Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 2:28:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

To what extant? Hybridization of different plants and animals is intelligent design. In terms of changing a horse have six legs and five eyes, that would take us thousands, if not millions of years to do without the use of genetic engineering.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 3:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 2:28:16 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

To what extant? Hybridization of different plants and animals is intelligent design. In terms of changing a horse have six legs and five eyes, that would take us thousands, if not millions of years to do without the use of genetic engineering.
Hes talking about the intelligent design movement, a hypothesis(barely) that states that there must have been a supernatural, unkown designer who has manipulated the organisms on earth for the past 4 billion years for the purpose of screwing with the minds of humans and as a general joke.

Basically, it takes something that science currently has no explanation as to how it arose, and conclude that it was intelligently designed.

Sadly, it fails, at every corner, and is nothing more than a "Designer of the gaps" argument.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:55:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you actually read their work? I'm no advocate but this has been addressed.

"Most scientists and philosophers of science think that the ability to subject theories to empirical tests constitutes an important aspect of any scientific method of study. But for a theory to be testable, there must be some evidential grounds by which it could be shown to be incorrect or inadequate. And, contrary to the repeated claims of its detractors, the theory of intelligent design is testable. In fact, it is testable in several interrelated ways.

First, like other scientific theories concerned with explaining events in the remote past, intelligent design is testable by comparing its explanatory power to that of competing theories. Darwin used this method of testing in On the Origin of Species. In my presentation of the case for intelligent design in Chapters 8 through 16, I tested the theory in exactly this way by comparing the explanatory power of intelligent design against that of several other classes of explanation. That the theory of intelligent design can explain the origin of biological information (and the origin of the cell's interdependent information-processing system) better than its materialistic competitors shows that it has passed an important scientific test.

This comparative process is not a hall of mirrors, a competition without an external
standard of judgment. The theory of intelligent design, like the other historical scientific theories it competes against, is tested against our knowledge of the evidence in need of explanation and our knowledge of the cause-and-effect structure of the world. As noted in Chapters 7 and 15, evaluations of "causal adequacy" guide historical scientific reasoning and help to determine which hypothesis among a competing group of hypotheses has the best explanatory power. Considerations of causal adequacy provide an experience-based criterion by which to test—accept, reject, or prefer—competing historical scientific theories. When such theories cite causes that are known to produce the effect in question, they meet the test of causal adequacy; when they fail to cite such causes, they fail to meet this test. To adapt my example from Chapter 7, the earthquake hypothesis fails the test of causal adequacy because we do not have evidence that earthquakes cause layers of volcanic ash to accumulate, whereas the volcanic eruption hypothesis passes the test of causal adequacy because experience has shown that eruptions do cause this phenomenon.20

Since empirical considerations provide grounds for rejecting historical scientific theories or preferring one theory over another, such theories are clearly testable. Like other historical scientific theories, intelligent design makes claims about the cause of past events, thus making it testable against our knowledge of cause and effect. Moreover, because experience shows that an intelligent agent is not only a known, but also the only known cause of specified, digitally encoded information, the theory of intelligent design developed in this book has passed two critical tests: the tests of causal adequacy and causal existence (see Chapter 15). Precisely because intelligent design uniquely passed these tests, I argued that it stands as the best explanation of the DNA enigma.

Finally, though historical scientific theories typically do not make predictions that can be tested under controlled laboratory conditions, they do sometimes generate discriminating predictions about what we should find in the natural world—predictions that enable scientists to compare them to other historical scientific theories. The theory of intelligent design has generated a number of such discriminating empirical predictions. These predictions not only distinguish the theory of intelligent design from competing evolutionary theories; they also serve to confirm the design hypothesis rather than its competitors.

Consider the case of so-called junk DNA—the DNA that does not code for proteins
found in the genomes of both one-celled organisms and multicellular plants and animals. The theory of intelligent design and materialistic evolutionary theories (both chemical and biological) differ in their interpretation of so-called junk DNA. Since neo-Darwinism holds that new biological information arises as the result of a process of mutational trial and error, it predicts that nonfunctional DNA would tend to accumulate in the genomes of eukaryotic organisms (organisms whose cells contain nuclei). Since most chemical evolutionary theories also envision some role for chance interactions in the origin of biological information, they imply that nonfunctional DNA would have similarly accumulated in the first simple (prokaryotic) organisms—as a kind of remnant of whatever undirected process first produced functional information in the cell. For this reason, most evolutionary biologists concluded upon the discovery of nonprotein-coding DNA that such DNA was "junk." In their view, discovery of the nonprotein-coding regions confirmed the prediction or expectation of naturalistic evolutionary theories and disconfirmed an implicit prediction of intelligent design.

As Michael Shermer argues, "Rather than being intelligently designed, the human
genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragmented copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution."21 Or as Ken Miller argues: "The critics of evolution like to say that the complexity of the genome makes it clear that it was designed…. But there's a problem with that analysis, and it's a serious one. The problem is the genome itself: it's not perfect. In fact, it's riddled with useless information, mistakes, and broken genes…. Molecular biologists actually call some of these regions ‘gene deserts,' reflecting their barren nature."22 Or as philosopher of science Philip Kitcher puts it, "If you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would not fill them up with junk."23 ID advocates advance a different view of nonprotein-coding DNA.24 The theory of intelligent design predicts that most of the nonprotein-coding sequences in the genome should perform some biological function, even if they do not direct protein synthesis. ID theorists do not deny that mutational processes might have degraded or "broken" some previously functional DNA, but we predict that the functional DNA (the signal) should dwarf the nonfunctional DNA (the noise), and not the reverse. As William Dembski explained and predicted in 1998: "On an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function."25 The discovery in recent years that nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions has confirmed this prediction. It also decisively refutes prominent critics of intelligent design—including Shermer, Miller, and Kitcher—who have continued to argue (each as recently as 2008) that the genome is composed of mostly useless DNA.26

Contrary to their claims, recent scientific discoveries have shown that the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome direct the production of RNA molecules that regulate the use of the protein-coding regions of DNA. Cell and genome biologists have also discovered that these supposedly "useless" nonprotein-coding regions of the genome: (1) regulate DNA replication,27 (2) regulate transcription,28 (3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material,29 (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes,30 (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix),31 (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing,32 (7) modulate translation,33 (8) regulate embryological development,34 (9) repair DNA,35 and (10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease36 among other functions..."

The rest continued in next post.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:58:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"...In some cases, "junk" DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38 Indeed, far from being "junk," as materialistic theories of evolution assumed, the nonprotein coding DNA directs the use of other information in the genome, just as an operating system directs the use of the information contained in various application programs stored in a computer. In any case, contrary to the often heard criticism that the theory makes no predictions, intelligent design not only makes a discriminating prediction about the nature of "junk DNA"; recent discoveries about nonprotein-coding DNA confirm the prediction that it makes.39 Appendix A describes several other discriminating predictions that the theory of intelligent design makes."

http://books.google.com...

Check out chapter 18.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 6:48:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's actually quite interesting. I wouldn't call it earthshaking or anything, because there is nuance oif you read Wells and Ohms predictions concerning non-coding DNA.

I would say that's a testable prediction though.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's some more from the same source in Appendix A.

"Some Predictions of Intelligent Design

Critics of intelligent design often argue that the theory cannot be tested, because it makes no predictions. The charge turns on a fundamental misunderstanding of how historical scientific theories are tested. Primarily, such testing is accomplished by comparing the explanatory power of competing hypotheses against already known facts. The theory of intelligent design, like other theories about the causes of past events, is testable, and has been tested, in just this way. That said, the theory of intelligent design also has predictive consequences. Since the design hypothesis makes claims about what caused life to arise, it has implications for what life should look like. Moreover, the explanatory framework that intelligent design provides leads to new research questions, some of which suggest specific predictions that are testable against observations or by laboratory experiments.

Some of these predictions can help adjudicate proposals that invoke either intelligent
causes or materialistic mechanisms as explanations for various features of life or events
in life's history. Other predictions can help discriminate between competing ideas of how a designing intelligence influenced the history of life—for instance, between design
hypotheses that affirm universal common ancestry and those that envision more discrete or discontinuous intelligent activity in the history of life. Indeed, depending upon how scientists envision intelligent design playing a role in the history of life, they may formulate different kinds of design hypotheses, each entailing different though testable predictions.Some predictions (those that discriminate the explanatory power of intelligent causes and materialistic mechanisms) will necessarily function as tests of the causal efficacy of mechanisms of evolutionary change. Since design hypotheses are often formulated as strong claims about intelligence as the best causal explanation of some particular phenomenon, these hypotheses entail counterclaims about the insufficiency of competing materialistic mechanisms. But such claims also entail predictions. The claim that intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of particular informational features of organisms leads inevitably to the claim that other competing causal hypotheses will not demonstrate the power to produce these effects—just as they may not have done so to this point. Similarly, the claim that intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of the integrated or "irreducible complexity" of molecular machines entails a prediction about the insufficiency of competing materialistic causes for these systems.

In addition to predictions about what future evidence will show about the causal powers of various processes, intelligent design also generates predictions about what we are likely to find in living systems as we investigate them. We have extensive
experience-based knowledge of the kinds of strategies and systems that designing minds devise to solve various kinds of functional problems. We also know a lot about the kinds of phenomena that various natural causes produce. For this reason, the theory of intelligent design makes predictions about the kinds of features we are likely to find in living systems if they were in fact intelligently designed.

Other types of predictions flow from considering the possibility that intelligence
influenced, directed, or guided the history of life, either gradually or discretely. Various
ID hypotheses generate different predictions about what, for example, the fossil record or phylogenetic studies should show. Depending upon how ID theories conceive of the
designing intelligence affecting the history of life over time and what other characteristics they attribute to this intelligence (such as benevolence, for example), design hypotheses may make specific claims about the causes of so-called dysteleology, or bad design. These claims may entail specific empirical predictions as well.

Thus, intelligent-design hypotheses may generate several distinct types of predictions:
predictions about causal powers, or lack thereof, of various mechanisms; predictions
about the structure, organization, and functional logic of living systems; predictions about what evidence will show about the history of life; and predictions about the causes of putatively bad design. Consider a dozen or so ID-based predictions, each of which exemplifies one or more of these types. I start with two predictions directly relevant to testing the main arguments made in this book."

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:10:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Causal Powers of Materialistic Mechanisms

The theory of intelligent design makes predictions about what the evidence will show about the causal powers of various material mechanisms. According to the hypothesis developed in this book, intelligent design is the best explanation of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life. To make this case, I argued that no purely physical or chemical entity or process had demonstrated the causal powers to produce complex specified information—where "complex" refers to a specific amount of information (roughly 500 bits or more) and the inverse of a probability measure (Dembski's universal probability bound). An obvious prediction follows from this
claim—in particular, that large amounts of new functionally specified information (over
500 bits) will not accumulate as a result of random or undirected natural processes and
that no such process will be discovered that can produce over 500 bits of new specified
information starting from purely physical and chemical antecedents. My theory
acknowledges that small amounts of specified information can occasionally arise by
random processes, but that the amount of information that can be generated is limited by the probabilistic resources of the universe. This prediction can be clearly falsified by the discovery of an undirected physical or chemical process that can generate over 500 bits of functionally specified information.

This general prediction entails other more specific ones. For example, based upon the
considerations just discussed, the theory of intelligent design developed here predicts that genetic algorithms simulating the power of undirected evolutionary processes will not produce more than 500 bits of new complex specified information (information not
supplied by the programmer in the algorithm)—unless, that is, an intelligent programmer provides necessary "active information." It further predicts that a close examination of programs that appear to produce novel complex specified information will reveal either (a) inputs from programmers that account for the putative creation of new complex specified information beyond what could have been expected given the available probabilistic resources, or (b) a lack of biological realism in the computer simulation, or (c) both. Recently, William Dembski and Robert Marks have produced peer-reviewed papers performing informational accounting on genetic algorithms that confirm these predictions in specific case studies.1

Typically, genetic algorithms may lack realism (1) by providing the program with a target sequence, (2) by programming the computer to select for proximity to future function rather than actual function, or (3) by selecting for changes that fail to model biologically realistic increments of functional change, increments that reflect the extreme rarity of functional sequences of nucleotide bases or amino acids in the relevant sequence space(see Chapter 13).

The theory of intelligent design presented in this book entails specific predictions about
RNA-world research as well. For example, it predicts that investigations of the properties of ribozymes (RNA catalysts) will reveal an insufficient number of enzymatic functions to sustain a primitive cell or even an alternative RNA-based system of protein synthesis, demonstrating that RNA could not have performed both the necessary enzymatic functions of modern proteins and the information-storage functions of nucleic acids that the RNA-world scenario envisions. Further, the theory of intelligent design developed in this book also predicts that putatively "successful" ribozyme engineering experiments—in particular, experiments that appear to enhance the replicase activity of ribozymes—will require significant sequence specificity in the RNA bases in any functional ribozyme and that, upon examination, active information provided by ribozyme engineers will account for much of this sequence specificity (in particular, the amount beyond what could have been expected to arise spontaneously given available probabilistic resources)."

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:15:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Structure, Organization, and Functional Logic of Living Systems

ID also makes predictions about the structure, organization, and functional logic of living systems. In 2005, University of Chicago bacterial geneticist James Shapiro (not an advocate of intelligent design) published a paper describing a regulatory system in the cell called the lac operon system.2 He showed that the system functions in accord with a clear functional logic that can be readily and accurately represented as an algorithm involving a series of if/then commands. Since algorithms and algorithmic logic are, in our experience, the products of intelligent agency, the theory of intelligent design might expect to find such logic evident in the operation of cellular regulatory and control systems. It also, therefore, expects that as other regulatory and control systems are discovered and elucidated in the cell, many of these also will manifest a logic that can be expressed in algorithmic form.

Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells has also used design reasoning to infer the possible
existence of a previously undiscovered molecular machine within the cell. While
researching the causes of cancer, Wells became intrigued with the possibility that an
organelle in the cell called the centrosome may play a significant role in this disease.

In animal cells, the centrosome sits alongside the nucleus. It serves as the focus of the
microtubules that give the cell its shape and provides tracks along which proteins from
the nucleus are moved to their proper locations elsewhere in the cell. Centrosomes play a role in the process of cell division, and some cancer researchers—noting that cancer cells usually contain damaged, abnormal, or extra chromosomes—have suggested that centrosomal defects may be the first stage in cancer.

Many cancer researchers disagree. Influenced by neo-Darwinism, they believe that cancer is caused by DNA mutations. As a skeptic of neo-Darwinism, Wells was inclined to doubt this and to consider the centrosomal theory as a possibility. As he studied the
literature on cancer, he surmised that there was no consistent pattern of mutations in
cancer. As he studied centrosomes, he became even more intrigued with the possibility
that they may play a significant role in cancer.

When animal cells divide, they rely on an intracellular apparatus called the "spindle."
Looking somewhat like the barrel-shaped pattern formed by iron filings around the two
poles of a magnet, the spindle has a centrosome at each pole. The already duplicated
chromosomes are contained within it, and before the cell divides, a "polar ejection force" helps to move the chromosomes to the midpoint of the spindle. After the chromosomes are properly aligned at the midpoint, the calcium level inside the cell rises abruptly. Then the chromosomes split into two equal sets and move to the spindle poles—the centrosomes.

Suspecting that centrosomes produce the polar ejection force, Wells turned his attention to them. Each animal-cell centrosome contains two "centrioles," cylindrical structures only half a millionth of a meter long. Each centriole looks like a tiny turbine with nine tilted blades. As an advocate of intelligent design and a critic of undirected evolution, Wells assumed provisionally that these structures actually were designed to be turbines. From there, Wells used reverse engineering to predict other features of centrioles and their action in both normal and cancerous cells.

First, hints from other centriole studies—together with engineering considerations—led
Wells to suggest that each centriole contains an Archimedes screw, a helical pump that
draws fluid into one end of the turbine and pushes it out through the blades. Second,
Wells postulated that dynein-motor molecules inside the centriole would provide the
force to turn the helical pump. Third, Wells concluded from engineering considerations
that such an arrangement would operate like a laboratory vortexer, a common device that produces a wobble to swirl the contents of a test tube.

Doing the math, Wells deduced that centrioles could rotate tens of thousands of times a second. A pair of centrioles at both ends of the spindle could produce the polar ejection force that moves chromosomes to the midpoint before cell division. The rise in
intracellular calcium that accompanies chromosome separation would shut off the dynein motors, thereby turning off the polar ejection force. This would permit the chromosomes to move poleward without being pushed away at the same time. But if the centriole turbines fail to turn off, the continuing polar ejection force would subject the chromosomes to unusual stress and could cause the damage now thought by some
researchers to be the first step in cancer. The fact that there is a correlation between
calcium deficiency and cancer is consistent with this hypothesis.

Wells is currently testing his hypothesis experimentally. If corroborated, the hypothesis
could aid in the prevention and early diagnosis of cancer. Wells's work also shows how
an intelligent-design perspective can lead to new hypotheses, testable predictions, and
new lines of research. The outcome of his work won't directly confirm or disconfirm
intelligent design, or neo-Darwinism for that matter, since the truth of neither theory
depends upon whether any specific structure is or is not a turbine. But it illustrates how
an ID perspective can prove fruitful for generating new testable hypotheses and
predictions about the structure and function of the cell (as well as the causes of cellular
malfunctions when they occur).

Wells himself has noted that scientists operating out of a Darwinian framework could
have formulated a similar hypothesis. Nevertheless, he also notes that the underlying
assumptions of Darwinians (about the role of mutations in DNA) disinclined them to do
so. Conversely, Wells's convictions about intelligent design inclined him to suspect that
appearances of design might in fact be evidence of real design, which led him to suspect the presence of a molecular machine in the centriole. It also led him to use reverse engineering to develop a testable hypothesis about its structure and function. As he explained in an abstract to a scientific article about his hypothesis, "Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines…. What if centrioles really are tiny turbines? This is much easier to conceive if we adopt a holistic rather than reductionistic approach, and if we regard centrioles as designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution."3"

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:20:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The History of Life

Various ID hypotheses also generate predictions about the history of life. Advocates of
design who think that the information necessary to produce new forms of life was
front-loaded in the first cell might predict that prokaryotic cells would demonstrate the
capacity to carry amounts of genetic information (information in excess of the needs of
those cells) or that such cells would retain vestiges of having done so. Similarly,
advocates of design who think that the information necessary to produce new forms of
life was front-loaded in the initial conditions of the universe and the fine-tuning of the
laws of physics might predict that physical and chemical laws would demonstrate
biologically relevant self-organizing tendencies. Since both these design hypotheses favor a monophyletic view of the history of life, they would predict, along with
neo-Darwinism, that the traditional evidences for universal common descent (from
biogeography, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and genomics) would
withstand challenge. Indeed, such theories generate a host of specific predictions about what the evidence in each of these subdisciplines of biology should show. These are not, of course, predictions that provided reasons for preferring a front-loaded design hypothesis to a materialistic explanation for the origin of the first life. The evidence and predictions considered already do that. Instead, they are predictions that could help decide the merits of hypotheses of front-loaded design versus those of discrete design.

Conversely, advocates of design who envision a designing intelligence acting discretely
at intervals across the geological time scale tend to favor a polyphyletic rather than a
monophyletic view of the history of life. Thus, they predict emerging patterns of
evidence from these same subdisciplines that contradict a traditional monophyletic view
and support a polyphyletic interpretation of the history of life.

Design theorists who expect a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic geometry for the
history of life often do so because of the functional integration and interdependence of
parts exhibited in living systems and because of their understanding of how such
functionally integrated systems constrain changes in form. The constraints principle of
engineering asserts that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to perturb any part of the system without destroying the whole. Because many ID
theorists think organisms were designed as functionally integrated systems comprising
many parts and subsystems, they think it is difficult to alter these systems significantly
without destroying them, particularly when such alterations consist of a series of blind
mutations "in search of" increased functionality. Thus, these ID theorists predict that
there should be significant and discoverable limits to the amount of change that various
organisms can endure and that major body plans should exhibit significant stasis over
time in the fossil record.

Design hypotheses envisioning discrete intelligent action also predict a pattern of fossil
evidence showing large discontinuous or "quantum" increases in biological form and
information at intervals in the history of life. Advocates of this kind of design hypothesis
would expect to see a pattern of sudden appearance of major forms of life as well as
morphological stasis.4 Since designing agents are not constrained to produce
technological innovations in structure from simpler precursors or to maintain the function of these simpler precursors through a series of intermediate steps, they would also predict a "top-down" pattern of appearance in which large-scale differences in form ("disparity" between many separate body plans) emerge suddenly and prior to the occurrence of lower-level (i.e., species and genus) differences in form. Neo-Darwinism and front-loaded design hypotheses expect the opposite pattern, a "bottom-up" pattern in which small differences in form accumulate first (differentiating species and genera from each other) and then only much later building to the large-scale differences in form that differentiate higher taxonomic categories such as phyla and classes.

Both types of design hypotheses also make different predictions about what phylogenetic analyses should show. Those design advocates who (like neo-Darwinists) accept common descent predict that phylogenetic analyses performed on different molecules and structures in the two species should yield harmonious trees of life—trees that indicate similar degrees of difference, relatedness, and divergence from a common ancestor regardless of which molecules or anatomical structures are compared. According to the theory of common descent, since all the molecules and subsystems of an organism evolved from the same common ancestor, the phylogenetic trees generated from different molecules and structures in the same two species should agree regardless of which molecules or subsystems are compared.

For this same reason, design advocates who affirm polyphyly (and with it more discrete
modes or infusions of design) predict that phylogenetic analyses would often yield
conflicting trees of life—that is, dissimilar measures of difference, relatedness, and
divergence depending upon which molecules or anatomical structures are compared in
the same two species. They predict this for another reason. Many design advocates see
similarities in functional biomacromolecules and anatomical structures as resulting from
functional or engineering considerations rather than common ancestry. Since intelligent
agents have the freedom to combine modular elements and subsystems in unique ways
from a variety of information sources, we should expect phylogenetic analyses of diverse systems and molecules to generate some conflicting trees.

Clearly, there are several possible hypotheses about how design played a role in the
history of life. Since each of these hypotheses has different empirical consequences,
design hypotheses can generate different and competing predictions about what different classes of evidence should show. There is nothing unusual about this, however. Philosophers of science have long recognized that hypotheses generate predictions when they are conjoined with so-called auxiliary hypotheses, that is, other claims or suppositions about the world. In this, design advocates are no different from advocates of other scientific theories. Some may conjoin the hypothesis of design with a monophyletic hypothesis about the history of life; some may conjoin it with a polyphyletic view or with other claims about the world or life (such as the constraints principle of engineering) in order to generate different though still specific and testable predictions. These differing predictions do not demonstrate that intelligent design is incoherent. They merely make testing and assessing the relative merits of competing design hypotheses possible."

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:23:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Dysteleology, or Bad Design

The theory of intelligent design generally affirms that complex biological structures were designed for functional reasons. Thus, it predicts that the study of supposedly
"dysteleological" or "poorly designed" structures will reveal either (a) functional reasons
for their design features or (b) evidence of degenerative evolution—that is, evidence of
decay of an otherwise rational and beneficial original design. Neo-Darwinists have
argued, for example, that the backward wiring of the vertebrate retina exhibits a
suboptimal or bad design, one ill-befitting an intelligent designer. Design theorists have
challenged this and predict that further study of the anatomy of the vertebrate retina will reveal functional reasons for its nonintuitive design parameters. Biologists George Ayoub and Michael Denton have identified a number of functional reasons for the design of the vertebrate retina confirming this prediction.5 Ayoub has shown, for example, that the vertebrate retina provides an excellent example of what engineers call constrained optimization, in which several competing design objectives are elegantly balanced to achieve an optimal overall design.

The theory of intelligent design also predicts that instances of "bad" design in nature may turn out to be degenerate forms of originally elegant or beneficial designs. Critics of design have pointed to the existence of organisms such as virulent (disease-producing) bacteria to refute the ID hypothesis, arguing that an intelligent and beneficent designer would not have made such organisms. Some design theorists (in this case, those who hold that the designer is both intelligent and benevolent) predict that genetic studies will reveal that virulent bacterial systems are degenerative systems that have resulted from a loss of aboriginal genetic information.6 University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich, an ID advocate, has specifically predicted that the virulence capacity in Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that caused the black plague in medieval Europe, resulted from genetic mutations that stopped it from manufacturing molecules and structures recognized by the human immune system. He is currently conducting experimental tests of this hypothesis. He and his team already have shown that the more limited virulence capacity of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis (a bacterium that causes gastroenteritis) resulted from the mutational degradation of genes that produce flagellin, a protein that the human immune system recognizes in flagellar motors of bacteria. Minnich and his team have found that virulence in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis can be reduced by restoring its gene for producing flagellin.7 This plus a growing body of data showing that virulence capacity in bacteria generally results from a loss of genetic information have provided a significant initial confirmation of the ID-generated prediction about the cause of bacterial virulence.8"

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:30:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Efficacy of Causal Mechanisms and the Features of Living Systems

Theories of intelligent design also sometimes link considerations of causal adequacy to
predictions about what we should find in the cell or the genome. These predictions test
whether intelligent causes or competing materialistic mechanisms are more likely to have caused the origin of some system by explicating how the two modes of causation are different and then showing how each would produce different features in some part of a living system.

Our previous discussions about nonprotein-coding DNA illustrate this. Since neo-Darwinism affirms that biological information arises as the result of an undirected
trial-and-error process, it predicts the existence of vast regions of nonfunctional DNA in
the genome. By contrast, advocates of intelligent design think that DNA sequences arose mainly as the result of purposeful intelligence. They predict, therefore, that
nonprotein-coding DNA should perform important biological functions. Thus, ID and
neo-Darwinism affirm competing causes of the origin of biological information, both of
which have different implications for what scientists should find as the genome.

The debate about the origin of irreducibly complex molecular machines provides another example of this kind of prediction. In his book Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe argues that the many miniature machines and circuits that have been discovered in cells provide strong evidence for intelligent design. A crucial part of Behe's argument for intelligent design involves his attempt to show that miniature machines, such as the now infamous bacterial flagellar motor, could not have developed from simpler precursors in a gradual step-by-step fashion. In Behe's view, the coordinated interaction of the many parts of the flagellar motor resulted ultimately from an idea in the mind of a designing intelligence, not from a process of gradual step-by-step evolution from a series of simpler material precursors.

Behe's critics, however, such as biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, have
suggested that the flagellar motor might have arisen via a different causal pathway. They suggest that the flagellar motor might have arisen from the functional parts of other simpler systems or from simpler subsystems of the motor. They have pointed to a tiny molecular syringe called a type-3 secretory system (or T3SS). They note that the T3SSusually functions as part of the flagellar motor, but it is sometimes found in bacteria that do not have the other parts of the flagellar motor. Since the type-3 secretory system is made of approximately ten proteins that have close homologues in the thirty-protein flagellar motor, and since this tiny pump does perform a function, Miller intimates that the flagellar motor might have arisen from this smaller pump.9 Behe, however, remains convinced that the flagellar motor is the aboriginal system. To defend Behe, other ID theorists have suggested that when the type-3 secretory system appears in isolation from the other parts of the flagellar motor, it does so as the result of degenerative evolution—that is, as the result of a loss of the genetic information necessary to produce the other parts of the motor.

Thus, these two different views of the T3SS imply something different about the relative age of the genes that produce the flagellar motor and the T3SS, respectively. The co-option theory predicts that the genes that produce the T3SS syringe should be older than the genes that produce the flagellar motor, since the syringe in this view is a
precursor system. The hypothesis from design and degenerative evolution predicts the
opposite—that the genes of the flagellar motor should be older than those of the T3SS.
Thus, the two theories posit causal histories for these molecular machines that contradict each other, and both make testable predictions about features of the systems (the age of the genes) as a result.

As it happens, phylogenetic analyses of the distribution of flagellar systems in bacteria
now make it possible to assess the relative age of two suites of genes. These phylogenetic studies suggest that the flagellar motor genes are older than the T3SS genes, thus providing an initial confirmation of the design-theoretic hypothesis about the origin of the flagellar motor.10

There is an interesting twist to this story, however—one that underscores how intelligent design leads to many new and unresolved research questions. There is another design hypothesis about the flagellar motor and the T3SS. It envisions both systems as the products of independent instances of design, despite the similarity of the T3SS to parts of the flagellar motor. It predicts that if the T3SS were designed independently of the flagellar motor, then we ought to find many unique (nonhomologous) genes in the T3SS—genes that exhibit little similarity to those found in the flagellar system. It is now known that the T3SS does have several such nonhomologous genes, confirming this prediction of a separate ID hypothesis. So did the T3SS devolve from the flagellar motor, or did it arise independently by a separate act of design? This is another research question generated by the theory of intelligent design. Clearly, further experimental tests are needed to discriminate between these two competing design hypotheses.

Here's another prediction of this type that has also generated an interesting program of
experimental research. If intelligence played a role in the origin of new biological forms
after the first life, it likely would have done so by generating the biological information
necessary to produce these forms. If so, intelligent design would have played a role in
either the origin of new genes and proteins or the origin of extragenomic information, or both. Either way, this design hypothesis implies that the undirected mechanism of
random mutation and selection is not sufficient to produce the information necessary for such biological innovation. Thus, this particular design hypothesis would predict that
mutation and selection lack the capacity to produce fundamentally new genes and
proteins. (Again, those who object that this is a merely negative claim against
neo-Darwinism rather than a positive prediction of intelligent design misunderstand the
fundamentally comparative nature of historical scientific theories, which take the form of arguments to the best explanation.)

Douglas Axe, whom I discussed in Chapter 9, has been intrigued with intelligent design
since the early 1990s. He devised a way to test this ID-inspired prediction with a program of rigorous experimental work—work that he first performed at Cambridge University and continues to perform at Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington.

In developing this test, Axe reasoned as follows. According to neo-Darwinism new
biological information arises as natural selection acts on functionally advantageous
mutations in genes. To produce any fundamentally new biological forms these mutations would—at the very least—have to produce a number of new proteins. But natural selection can act only on what mutations first generate. Thus, for mutation and selection to produce new functional proteins or protein folds—the smallest unit of selectable function—new proteins or protein folds must first arise by chance—that is, by random mutation. If the probability of this were extremely low—beyond the reach of available probabilistic resources—then this would undermine the plausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism and confirm Axe's own ID-based expectation of its inadequacy..."

(Cont.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:34:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"...Thus, as a specific test of the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism (as well as the chance origin of information in a prebiotic setting), Axe posed the question: How rare or common are functional protein folds within their corresponding amino acid–sequence space? He realized that if functional sequences were common enough for mutations to stumble upon them relatively easily (within the time required for relevant evolutionary transitions), mutation and selection might be able to build otherwise extremely improbable structures in small incremental steps. On the other hand, if functional proteins are extremely rare within sequence space, such that mutations will not have a realistic chance of finding them in the available time, selection will have little or nothing to work on, undermining its ability to produce biological information.

It's important to emphasize that Axe's prediction follows from the premise that intelligent design played a role in the origin of new genes and proteins during biological
(or chemical) evolution. Since the case for intelligent design as the best explanation for
the origin of biological information necessary to build novel forms of life depends, in
part, upon the claim that functional (information-rich) genes and proteins cannot be
explained by random mutation and selection, this design hypothesis implies that selection and mutation will not suffice to produce genetic information and that, consequently, functional sequences of amino acids within protein-sequence space will be extremely rare rather than common. Axe's mutagenesis experiments have tested, and continue to test, this prediction of ID theory. As noted in Chapter 9, Axe has shown that the ratio of functional amino-acid sequences to nonfunctional amino-acid sequences is extremely small, 1 in 1074 for a protein fold 150 amino acids in length. Since most new proteins exceed 150 amino acids in length, and since fundamentally new life-forms require many new proteins, this experimental result, published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, provides an initial confirmation of Axe's ID-inspired prediction.11

Of course, predictions about the insufficiency of materialistic mechanisms do not form
the whole basis of the case for intelligent design—whether as a theory of chemical or
biological evolution. To establish a design hypothesis as a best explanation requires more than a confirmed prediction about the inadequacy of a competing causal explanation. Instead, it requires positive evidence for the efficacy of an intelligent cause and refutations of other relevant causal hypotheses using either predictive methods of testing, evaluations of explanatory power, or both. For this same reason, a single failed prediction rarely falsifies a theory. How well a theory explains (or predicts) the preponderance of relevant data is usually a better gauge of its merit. In Chapter 15 and the Epilogue, I showed that intelligent design exhibits broad explanatory power, at least as a hypothesis about the origin of the first life. Even so, any claim that intelligent design best explains some particular feature of life also entails a prediction about some relevant body of evidence showing the inability of competing hypotheses to explain that same feature. For this reason, and others, design hypotheses do make predictions."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 1:30:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@pcp

Wth is that? Lol
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 1:48:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 1:30:01 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@pcp

Wth is that? Lol

I just c/p'd 'cuz I know people are too lazy to actually read the book. lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 1:57:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didn't realize you could read the book for free online. So can you read all books for free online whats the deal here ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 8:07:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@POP

Okey only responding to your first post for now. I did ask what would falsify intelligent design ? So what exactly is your answer here ?

If Junk DNA is a certain amount this falsifies intelligent design ?, if so what is the amount ?

If DNA has non protein coding sequence then that falsifies intelligent design ?

"William Dembski explained and predicted in 1998: "On an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function."

If DNA does not exhibit function as much as possible this falsifies intelligent design ? How do you determine if it exhibits as much as possible or not as much as possible ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
nmanning
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 9:57:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"...In some cases, "junk" DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38"

Great stuff.

So, how are you so sure that the things Meyer wrote were accurate? IOW, how do you know that he was accurately representing the work of others?

A Christian scientist did a pretty good job of rebutting, if not refuting, much of his book:

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 10:56:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 9:57:14 AM, nmanning wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"...In some cases, "junk" DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38"


Great stuff.

So, how are you so sure that the things Meyer wrote were accurate? IOW, how do you know that he was accurately representing the work of others?


Didn't say that it was. I just posted that stuff to refute the clearly false claims of the non-testability of intelligent design.

In any case, the encode results seem to bolster his case:

http://m.sciencemag.org...

A Christian scientist did a pretty good job of rebutting, if not refuting, much of his book:

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 11:36:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 10:56:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/11/2012 9:57:14 AM, nmanning wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"...In some cases, "junk" DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38"


Great stuff.

So, how are you so sure that the things Meyer wrote were accurate? IOW, how do you know that he was accurately representing the work of others?


Didn't say that it was. I just posted that stuff to refute the clearly false claims of the non-testability of intelligent design.

How does this project prove Intelligent Design again?
In any case, the encode results seem to bolster his case:






http://m.sciencemag.org...

A Christian scientist did a pretty good job of rebutting, if not refuting, much of his book:

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 11:51:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 11:36:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/11/2012 10:56:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/11/2012 9:57:14 AM, nmanning wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"...In some cases, "junk" DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38"


Great stuff.

So, how are you so sure that the things Meyer wrote were accurate? IOW, how do you know that he was accurately representing the work of others?


Didn't say that it was. I just posted that stuff to refute the clearly false claims of the non-testability of intelligent design.

How does this project prove Intelligent Design again?

Where did I say that, again? Quote me.
In any case, the encode results seem to bolster his case:






http://m.sciencemag.org...


A Christian scientist did a pretty good job of rebutting, if not refuting, much of his book:

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:53:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.

Can you answer the question I asked though?

Harry.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 3:42:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:53:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.

Can you answer the question I asked though?

Harry.

Why? You didn't answer the questions in the post you responded to.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:13:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

Intelligent design itself is not a scientific theory - it is the claim that some aspects of the observed world have characteristics that are in keeping with a designed mechanism. I consider this entirely reasonable and rational - how is the alternative dogma that nothing in nature was designed, testable?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

This depends upon what we mean by proof - proof is often subjective especially in science. One can disprove a theory in physics (in principle) but ID is not a theory as such because we do not have an agreed objective test for whether something is or is not designed. ID advocates like myself have no problem accepting that certain mechanims do look designed and so may well have been designed, whereas ID skeptics take the dogmatic view that this is not possible.

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 3:42:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.

Can you answer the question I asked though?

Harry.

Why? You didn't answer the questions in the post you responded to.

Very well - I have answered those two questions, now are you willing to answer my question, which was:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

Harry.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 6:32:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 4:14:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 3:42:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.

Can you answer the question I asked though?

Harry.

Why? You didn't answer the questions in the post you responded to.

Very well - I have answered those two questions, now are you willing to answer my question, which was:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

No.



Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 8:13:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:32:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 4:14:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 3:42:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:51:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:25:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/7/2012 3:06:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some claim intelligent design is a scientific theory, even so scientific it should be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science." [1]

So to any ID advocates out there, how is intelligent design testable ?

What evidence would disprove intelligent design ?

Sources

[1] http://www.ebonmusings.org...

The central tenet of ID so far as I'm concerned is this question:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

This is the key to understanding the debate I think, is it wrong to ask this question? is there an answer to this question? how can we find the answer?

Whether you are for or against ID - you must be able to answer this question I think, if left unanswered then ID may well be a valid and rational explanation for some things.

Harry.

The issue isn't whether or not ID is valid and/or rational. It's whether or not it is scientific. It isn't.

Can you answer the question I asked though?

Harry.

Why? You didn't answer the questions in the post you responded to.

Very well - I have answered those two questions, now are you willing to answer my question, which was:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

No.

How did you establish that? how do you know there is no 'algorithm' or test we can devise that enables us to distinguish between apparent design and intelligent design?




Harry.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:18:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 8:13:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

"Is it possible to determine whether some thing has been designed by some intelligence or has arisen wholly through the laws of nature acting over time?"

No.

How did you establish that?

Logic.

how do you know there is no 'algorithm' or test we can devise that enables us to distinguish between apparent design and intelligent design?

Because a sufficiently intelligent designer could always obfuscate evidence of design beyond our ability to distinguish. While we can, in some cases, affirmatively demonstrate design, it's logically impossible to rule it out beyond any and all doubt.