Intelligent Design???

[leroy]

.

No, they aren't. ID is not a scientific proposition.

why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

At most your sources show that the flagellum evolved from preexisting systems, but you haven’t shown that the event occurred on step by step basis (one or few random mutations at the time)

There are always "preexisting conditions" once life exists. How far are you trying to move the goal posts now?

By the way, there is no need to show that the rational occurred. There is only a need to show that the rational can occur. You seem to have forgotten Behe's argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.


why not?

As explained no proper tests of falsification.

 

[Bear Wild]

You referred to 'religious naturalism' in describing pantheism. Yes, the definition of pantheism may be described as varied views of naturalism, but religious is an ambiguous term when used here. Some forms of pantheism do attribute more spiritual attributes to our physical existence than others as in Deism and panenthism, but pantheism basically still considers our physical existence what may be called 'God,' which is more akin to atheism, because in this view there is nothing beyond our physical existence..

So what does it take to be a religion or religious since those who follow religious naturalism as a religion do not find it ambiguous at all?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

.


why not?

I glossed over it before, but "irreducible complexity" is fundamentally unfalsifiable. So is the sort of teleology that ID assumes.

If we take it at face value - which I think is a mistake, but regardless - think about what it's saying.

Take some evolutionary development. A rational approach would say that it falls into one of two categories:

1. It happened by mechanisms that we can identify, or
2. It happened by mechanisms that we can't identify.

(And then we go about investigating what those mechanisms might be).

Now... if someone proposing ID was approaching the issue honestly, they would divide the possibilities into 3 categories:

1. It happened by mechanisms that we can identify, or
2. It happened by unintelligent mechanisms that we can't identify, or
3. It happened by intelligent mechanisms that we can't identify.

Without having identified a mechanism, we have no way to exclude option 2... but you need to exclude option 2 if you want to claim "irreducible complexity."

There's also the issue of the "intelligent designer".

(BTW: why do ID proponents always only ever talk about an intelligent designer? If they were approaching the issue honestly, there would be no reason to limit the number of intelligent designers. Maybe one group of hyper-intelligent aliens tinkered with life at one point in our history and another completely separate group tinkered with us at some other point. Their "hypotheses" - using the term loosely - work as well with any number of intelligent designers as the do with a single one, so the fact that they always limit the discussion to one "intelligent designer" is a pretty clear giveaway that the whole thing is a cover for monotheistic creationism.)

Regardless what probabilities Michael Behe wants to speciously "estimate," even a very low probability event is more likely than an "intelligent designer" that's flat-out impossible. What are the characteristics of this intelligent designer? By what mechanism does it tinker with bacterial flagella, the eye, or whatever other things you claim are "irreducibly complex?" What can we infer about the designer from the design?

Now, I understand why the ID community is purposely vague about the characteristics of the "designer:" the whole ID movement is intender to give cover for the fact that they're trying to promote the Christian God, and it would go against this goal to tip their hand. Still, if they were approaching the issue honestly based on the face value of what they present, that would be a major focus of their "research" as well.


... but all this is on top of the clincher: we know from documented history that ID is just a repackaged version of "creation science." In some cases, the ID textbooks were just slightly edited versions of "creation science" textbooks. There's plenty of material documenting how and why the creators of ID started the movement; we know it was specifically about trying to find something that would survive a legal challenge. This is not a new field that emerged out of new research.

 

[ChristineM]

At most your sources show that the flagellum evolved from preexisting systems, but you haven’t shown that the event occurred on step by step basis (one or few random mutations at the time)

Nor have you shown that god dun it by magic

 

[shunyadragon]

So what does it take to be a religion or religious since those who follow religious naturalism as a religion do not find it ambiguous at all?

Ambiguous, because virtually everything people believe or not believe can be called religious.

 

[shunyadragon]

.why not?

It does not propose a falsifiably hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

.why not?

It does not propose a falsifiably hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

At most your sources show that the flagellum evolved from preexisting systems, . . .

. . . but you haven’t shown that the event occurred on step by step basis (one or few random mutations at the time)

You did not read the references. The reference did describe step by step mutations, and showed that the ancestors of the flagellum had a functional purpose.

There is no such thing as random mutations, because randomness does not cause mutations.

 

[shunyadragon]

I answered to you request since the very first time you asked.

No you did not not. i have seen no references that propose a falsifiable hypothesis

If you can show that flagellums can evolve on a step* by step basis without too many* codependent mutations* Behes argument would be falsified. Therefore the argument is falsifiable.

Behe is nonsense, and reference showed that flagellum evolved in a step by step process and described the steps. mutations need not be codependent to be of functional value.

Definitions

Step* a random* mutation or any other positive genetic change achievable in 1 generation.

There is no criteria in the science of genetics that requires positive genetic change in 1 generation. Mutated genes can exist for generations and need not be a positive change. These mutations can be neutral at the time the mutation takes place, and persist for generations.

Behe makes up his own rules to justify his agenda.

Need references to justify these assertions.

Too many* Behe explains where the limits are, more than 3 successive codependent mutations are far beyond any reasonable limit

This is Behe's false criteria and not that of science. Mutations can exist for generations and need not be functional at the time of the mutation. Potentially functional mutations are common in nature, and do not express themselves until other mutations activate them.

You need a scientific reference independent of Behe that describes this as necessary criteria. It is a matter of fact tat in Genetics it is not necessary criteria.

Codependent mutation* 2 or more mutations (or genetic change) are codependent if by themselves are useless, but working together they would perform a beneficial function that would be selected by natural selection.

Mutations can exist for generations as neutral mutations and need not be functional at the time of the mutation. or in one generation. Potentially functional neutral mutations are common in nature, and do not express themselves until other mutations activate them.

*Random, Not guided nor biased towards a particular goal.

This is not a scientific definition. There is no such thing as a random mutation, because randomness does not cause mutations.

..

If you what to insist that the argument is unfalsifiable, please provide some justification.

ALL scientific arguments require falsification without exceptions if a hypothesis or claim is proposed. This is a universal criteria of methodological naturalism.

You have failed to cite and refer to actual scientific references to justify your claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was determined beyond a reasonable doubt at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial that Intelligent Design did not have a scientific basis and as the following describes it was based on the religious claim of Creationism.

From: My Role in Kitzmiller v Dover

I had two responsibilities as a witness: (1) to present and analyze empirical data that would demonstrate to Judge Jones that ID is merely a new strain of creationism and, as such, a religious belief; and (2) to show that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. These tasks were not difficult; ID creationists had provided me with excellent resources such as the Wedge strategy. Walking the judge through this document, I explained its major points, which establish that ID is not merely religion in a general sense, but sectarian Christian apologetics. I quoted relevant statements such as this one: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we [ID creationists at the CSC] also seek to build up a popular base of support [for ID] among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars." I produced evidence showing that ID leaders themselves understand ID as both creationism and sectarian religion. Phillip Johnson, who developed the Wedge Strategy, defines ID as "theistic realism" or "mere creation". William Dembski, one of the strategy’s chief executors, defines it as "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

But the "smoking gun" — as NCSE’s Nick Matzke put it — was Pandas. The NCSE archivist’s discovery in a 1981 creationist newspaper of an ad by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) seeking authors for a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" was an auspicious find. Interpreting the ad as a tip that FTE, publisher of Pandas, might have kept early drafts, plaintiffs’ attorneys subpoenaed all documents related to the book. Among the thousands of pages FTE produced were a 1983 and a 1986 draft, and two 1987 drafts, all written in blatantly creationist language. Beginning with the 1986 draft, "creation" was defined using the classic creationist concept of "abrupt appearance": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." The 1989 and 1993 published versions preserve this definition verbatim, except that "intelligent design" and "agency" are substituted for "creation" and "creator", respectively.

My analysis of the drafts brought a memorable "Eureka" moment. Working late one night, I discovered a crucial difference between the two 1987 drafts: one was written before the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision outlawing creationism in public schools, and the other was obviously written afterwards. The first version contained blatant creationist terminology. In the second, creationist terminology had been deleted and replaced by "intelligent design" and other ID terms. A new footnote in the latter version referenced the Edwards decision, indicating a conscious attempt to circumvent the Edwards ruling in the revised manuscript that would become Pandas. The "search and replace" operation must have been done in a hurry: in the post-Edwards manuscript, "creationists" was not completely deleted by whoever tried to replace it with "design proponents". The hybrid term "cdesign proponentsists" now stands as a "missing link" between the blatantly creationist earlier drafts and the post-Edwards versions of Pandas.

Knowing that my testimony would make all of this information part of the legal record, the TMLC tried to have me excluded from the case. When they failed, the saviors of modern science at the Discovery Institute tried to discredit me with ridicule by posting on their website a fake interview of Dr "Barking" Forrest by a fictitious radio host. When I saw this unbelievable silliness prior to departing for the trial, I could only hope that Judge Jones was also consulting DI’s website in his preparation for the case."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears that most creationists when they think of mutations envisage a scene from a B fifties horror flick. Most mutations will be minor tweaks at most of a process or an organ. Whether they are positive or negative depends more on the current environment more than anything else. And since we are talking about populations there will be a statistical distribution of them. The net result is that they are hardly random at all.

 

[shmogie]

Ellen, I think the problem may be that you and Altfish are using "evidence" to mean different things. You seem to be using it as a word to express personal conviction, whereas Altfish is using it in the sense of the sort of objective observation acceptable as evidence in support of a scientific hypothesis.

There is no objective evidence of a supernatural agency tinkering with, or suspending, the operation of the normal order in nature (what we sometimes call the "laws of nature"). In fact it is hard to see how there could be.

A religiously inclined person is however quite at liberty to see the working of nature as part of a creator's plan, or to see the fact that there is order in nature in the first place as at least aesthetically suggestive of a creator.

The error comes when, as with ID, people try to force science to provide objective evidence of supernatural tinkering with nature. This doesn't - and cannot - work.

Since I spent my working life dealing with ¨ evidence ¨ in a legal sense, where it is defined precisely and has specific rules that makes it evidence, I am drawn to the word, when used.

You state that ¨ there is no objective evidence ¨.................... What do you mean by objective evidence ? How is determined in this case and by whom ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Since I spent my working life dealing with ¨ evidence ¨ in a legal sense, where it is defined precisely and has specific rules that makes it evidence, I am drawn to the word, when used.

You state that ¨ there is no objective evidence ¨.................... What do you mean by objective evidence ? How is determined in this case and by whom ?

I define it as objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence:

From: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Verifiability and predictability are important in the scientific methods. Verifiable evidence is evidence that supports an experiment and research so that if the experiment or research is repeated the same result will be achieved. Predictability is the value of theories, hypothesis, and theorems to make predictions and have them confirmed by future research and discoveries.

Objective: From:Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The idea of this first conception of objectivity is that scientific claims are objective in so far as they faithfully describe facts about the world. The philosophical rationale underlying this conception of objectivity is the view that there are facts “out there” in the world and that it is the task of a scientist to discover, to analyze and to systematize them. “Objective” then becomes a success word: if a claim is objective, it successfully captures some feature of the world.

In this view, science is objective to the degree that it succeeds at discovering and generalizing facts, abstracting from the perspective of the individual scientist. Although few philosophers have fully endorsed such a conception of scientific objectivity, the idea figures recurrently in the work of prominent 20th century philosophers of science such as Carnap, Hempel, Popper, and Reichenbach. It is also, in an evident way, related to the claims of scientific realism, according to which it is the goal of science to find out the truths about the world, and according to which we have reason to believe in the truth of our best-confirmed scientific theories.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what does it take to be a religion or religious since those who follow religious naturalism as a religion do not find it ambiguous at all?

I consider it ambiguous, because of broad possibility of the meaning. In this case 'religious naturalism' can mean Theistic, Pantheist, Panentheist, Deist or whatever 'naturalism.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps @shmogie will understand the concept of scientific evidence. I have yet to see a creationist even try.

The tell tale that creationists do not have scientific evidence for their ideas is when one ask them what reasonable test would show creationism to be wrong, it it was wrong. Most of them reply with what seems a blank stare and ask why would they want to do that?

 

[Bear Wild]

I consider it ambiguous, because of broad possibility of the meaning. In this case 'religious naturalism' can mean Theistic, Pantheist, Panentheist, Deist or whatever 'naturalism.'

That is not true. Religious naturalism is a non-theistic religion with its metaphysics, morals and symbols. It is not theistic, not Deist, and not technically pantheist. This form of religion has been well described by Stone, Crosby and Goodenough as well as others. It is as much of a religion as any other despite its non-theistic views. It is certainly not an ambiguous religion and addresses good and evil, ethics, metaphysics, morals, and other religious questions as much as any other religion. Pantheism is equally a religion as any other.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ambiguous, because virtually everything people believe or not believe can be called religious.

So what is required to be religious. You do not believe the Authors who support Religious Naturalism do not make an adequate argument for a religion. If so what is inadequate of their presentation?

 

[PruePhillip]

Some Christian scientists assert that scientific methods can demonstrate Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and Specified Complexity to show that an intelligent 'Source' such as God is necessary for the existence of the Universe, and the beginning and evolution of life. The Discovery Institute has spent millions devoted to their efforts mostly donated by churches such as the Seventh Day Adventists, to do research on this hypothesis.

The reality is there has not been any objective verified evidence presented to falsify hypothesis to support Intelligent. What many have done is misuse and abuse statistics and probability to justify Intelligent Design.

Some members of this forum have proposed that Intelligent Design is science. I am waiting for the proposal of a hypothesis that may be falsified by scientific methods to demonstrate this.

Genesis, the first book in the bible, does not say that God created life.
It says that God "commanded" the earth and then the sea to bring
forth life. I suppose the "commands" are nothing less than the laws
of physics. And from the seas came birds which flew in the air.