s, then design=1 000 000 s. Think this is an equation? where's the problem? you have no units for any of the variables, except for time, which certainly means that you have no way to convert the units from the left to the one on the right, especially not via a simple addition.

You can't do a dimensional analysis on Hawk's equation because it is religious, not scientific. It's on the order of: God = love.

Correct in the first part.
Incorrect on what follows.

You guys are unbelievable. I am talking about evolution, not religion or God! Off topic and bigoted responses. It is obvious that you do not understand evolution, science or religion.

[shadowhawk]

Maxwatt: will now present an argument from analogy comparing the "equation" to a neural network that uses back-propagation.

(For those not familiar with such networks. in its simplest form it consists of three layers of "neurons", each layer comprising a number of bits "neurons", computer variables that hold a number between 0 and one. Input layer receives data from the environment, or the program that is running; the "hidden layer" takes is a similar percentages of each input layer (represented as a coefficient between 0 and one) and feeds this in turn to an output layer. The network is trained by presenting the input layer with data having a known or desired output, using an algorithm to adjust the various coefficients in the network via feedback to the input and hidden layers, until they give correct or desired output. Then the network is then tested against novel data to see if it gives correct output. Such are used in optical recognition systems and robotics.)

Now "evolution" is analogous to the neural network, being self adjusting in increments through the feedback of "natural selection" until presto! you have a working eye! This can be considered design, but oddly, there seems to be no need to invoke a designer to make it work.

You got the point of my argument defining Evolution. You can see how off track the discussion gets when we do not define our terms. What I did not address in this overview is the many differences among evolutionists themselves as they argue and fight with each other. We are not talking about “A,” position but about many. I am sorry but your bit of philosophy is not evidence for how we got an eye. Nor is it an adequate argument ID.

Off topic, does ID have the right to scientifically look for signs of intelligence without all this bigotry? I say yes. You do not have to believe in ID to believe in free speach.

[DAMABO]

indeed, Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
is no equation, since there are no quantifiable parameters anywhere except for time. and adding time will just result into some number - not relating in any way to a quantification of design.
furthermore, mutation is not 'random', although it may approximate randomness.

What I am describing is the process of evolution not some math problem.
then why do you pretend it is an equation? don't use equations if they aren't meant to be equations.

You are saying Mutation that caused new information to appear is not random? Where does the new information come from?
no new information. If there was a truly random process in nature, that would imply that causality does not work. just because we cannot find an underlying rule does not mean there is not any. complexity for instance might be what is causing it to seem random.

let's see if your equation could work. assume that random mutation and natural selection are quantifiable, but for instance that they are 0. if we set time at 1 000 000 s, then design=1 000 000 s. Think this is an equation? where's the problem? you have no units for any of the variables, except for time, which certainly means that you have no way to convert the units from the left to the one on the right, especially not via a simple addition.

You do not understand do you.

[shadowhawk]

1a. Shadowhawk: What I am describing is the process of evolution not some math problem.

2a. DAMABO : then why do you pretend it is an equation? don't use equations if they aren't meant to be equations.
*******************

1b. Shadowhawk: You are saying Mutation that caused new information to appear is not random? Where does the new information come from?

2b. DAMABO: no new information. If there was a truly random process in nature, that would imply that causality does not work. just because we cannot find an underlying rule does not mean there is not any. complexity for instance might be what is causing it to seem random.

1a and 2a. I have said several times this is a description of the process of evolution which I again state here. I have repeatedly asked if you agreed with this equation but after this response I withdraw my question. I have had enough and don’t care. Not only are you misunderstanding it again but you misunderstood how I used the word equation.
1. the act of equating or making equal; equalization: the symbolic equation of darkness with death.
There are other usages which don’t fit your construct as well. http://dictionary.re...browse/equation

2b and 2b. So you are telling me random mutations are not part of the standard equation of Evolution as an explanation of how new information arises in the genetic code of evolution? You say there is no new information? Then how do things change?

[DAMABO]

there is no randomness needed to create new things. what kind of assumption is that? clearly, elements can combine in a unique way to form a new structure.
(by the way, I interpreted your 'new information' as me saying something that was contrary to popular belief, which is the case)

on your cute little equation, why don't you tell us what you 'symbolically' mean with it?

[shadowhawk]

Deep Blue: Your source: (Shadowhawk on ID)
"Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

The above argument in list form:

Premises:
1. Intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
2. If natural objects are designed, they will contain high levels of CSI.
3. Natural structures containing irreducible complexity are evidence for CSI.
4. There is evidence for irreducible complexity.
Conclusion:
5. Natural structures were designed by an intelligent designer.

I think this is fair

Premise 2 and 4 are where this argument falls apart.

Premise 2 is an assumption instead of a fact. Natural structures need not be designed in order to be complex. Therefore, a designer is unnecessary. The human eye is an example of a structure that is complex and does not have a designer, instead being produced by evolution by natural selection.

Premise 4 is false. There is no scientific evidence for irreducible complexity. State an example and it will be examined here.

It is false to say because some natural structures are complex, all natural structures are not designed, That is the subject of great discussion. This will be decided by scientific debate not pronouncements.

Have you examined the evidence for irreducible complexity presented by ID?

http://www.uncommond...gaps-argument//



http://www.evolution...al_f064651.html

http://www.evolution..._con061851.html

http://www.evolution...t_of061311.html

http://www.evolution...llig056101.html

http://www.evolution...y_of052461.html

http://www.evolution..._des051841.html

http://www.arn.org/mm/mb_ic.htm

If the pemises are true: the argument is logically valid.
However, the premises are false: the argument is not sound.

The argument for intelligent design is therefore not tenable.

First this is not my topic but second you have not demonstrated ID is incorrect even if irreducible complexity fails to stand up. Science is almost always wrong to its credit You have not shown by proof, either 2 or 4 are incorrect. Your dismissal is premature. ID is a theory and an example of science in action.

[maxwatt]

Irreducible complexity,+ Lowenheim-Skolem theorum --> there is more than one logically correct explanation to any phenomenon complex enough to include the real number system. From which it might follow (again by analogy) that ID is not the only logically correct theory to explain the results of evolution, nor vice versa.
(An actual proof of this may be possible, but I suspect it would require several hundred pages of proof, and a more rigorous definition of terms than my limited attention span will allow.)

Sorry I couldn't resist playing with this, but I think this gets to the crux of the matter: different and not-reducibly-identical theories that can explain the same phenomena. We need to come up with a statement whose truth or falsity would distinguish the alternate views espoused here, and proceed to verify it. Otherwise we are both correct And both incorrect. Sort of like Schroedinger's living dead cat.

Turnbuckle et al: Shadowhawk is not an idiot, complete or otherwise. I believe he is wrestling with philosophical issues those of us trained in science or engineering have assumed as settled, but which are still valid issues in the context he is trying to raise. He approaches the problem from an angle that we logical positivists would consider odd, to say the least. Not that I agree with what he says, but it appears to strive for a logically consistent system which, though different to our own, is not incorrect on that basis. I do think Occam's principle not to multiply entities (or increase complexity, i.e. choose the simpler of two explanations that both explain the thing at hand) is working against him. As he is not invoking a diety in his explanation, we are not dealing with a "ghost-in-the-machine" sort of problem, but I am curious where Shadowhawk can go or wants to go with this.

[Deep Blue]

I think this is fair

Ok.

It is false to say because some natural structures are complex, all natural structures are not designed, That is the subject of great discussion.

I did not say that. I said natural structures need not be designed in order to be complex. I did not state that all natural structures are not designed. I said there is no evidence for design.

This will be decided by scientific debate not pronouncements.

Yes. We will examine what peer-reviewed papers you have presented from respected scientific journals as evidence for ID.

Have you examined the evidence for irreducible complexity presented by ID?

It will be examined here. I expect you have linked peer-reviewed scientific papers from well-reputed scientific journals?

http://www.evolution...al_f064651.html

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a scientific paper. Furthermore, the evolution of the flagellum is documented. For example, this pubmed paper explains the evolution of the flagellum and the scientific evidence for its evolution rather than its design: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16953248

http://www.evolution..._con061851.html

Not peer reviewed. Not a scientific journal. This is a scientific debate. Please uphold standards.

http://www.evolution...t_of061311.html

My criticism for not providing peer-reviewed journals is a fair one. If you wish to explain why this criticism is not fair, state it here. Otherwise, we will go by scientific, peer-reviewed standards.

http://www.evolution...llig056101.html

Your source: "We've seen there are now some 50-plus peer-reviewed scientific papers that support intelligent design."

#1. 0 peer reviewed papers linked on this page have been accepted to pubmed, nature, science, or other reputed scientific journal.

#2. The above quote from your source is evidence that the scientific community rejects ID (Overwhelmingly, 97% of the scientific community rejects ID). Out of hundreds of thousands of paper published on the subject of evolution by natural selection in respected peer-reviewed journals, there are only 50 papers in obscure, pro-ID scientific journals that argue for intelligent design.

#3. You have not raised evidence of your own for ID. You have linked non-peer reviewed websites, which you have not commented on or integrated into an argument of your own. This is a discussion, not merely a place to post links without elaborating further on the issue.

#4. If you post a link in favor of an argument, you must explain why you have posted it. Otherwise, you merely drown out the discussion in a sea of links that nobody has time to read. Summarize your arguments and use links to support them, rather than using links to obfuscate the discussion.

I don't have the time to go through every link. Could you please summarize some evidence for ID. I have not seen you present a single, peer-reviewed paper from a respected scientific journal to suggest evidence for ID.

First this is not my topic but second you have not demonstrated ID is incorrect even if irreducible complexity fails to stand up. Science is almost always wrong to its credit You have not shown by proof, either 2 or 4 are incorrect. Your dismissal is premature. ID is a theory and an example of science in action.

I have not demonstrated that ID is wrong. This is a positive belief, and would be impossible to prove. Similarly, disproving that an invisible unicorn orbits Jupiter would be impossible, but no one subscribes to this belief despite the fact that it is impossible to disprove.

I have, however, demonstrated there is no evidence for ID and that there is no reason to subscribe to it.

[Deep Blue]

As he is not invoking a diety in his explanation...

You are incorrect. ID implies that life or the universe was designed. In ID, designed implies a designer. This is a way to obfuscate the notion of a god or diety and to cloak ID language in an academic veneer.

[maxwatt]

As he is not invoking a diety in his explanation...

You are incorrect. ID implies that life or the universe was designed. In ID, designed implies a designer. This is a way to obfuscate the notion of a god or deity and to cloak ID language in an academic veneer.

Good point, but it says nothing about the nature of the "designer": one god, many gods, a daemon, an advanced civilization trying to create a more perfect universe than theirs, or the meta-equivalent of a child at the beach idly building sand castles. or maybe it was mice. Not necessarily a deity,

Of course you might also wonder if logical necessity is giving the appearance of design, or if logical necessity is itself god (??) or if the appearance of design is an illusion.

[Turnbuckle]

I do think Occam's principle not to multiply entities (or increase complexity, i.e. choose the simpler of two explanations that both explain the thing at hand) is working against him. As he is not invoking a diety in his explanation, we are not dealing with a "ghost-in-the-machine" sort of problem, but I am curious where Shadowhawk can go or wants to go with this.

His deity is just around the corner, but still, I wouldn't use Occam against him. The principle is a rule of thumb, not a law or argument.

[Turnbuckle]

As he is not invoking a diety in his explanation...

You are incorrect. ID implies that life or the universe was designed. In ID, designed implies a designer. This is a way to obfuscate the notion of a god or deity and to cloak ID language in an academic veneer.

Good point, but it says nothing about the nature of the "designer": one god, many gods, a daemon, an advanced civilization trying to create a more perfect universe than theirs, or the meta-equivalent of a child at the beach idly building sand castles. or maybe it was mice. Not necessarily a deity,

Exactly. And the ID concept would be more palatable if everyone pushing it weren't secretly pushing Biblical creationism.

[maxwatt]

...
Good point, but it says nothing about the nature of the "designer": one god, many gods, a daemon, an advanced civilization trying to create a more perfect universe than theirs, or the meta-equivalent of a child at the beach idly building sand castles. or maybe it was mice. Not necessarily a deity,

Exactly. And the ID concept would be more palatable if everyone pushing it weren't secretly pushing Biblical creationism.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

[shadowhawk]

I have read all the posts since I was last here. Most issues being discussed are off topic. I mentioned Scientific theories are almost always wrong and the history of science is covered with the bones of false science theories.

You may feel ID is wrong but as yet I have not seen any definitive presentation which disproves it. Can aspects of ID be disproved? I would suppose so. Most of what we so surely believe today will be laughed at 100 years from now if history gives an example.

Wrong theories are basic to science and being wrong does not keep something from being part of the scientific process. This brings us to the topic subject. I do not feel ID is outside Science just because some Jews believe in it. Bigotry. Some theists believe in evolution. Does this make evolution false science What if an atheist believes in either position? Does that make the position atheistic? Hardly.

The reason some want ID to be religious is to disenfranchise ID with separation of Church and state arguments. They are two different issues.

...
Good point, but it says nothing about the nature of the "designer": one god, many gods, a daemon, an advanced civilization trying to create a more perfect universe than theirs, or the meta-equivalent of a child at the beach idly building sand castles. or maybe it was mice. Not necessarily a deity,

Exactly. And the ID concept would be more palatable if everyone pushing it weren't secretly pushing Biblical creationism.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

[Turnbuckle]

The reason some want ID to be religious is to disenfranchise ID with separation of Church and state arguments. They are two different issues.

I can't speak for "some", but Wikileak's article on the Wedge Strategy certainly points to ID as being fake science designed to get religion into schools. Do you deny that some are not using ID for this purpose?

As for disproving ID, the ball is still in your court to show legitimate evidence for it. Some have tried over the years, and were shot down. So the evidence steadily recedes into dark corners of jellyfish and mollusk evolution where science has not yet fleshed out the details.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 24 October 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The reason some want ID to be religious is to disenfranchise ID with separation of Church and state arguments. They are two different issues.

I can't speak for "some", but Wikileak's article on the Wedge Strategy certainly points to ID as being fake science designed to get religion into schools. Do you deny that some are not using ID for this purpose?

As for disproving ID, the ball is still in your court to show legitimate evidence for it. Some have tried over the years, and were shot down. So the evidence steadily recedes into dark corners of jellyfish and mollusk evolution where science has not yet fleshed out the details.

The wedge, and it has been over 10 years since I read it. It is about, as I said, naturalism which is often a philosophy, passed off as science. . http://www.amazon.co... wedge of truth

Here is the book description from Amazon.,

“A 2001 ECPA Gold Medallion Award winner! A 2001 Christianity Today Award of Merit winner! Science is the supreme authority in our culture. If there is a dispute, science arbitrates it. If a law is to be passed, science must ratify it. If truth is to be taught, science must approve it. And when science is ignored, storms of protest are heard in the media, in the university--even in local coffee shops. Yet a society ruled by science (and the naturalistic philosophy that undergirds much of it) faces major problems. Science speaks so authoritatively in our culture that many are tempted to use its clout to back claims that go beyond the available evidence. How can we spot when such ideological slight of hand has taken place? More important, while we may learn a great deal from science, it does not offer us unlimited knowledge. In fact, most scientists readily acknowledge that science cannot provide answers to questions of ultimate purpose or meaning. So to what authority will we turn for these? The deficiencies in science and the philosophy (naturalism) that undergirds it call for a cognitive revolution--a fundamental change in our thinking habits. And it all begins with a wedge of truth. This wedge of truth does not "wedge out" a necessary foundation of rational thought. But it does "wedge in" the much-needed acknowledgment that reason encompasses more than mere scientific investigation. Phillip E. Johnson argues compellingly for an understanding of reason that brings scientific certainty back into relational balance with philosophical inquiry and religious faith. Applying his wedge of truth, Johnson analyzes the latest debates between science and religion played out in our media, our universities and society-at-large. He looks to thinkers such as Newbigin, Polanyi and Pascal to lay a foundation for our seeing the universe in a totally different way. And from that base he then considers the educational programs and research agendas that should be undertaken--and have already begun in some earnest--during this new century. In the end, Johnson prophetically concludes that the walls of naturalism will fall and that the Christian gospel must play a vital role in building a new foundation fro thinking--not just about science and religion but about everything that gives human life happiness and meaning.”

The ball of proving ID is not in my court. I am not a scientist but an observer. You have produced no evidence except name calling. It is true that scientists call each other names all the time as they argue.
over the various schools of science but you are not being very scientific to engage in such tactics.

As for my knowledge of who is using the wedge tactic, which you claim to know from an article you read, what kind of proof is that? I have read ID, as well as other viewpoints as well and from my exposure the Wedge is little mentioned. Are you paranoid or do you know from experience. Do you deny what the Wedge is talking about?

I do not believe ID is fake science Sbecause science is a process not a position, I do not believe ID has been shot down nor disproved. Scientifically, we will see.

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 October 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

The ball of proving ID is not in my court. I am not a scientist but an observer. You have produced no evidence except name calling.

Plenty of scientists have provided evidence for evolution, from Darwin on down to the present day. There is no legitimate evidence for ID, and since you haven't provided any, you lose.

[shadowhawk]

The ball of proving ID is not in my court. I am not a scientist but an observer. You have produced no evidence except name calling.

Plenty of scientists have provided evidence for evolution, from Darwin on down to the present day. There is no legitimate evidence for ID, and since you haven't provided any, you lose.

So are you telling me science is an election process? Never mind that most of our advances start out as minority positions. How do you explain that? Plenty of Scientists have believed all kinds if things. Lets vote!

Now science by your promulgation. Give me a brake. I an the only one who has provided any support for the position of ID and like this last pronouncement you have provided none. ID may prove to be wrong in the end but it won’t be because of this nonsense. This is not the way we do science

I don’t lose anything, I go where the evidence takes me.

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 October 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

I don’t lose anything, I go where the evidence takes me.

That's rather ironic, since you don't have any.

[shadowhawk]

Here is a position paper on whether ID is a scientific theory. They speak for themselves.
‘
How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"?
Casey Luskin October 14, 2011 6:00 AM | Permalink

A question I commonly receive is whether intelligent design is a "scientific theory." The word "theory" gets tossed around a lot as if everyone agrees on what it means. To answer the question, we must first consider the meaning of the word "theory."

As I've already elaborated here, philosopher Peter Kosso explains that calling something a "theory" says little about the degree of certainty backing the idea. As he states, "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative." In Kosso's view, a theory "describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." Thus "[s]ome theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which."

Does ID meet this definition of theory? Yes, it does.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure, they conclude that it was designed.

Meeting the Definition of "Theory" from ID's Most Eminent Critics

Though Peter Kosso might disagree, I believe ID qualifies under his definition of "theory." But as I suggested above, there are many definitions of "theory" out there. How can we know if ID is a scientific theory? Take the definition of "theory" given by ID's most eminent scientific critics, and if ID meets that definition then there's a good bet ID may properly be considered a scientific theory.

Perhaps the most eminent scientific opponents of the theory of intelligent design can be found among the membership of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In contrast to Peter Kosso, the NAS defines "theory" as an idea that is well-tested and well-supported by the scientific evidence:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (Science & Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1999).)
"a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (Science, Evolution & Creationism (National Academy Press, 2008).)

Even if we accept the NAS's more stringent definition of theory, ID more than qualifies.

When we're confronted with multipart tests, it's often useful to break them down into their elements. If the subject meets all the "elements," then it passes the test. Let's use that method here to analyze whether ID is a theory:"Element 1: ID must be an "explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature."

Element 2: ID must "incorporate many facts, laws and tested hypotheses."

Element 3: ID must be "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence.""Element 1: ID is a an "explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature."

ID is not just an explanation of "some aspect of the natural world": in fact it explains many aspects of the natural world. If we think in terms if just broad categories, ID proposes that intelligent agency is the best explanation for historical events like:

the origin of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for advanced life.
the origin of extremely high levels of complex and specified information in DNA.
the origin of integrated systems required for animal body plans.
the origin of many irreducibly complex systems found in living organisms.

So ID satisfies this element: It is an explanation of many aspects of the natural world, especially many aspects of biological complexity.

Element 2: ID "incorporates many facts, laws and tested hypotheses."

ID easily meets this criterion. ID incorporates many facts, laws, and tested hypotheses, including:

ID incorporates the known laws and constants of the universe and ties them together in a unified theory to explain why they are coordinated to produce life-friendly physical parameters.
ID incorporates many known facts about DNA sequences about and tested hypotheses showing they are finely tuned to perform biological functions.
ID incorporates a myriad of tested hypotheses about the geologically abrupt appearance of body plans in the fossil record, as well as numerous facts from biochemistry and animal biology regarding the kind and amount of integrated information necessary to coordinate new types of proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs into new functional body plans.
ID incorporates many tested hypotheses about the presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems, evidenced by genetic knockout experiments which have shown that irreducible complexity is a real phenomenon.
ID does all of this by proposing new laws such as the law of conservation of information, new principles about the causes of high CSI, new methods of measuring functional information and complexity, and new hypotheses about the ubiquity of fine-tuning throughout both cosmology and biology.

Element 3: ID is "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence."

This element is unique because it places "theory" in the eye of the beholder. If you think ID is correct (i.e., "well-substantiated"), then it will qualify as a scientific theory. If you don't think it's correct, then you won't think it's well substantiated, and ID won't qualify as a theory. In practice, this element thus measures subjective questions about what people believe about an idea rather than posing objective questions about the basic nature of the idea being considered. This is probably why careful thinkers like Peter Kosso expressly exclude this element from their definition of "theory."

Nonetheless, ID meets the NAS's third element, and a vast body of evidence can certainly be shown to back intelligent design. ID is well substantiated because a significant number of studies have confirmed ID's predictions, such as:

Studies of physics and cosmology continue to uncover deeper and deeper levels of fine-tuning. Many examples could be given, but this one is striking: the initial entropy of the universe must have been fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10(10^123) to render the universe life-friendly. That blows other fine-tuning constants away. New cosmological theories like string theory or multiverse theories just push back questions about fine-tuning, and exacerbate the need for fine-tuning.
Mutational sensitivity tests increasingly show that DNA sequences are highly fine-tuned to generate functional proteins and perform other biological functions.
Studies of epigenetics and systems biology are revealing more and more how integrated organisms are, from biochemistry to macrobiology, and showing incredible finely-tuned basic cellular functions.
Genetic knockout experiments are showing irreducible complexity, such as in the flagellum, or multi-mutation features where many simultaneous mutations would be necessary to gain an advantage. This is more fine-tuning.

ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS's definitions of "theory."’

[maxwatt]

Seems to me ID is not a scientific theory in that it is not 'falsifiable". It makes no assertions that can be tested to be true or false.

[Turnbuckle]

It's clear from post #148 that the ID types can't tell speculation from evidence. They look to the very edges of science, where things aren't nailed down yet, and in that darkness they see the hand of god.

If they were correct, however, they could find the evidence they need in human evolution and in human DNA. Because it's right there in Genesis, that God created man fully formed and took a special interest in him. So be honest, go after the link between man and his ape ancestors or give up the Bible as a source of anything but superstition and stories. Because if Genesis isn't right, then the Bible is wrong from the first page on.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 October 2012 - 11:46 AM.