Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ID is Scientific

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:11:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

Not quite, Mhykiel. While you're right that the proposition is potentially testable (we form theories about extinct civilisations all the time, for example, from residual evidence), that's not enough to make it relevant to the current body of science.

While not a biologist myself, I'm a former scientist, and have friends who've worked in senior roles as biologists. As I understand it, the reasons they dismiss intelligent design propositions outright are fourfold:

(i) Intelligent design is creationism rebadged. Nobody has seriously proposed any mechanism for intelligent design other than divine intervention. So it's disingenuous to represent it as a new theory when it's actually a superseded old one;

(ii) It's okay to revisit and rework discarded old theories on the basis of new evidence, but there's no significant new evidence. Instead, what's triggering the creationist noise-making is a new influx of cash and propaganda campaigning. My biologist friends feel it's distracting, mischievous and time-wasting;

(iii) Intelligent design adds nothing new to the creationist proposition, and a big problem with the creationist proposition is that it doesn't answer a single significant question about biology, botany, paleontology, genetics, or ecology, or make a single useful prediction;

(iv) in the eyes of biologists and scientists of allied disciplines, there's overwhelmingly compelling evidence for evolution -- to the extent that even the few serious Creationist biologists believe it has occurred. But there's no weight of evidence that species have been predesigned to live on this planet, except in the minds of the ignorant.

So that a proposition is scientifically testable doesn't make it scientifically credible or relevant, and imposes no obligation on science to test or refute it.

I hope this may help.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:16:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?

No I agree it must be non-biological.

Regressively deduced
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:19:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:16:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?

No I agree it must be non-biological.

Regressively deduced

Biological means "of life" or "living." So, yes, you agree it must be non-living? Assuming you're going say no, please explain what "non-biological" means and how it is different from "non-living."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:33:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:11:02 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

Not quite, Mhykiel. While you're right that the proposition is potentially testable (we form theories about extinct civilisations all the time, for example, from residual evidence), that's not enough to make it relevant to the current body of science.

While not a biologist myself, I'm a former scientist, and have friends who've worked in senior roles as biologists. As I understand it, the reasons they dismiss intelligent design propositions outright are fourfold:

(i) Intelligent design is creationism rebadged. Nobody has seriously proposed any mechanism for intelligent design other than divine intervention. So it's disingenuous to represent it as a new theory when it's actually a superseded old one;


Theories of all kinds in science are reworked and modified to account for new data and criticism of inferences made. Taking divine out of the intelligent agent is in accordance to scientific advancement.

(ii) It's okay to revisit and rework discarded old theories on the basis of new evidence, but there's no significant new evidence. Instead, what's triggering the creationist noise-making is a new influx of cash and propaganda campaigning. My biologist friends feel it's distracting, mischievous and time-wasting;

Funding and the politics of science effect all theories. Look at the band wagon for dark energy or entropic time.

New evidence has been emerging for ID. Information theory, better understanding of cell processes and of the genetic code.


(iii) Intelligent design adds nothing new to the creationist proposition, and a big problem with the creationist proposition is that it doesn't answer a single significant question about biology, botany, paleontology, genetics, or ecology, or make a single useful prediction;

The same could be said of abiogenesis. When we accept that life is by intelligent design practical applications will stem from understanding linguistics, information systems, of the cell better. Scientist who discover properties make poor predictions on how that discovery will be used. The scientist examining quantum dots thought it would revolutionize the computer circuit. Quantum dots revolutionized dye and coloring instead.


(iv) in the eyes of biologists and scientists of allied disciplines, there's overwhelmingly compelling evidence for evolution -- to the extent that even the few serious Creationist biologists believe it has occurred. But there's no weight of evidence that species have been predesigned to live on this planet, except in the minds of the ignorant.

ID is not exclusive of evolution. Evolution is change over time not origin of living systems that evolve.


So that a proposition is scientifically testable doesn't make it scientifically credible or relevant, and imposes no obligation on science to test or refute it.

I think this comes from ID discussing origin and therefore more like historical hypothesis than scientific theory with useful application. But in cosmology you have theories of planet creation that are just as scientific despite lacking many applications


I hope this may help.

Same
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:38:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

How would you falsify ID theory. If you can't falsify it, then it obviously isn't a scientific inquiry. Usually science presumes a natural cause for an event, as supernatural causes are generally non-falsifiable.

The intelligent agent that created life would then have to be a natural being without supernatural qualities if it is indeed subject to scientific inquiry.


It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

Again, the theory would have to be falsifiable to be considered scientific.


The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

It actually couldn't be if you maintain your position that this is a scientific inquiry. Unless you found some way of falsifying God.


What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

I'm not sure what attributes you're talking about? Are you taking issue with the complexity (i.e. the watch maker argument)? what attributes aren't accounted for in Evolution or the Abiogenises theories that makes you think I.D. theory is a necessary and more likely explanation to life?


It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Again, how would you falsify ID theory if you are unwilling to ascribe characteristics to the creator? How would you test the existence of a creator without defining the parameters of it's being? Wouldn't you have to at least make a claim about whether or not the creation of life was natural or supernatural in order to begin investigation? I understand leaving the parameters vague, but wouldn't you have to make at least that small distinction?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:41:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:19:55 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:16:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?

No I agree it must be non-biological.

Regressively deduced

Biological means "of life" or "living." So, yes, you agree it must be non-living? Assuming you're going say no, please explain what "non-biological" means and how it is different from "non-living."

I think is a fallacy by etymology.

By biological I am refering to life that functions through chemical cellular machinations.

By non-biological life it could be life that moves, communicates, metabolizes, ect.. through non cellular or chemical means. The entity could be alive and composed of just energy or stretching further just vibrations.

Or just mind as in idealism.

But this is all a discussion about the intelligent designer. And who ever or what shape such an intelligence takes is irrelevant to the properties and data that elude biological life is intelligently designed at the cellular level.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:49:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:33:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Taking divine out of the intelligent agent is in accordance to scientific advancement.

No it's not, because you'd firstly have to:
(i) show credible evidence of planning in the emergence of species;
(ii) credibly explain away the huge weight of evidence that species weren't planned;
(iii) make a significant specific testable prediction which the current theory could not make, and show how it could be validated;
(iv) explain how you'd progress to answer the key question: what designed life on earth, when and how.

ID proponents aren't taking science seriously. They're just noise-making. I think the chief benefit of ID to religions is not unlike the chief benefit to fossil fuel companies of manufacturing and exaggerating climate change doubt.

There's money in faith -- big money. And the intellectual authority of religion depends on the credibility of its stories. As genetics and other sciences are making strides, US churches and religious corporates can see the loss of religion in Europe, and fear that the US will go the same way. So spending cash to distract the faithful helps delay that -- though it's really having very little impact on the science itself.

It's true that if ID could sway laypeople it could sway governments and hence possibly public science funding. But you know what would work faster?

Simple: fund ID investigation, and try to attract top notch scientists to it. Anyone can fund a science project -- if it's actually science.

But religious propagandists don't believe their own moonshine, and don't want to spend big bucks on science. They're much happier spending smaller bucks hoodwinking the laiety.

Better returns, y'see.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:49:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:41:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:19:55 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:16:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?

No I agree it must be non-biological.

Regressively deduced

Biological means "of life" or "living." So, yes, you agree it must be non-living? Assuming you're going say no, please explain what "non-biological" means and how it is different from "non-living."

I think is a fallacy by etymology.

By biological I am refering to life that functions through chemical cellular machinations.

By non-biological life it could be life that moves, communicates, metabolizes, ect.. through non cellular or chemical means. The entity could be alive and composed of just energy or stretching further just vibrations.

Or just mind as in idealism.

But this is all a discussion about the intelligent designer. And who ever or what shape such an intelligence takes is irrelevant to the properties and data that elude biological life is intelligently designed at the cellular level.

Then would it be fair to say that ID is a proposed explanation for the origin of chemical, cellular life, but not an explanation for the origin of all life?
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:03:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

Nowhere here have you explained how it's scientific, and after reading the rest of the thread, I think you've shown that it is not scientific (i.e., what you present as ID is non-scientific, or pseudoscientific at best). I'm not sure what you think 'science' or 'scientific' means.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:54:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.

This point of view is being questioned by "Scientists".
Some scientists call 'string theory' a theory, I assume you do not.
This makes all of these issues very fuzzy.

"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue " explicitly " that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts."
http://www.nature.com...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:00:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:54:14 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.


This point of view is being questioned by "Scientists".
Some scientists call 'string theory' a theory, I assume you do not.
This makes all of these issues very fuzzy.


"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue " explicitly " that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.



Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts."
http://www.nature.com...

I would also agree that this is not an appropriate way to do science. Mathematics, maybe, but physics has been, and should remain (in my opinion), mathematics constrained to reality. I don't follow the literature in physics, but I tend to think of string theory as a model and maybe a set of hypotheses, rather than a theory.

We do need to somehow overcome the issues that arise with dealing with an area of inquiry that simply cannot be tested by any known method.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:16:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:54:14 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.


This point of view is being questioned by "Scientists".
Some scientists call 'string theory' a theory, I assume you do not.
This makes all of these issues very fuzzy.


"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue " explicitly " that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.



Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts."
http://www.nature.com...

Excellent contribution and good points. Yes, string theory breaks with conventional science methodology and is rightfully controversial within the science community. It also shows the multiple contexts for the word "theory."

My response to those points in the context of this thread is that string theory is self contained and has "elegance" going for it. It also has the lack of competition going for it. Still, it is not a scientific theory of the same standing as Natural Selection, which is the point I am making about ID.

ID is not elegant because it invites infinite regress-- "Who designed the designer? And who designed THAT designer?" Also, it has ample competition in the way of the various abiogenesis scenarios that have been posited.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:34:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intelligent design is a black box. With the exception of religious creationists who don't attempt to hide the non-secular nature of the theory, not even its advocates claim to have any knowledge of its inner workings. There is no mechanism of ID; it is simply an ad hoc theory which has been parametrised to what it purports to explain.

This is in contrast with evolutionary biology, where the proposed mechanisms are well defined and have been researched extensively. Consequently it's easy to say "You know, if Pegai existed then some aspect of the theory of evolution would have to be fundamentally wrong." Maybe it would be our understanding of inheritance, or perhaps our understanding of gene flow, but the theory of evolution currently wouldn't be able to account for the existence of horses with bird wings.

Intelligent Design, of course, would be able to account for the existence of any mythological hybrid animals just fine: the designer did it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 5:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science and the scientific method is in a state of internal flux.
it is not a bedrock of principles and methods it once was, and is still assumed to be by many. Some on the inside want to change it, and take it in new directions, some want to return it to what it was., others seen content to allow it to profess to be what it once was, when in practice it has become very sloppy.

Found this:

"I think falsifiability is not a perfect criterion, but it"s much less pernicious than what"s being served up by the "post-empirical" faction," says Frank Wilczek, a physicist at MIT. "Falsifiability is too impatient, in some sense," putting immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. "It"s an important discipline, but if it is applied too rigorously and too early, it can be stifling."

So, where do we go from here?

"We need to rethink these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way that also takes the best interpretations of fundamental science, and its limitations, seriously," says Ellis. "Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics."
http://www.pbs.org...

Such things add tinder to the fire of ID, rightly or wrongly.
They are hardly out of line, considering some things going on by "respectable scientists", such as saying the calculations are correct, but the experimental results are flawed.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

No, it is not. It is an extraneous assumption. That a finite amount of energy and matter exists is not evidence for the necessity of a force that is:

-Sentient
-Omnipresent
-Immortal
-Omnipotent
-Omniscient

We know that a finite force must have existed, but not an infinite one.

What created the creator, anyway? Let's apply your logic to your conclusions.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

But requires a burden of proof for a creator in the first place...

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

So? Opinion is different from scientific fact...

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

Okay, fine. Why is a SENTIENT BEING necessary for the creation of a finite amount of energy and mass? Could not such energy and mass have existed all along, like you claim your Creator did?

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

Yes. How egocentric of some scientists that they should believe that no life-form was responsible for the creation of the universe!

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

Sure, those proponents can be "successful at biology". That does not mean that intelligent design, their ideology, is scientific...

It is a theory of explanation, just not a scientific one.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 6:03:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:49:16 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:41:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:19:55 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:16:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:42:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B.

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Do you agree that the origin of life must be non-living?

No I agree it must be non-biological.

Regressively deduced

Biological means "of life" or "living." So, yes, you agree it must be non-living? Assuming you're going say no, please explain what "non-biological" means and how it is different from "non-living."

I think is a fallacy by etymology.

By biological I am refering to life that functions through chemical cellular machinations.

By non-biological life it could be life that moves, communicates, metabolizes, ect.. through non cellular or chemical means. The entity could be alive and composed of just energy or stretching further just vibrations.

Or just mind as in idealism.

But this is all a discussion about the intelligent designer. And who ever or what shape such an intelligence takes is irrelevant to the properties and data that elude biological life is intelligently designed at the cellular level.

Then would it be fair to say that ID is a proposed explanation for the origin of chemical, cellular life, but not an explanation for the origin of all life?

Yes
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 6:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

If all those constructions have similar attributes to life then you confirm the points. Becuase all those are intelligent agents making things.

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.

Whats the testable predictions of the big bang theory?
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 9:15:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 6:10:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:45:05 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

-Ants make complex series of tunnels, hills, and rooms in the ground.
-Beavers construct dams.
-Bees and wasps construct hives.
-Birds make nests.
-Spiders make webs.

If all those constructions have similar attributes to life then you confirm the points. Becuase all those are intelligent agents making things.


Not sure what you mean by those constructions having similar attributes to life, but they do show that non humans are able to create things. It is in response to you claiming that we don't think non humans can create things. Not sure what you were getting at anyway; I don't think it is a large point in any case...

... just off the top of my head. Your claim is without basis.

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

P1: Scientific theories make testable predictions.
P2: ID does not make testable predictions.
C: ID is not a scientific theory.

Whats the testable predictions of the big bang theory?

"The big bang theory made some predictions about the universe, and these were confirmed by observations. The theory predicted that galaxies should be moving apart, and this was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The theory also predicted that as a result of the hot gases expanding after the big bang, microwave background radiation of a particular frequency should be present throughout the universe. This was confirmed in 1964 by Bell Laboratory radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. Finally, the the big bang should have produced an abundance of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. The predicted abundances are consistent with what is observed today. Not surprisingly, the theory soon became popularized and was generally accepted as the " standard" universe-creation theory."

http://web.uvic.ca...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:07:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:38:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:36:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:20:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:02:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

How would you falsify ID theory. If you can't falsify it, then it obviously isn't a scientific inquiry. Usually science presumes a natural cause for an event, as supernatural causes are generally non-falsifiable.

The intelligent agent that created life would then have to be a natural being without supernatural qualities if it is indeed subject to scientific inquiry.

As I said ID says life was made by an intelligent agent. The only defining characteristics about this intelligent agency is that it be 1. intelligent 2. capable of arranging molecules into cellular life.



It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

Again, the theory would have to be falsifiable to be considered scientific.

It is falsifiable. If information comes forward that explains a plausible scenario for the design of life. Back by experiments that show it possible. Then that would give weight to a counter argument to ID.



The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

It actually couldn't be if you maintain your position that this is a scientific inquiry. Unless you found some way of falsifying God.


What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

I'm not sure what attributes you're talking about? Are you taking issue with the complexity (i.e. the watch maker argument)? what attributes aren't accounted for in Evolution or the Abiogenises theories that makes you think I.D. theory is a necessary and more likely explanation to life?

For 1. The transcription of information about the arrangement of structures, into an abstract representation by digital code.



It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

If the intelligent agent isn't a god, then what else could it possibly be?

ID does not have to explain what the intelligent designer is. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. Big Bang doesn't explain what came before a few plank seconds.

Of course it does. Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis because evolution explains change, not origin. But ID is explaining origin. To say it doesn't have to explain the designer is like saying evolution doesn't have to explain the mechanisms of change.

The Intelligent agent could be an alien race, seeded by comets. Intelligent agent could be Boltzmann brains, interdimensional hackers from a different plain, ect..

A whole list of secular naturalistic intelligent designers could be made.

For ID to be an explanation for the origin of life, it has to provide a non-living origin. Otherwise, it just pushes the problem back one step. A god is the only possibility I'm aware of that could be argued as being non-living. Maybe a Boltzmann brain, if such a thing doesn't reproduce. Since that's just a name for a hypothetical and paradoxical idea, though, I don't know if it could really be considered for anything.

It describes origin of life as being an intelligent agent. It doesn't have to identify the author or painter of such work. Just why intelligent agency is the solution to lifes existence. It only needs to answer what the origin of life is contingent on.

If A the B

Does not need to identify or specify where A came from. Or even which A out of possible A's. Just that the key defining attribute of A is an intelligent agency.

Id need only explain why life exists based on the properties life has. That explaination need not be anymore than the data defines. Data eludes to intelligent agency. Anymore would be speculation on the Agency andnot about biological life on earth.

Again, how would you falsify ID theory if you are unwilling to ascribe characteristics to the creator? How would you test the existence of a creator without defining the parameters of it's being? Wouldn't you have to at least make a claim about whether or not the creation of life was natural or supernatural in order to begin investigation? I understand leaving the parameters vague, but wouldn't you have to make at least that small distinction?

If you found machinery on the dark side of the moon, and no markings or evidence point to it being left by russians or any country on earth, what would the explanation be?

The explanation would be Extraterrestrial Intelligent Agencies.

Period. No one would need to identify what the alien race looked like, or what language it spoke, or why it was on the dark side of the moon. To say the machinery was left by aliens without identifying an alien race would be just fine.

Now more questions would be asked about who the alien race was, but that would not have to be answered in the explanation of the machinery for the explanation of the machinery to be accepted as truth.

Supernatural just says science makes no claim to understanding of it. Clearly for it to be scientific means it is NOT supernatural. And ID to be scientific only needs to look at the evidence and infer a explanation for HOW life is structured the way it is.

If abiogenesis is obviously false on such structure emerging through undirected natural processes then ID is the answer. Construction or manufacturing by an intelligent agent is DIRECTED natural processes.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:20:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:34:16 AM, Enji wrote:
Intelligent design is a black box. With the exception of religious creationists who don't attempt to hide the non-secular nature of the theory, not even its advocates claim to have any knowledge of its inner workings. There is no mechanism of ID; it is simply an ad hoc theory which has been parametrised to what it purports to explain.

This is in contrast with evolutionary biology, where the proposed mechanisms are well defined and have been researched extensively. Consequently it's easy to say "You know, if Pegai existed then some aspect of the theory of evolution would have to be fundamentally wrong." Maybe it would be our understanding of inheritance, or perhaps our understanding of gene flow, but the theory of evolution currently wouldn't be able to account for the existence of horses with bird wings.

Intelligent Design, of course, would be able to account for the existence of any mythological hybrid animals just fine: the designer did it.

This.

ID lacks predictability in what we would expect of the current diversity of species and the gene pool. As such, ID has exceptionally poor explanatory power since it is a theory of virtually infinite flexibility, we simply would not be able to look at the current distribution of species and be able to conclude an intelligent designer did it.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts a highly specific distrubution of species, limited by what is possible by common ancestry, and that distribution is pretty much what we observe in nature, evolutionary theory provides far superior explanatory power for this data set than ID can.

ID is either not scientific, or poorly scientific, as there is essentially no observation we can make that would falsify ID. Find perusal, ID works just find, find no life whatsoever, an ID can still exist. Find absurdly 'designed' organisms with inefficient designs, ID is still not falsified. ID is a panecea explanation for anything. A theory of anything.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:22:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 12:49:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/25/2015 12:33:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Taking divine out of the intelligent agent is in accordance to scientific advancement.

No it's not, because you'd firstly have to:
(i) show credible evidence of planning in the emergence of species;

ID doesn't address speciation. Evolution is a theory that addresses that. Evolution does not address how inanimate non-living material forms into structures that evolution can then affect.

(ii) credibly explain away the huge weight of evidence that species weren't planned;

ID does not.

(iii) make a significant specific testable prediction which the current theory could not make, and show how it could be validated;

Theories explain how something is. The predictions you talk about is that some scientist say "if this hypothesis is true then A should be detectable" And then they test to see if A exists. If A does not exist then the hypothesis is incorrect.

ID as a theory is supported so far because abiogenesis, based on our current knowledge of chemistry is that natural process due not imbue information in abstract or digital form. That 2 elements from mutual exclusive environments do not arrange themselves into stable orderly chains. ect..

(iv) explain how you'd progress to answer the key question: what designed life on earth, when and how.

Those are other questions. ID answers only one. How did life emerge? by intelligent agency.


ID proponents aren't taking science seriously. They're just noise-making. I think the chief benefit of ID to religions is not unlike the chief benefit to fossil fuel companies of manufacturing and exaggerating climate change doubt.

There's money in faith -- big money. And the intellectual authority of religion depends on the credibility of its stories. As genetics and other sciences are making strides, US churches and religious corporates can see the loss of religion in Europe, and fear that the US will go the same way. So spending cash to distract the faithful helps delay that -- though it's really having very little impact on the science itself.

It's true that if ID could sway laypeople it could sway governments and hence possibly public science funding. But you know what would work faster?

Simple: fund ID investigation, and try to attract top notch scientists to it. Anyone can fund a science project -- if it's actually science.

But religious propagandists don't believe their own moonshine, and don't want to spend big bucks on science. They're much happier spending smaller bucks hoodwinking the laiety.

Better returns, y'see.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:29:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 5:32:28 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:35:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design, and I'm not talking about any specific ID theory, but any theory that ends in Life being intelligently designed is Scientific. And completely in line with even the most materialistic naturalistic secular approach to science.

No, it is not. It is an extraneous assumption. That a finite amount of energy and matter exists is not evidence for the necessity of a force that is:

-Sentient
-Omnipresent
-Immortal
-Omnipotent
-Omniscient

We know that a finite force must have existed, but not an infinite one.

What created the creator, anyway? Let's apply your logic to your conclusions.

It takes evidence of the attributes of Life, and infers an explanation for it's characteristics.

But requires a burden of proof for a creator in the first place...

The "Big Bang" was dismissed and received a lot of derision from steady state universe scientist who claimed it was "creationism" and religion trying to get a foot hold into Science.

So? Opinion is different from scientific fact...

The intelligent agent to have made life does not need to be a God in accordance with most conservative ID theories.

Okay, fine. Why is a SENTIENT BEING necessary for the creation of a finite amount of energy and mass? Could not such energy and mass have existed all along, like you claim your Creator did?

What it is, is people don't see any other creative agents but humans (how egocentric by the way) and letting that conclusion sway the investigation of Life's attributes.

Yes. How egocentric of some scientists that they should believe that no life-form was responsible for the creation of the universe!

It is a theory of explanation that the study of which will help understand how life functions. And ID proponents can be just as successful at biology as any other.

Sure, those proponents can be "successful at biology". That does not mean that intelligent design, their ideology, is scientific...

It is a theory of explanation, just not a scientific one.

ID simply addresses the structure and arrangement in cellular life. that this arrangement is evident of being constructed at the direction of an intelligent agent.

That's all it states.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:45:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:20:08 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:34:16 AM, Enji wrote:
Intelligent design is a black box. With the exception of religious creationists who don't attempt to hide the non-secular nature of the theory, not even its advocates claim to have any knowledge of its inner workings. There is no mechanism of ID; it is simply an ad hoc theory which has been parametrised to what it purports to explain.

This is in contrast with evolutionary biology, where the proposed mechanisms are well defined and have been researched extensively. Consequently it's easy to say "You know, if Pegai existed then some aspect of the theory of evolution would have to be fundamentally wrong." Maybe it would be our understanding of inheritance, or perhaps our understanding of gene flow, but the theory of evolution currently wouldn't be able to account for the existence of horses with bird wings.

Intelligent Design, of course, would be able to account for the existence of any mythological hybrid animals just fine: the designer did it.

This.

ID lacks predictability in what we would expect of the current diversity of species and the gene pool. As such, ID has exceptionally poor explanatory power since it is a theory of virtually infinite flexibility, we simply would not be able to look at the current distribution of species and be able to conclude an intelligent designer did it.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts a highly specific distrubution of species, limited by what is possible by common ancestry, and that distribution is pretty much what we observe in nature, evolutionary theory provides far superior explanatory power for this data set than ID can.

ID is either not scientific, or poorly scientific, as there is essentially no observation we can make that would falsify ID. Find perusal, ID works just find, find no life whatsoever, an ID can still exist. Find absurdly 'designed' organisms with inefficient designs, ID is still not falsified. ID is a panecea explanation for anything. A theory of anything.

If something is constructed by directed means, governed by an intelligence, what evidence of such could be detected?

Life at the cellular level shows such attributes. Abiogenesis is implausible to explain how 2 dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments can join together in such orderly structures.

example: right handed proteins to left handed sugars extremely long chains 200-300. Where as naturally found proteins or sugars are in chains no more than 20 molecules in length.

Abiogenesis does not explain how inanimate matter encodes information (of any cell structure) by abstract representation into another medium (RNA/DNA). Where this encoding really is linguistic with context, semantics, and syntax. That this information is digitally encoded is every aspect.

The only time information is digitally encoded is through the direction of an intelligence.