Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/04 8:14pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Meant to comment on this earlier" on 09/15/04 11:08pm
>>
>>For instance, suppose we found an obelisk on a moon of
>>Jupiter. Does the fact that we cannot answer those
>>questions mean we should pretend it wasn't designed?
>
>Have you noticed that all of your examples happen to
>be of things we know are made by man?
Yes. Hence the analogy is easy to grasp. Human made things are the only known things artificially created. It's not as if there are aliens I could use for a different analogy.
>That sets a poor
>tone for applying the argument to life, since we've
>never really seen anybody sit down and design life.
Perhaps not. But it's quite conceivable that human science will eventually reach the level to artificially create life from scratch (i.e the basic chemicals). In any case it does not change the relevance of the analogy. If the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of creating life from non-life (just as they are not reasonably capable of creating computers) then life was probably artificially created.
>Anyway, if we found an obelisk on Jupiter the most
>intuitive answer would be that it was designed. As
>I've mentioned before in another thread, just because
>an answer seems intuitively right does not make it in
>fact "the best". The best explanation is the one that
>explains the obelisk and best fits the data so as to
>elucidate the questions Duane posed.
Fine. But ID would still be the best explanation given the circumstances of the analogy.
>Predictions would
>also factor in.
I agree.
>Saying the obelisk was "designed"
>doesn't include any predictions about how or why or
>what you might expect if you went about the process in
>the same way.
Here's a testable prediction as it regards to life on earth, one that happens to coincide with modern ID theory (confer the explanatory filter). We will not be able to find any currents of nature that can reasonably create life from non-life without artificial intervention. This prediction is potentially falsifiable, but I don't think it will actually be falsified. Perhaps we need to wait a few more decades of research on the origins of life before ID theory should be accepted.
So far the prediction holds true. Of course, the disputable point is that there is a means (for nature) and we just haven't discovered it yet, or we haven't discovered it yet because it just doesn't exist.
Here's a question I have. When should we give up on non-artificial explanations? How many more decades of fruitless research in finding a known means should continue before accepting ID?
>>Yes there is a designer, but none of the
>>assumptions ID contains necessarily has answers to
>>those questions. And that is not intrinsically
>>problematic.
>
>Unexplained data is problematic.
What relevant data in those questions is unexplained? Okay, so we can't determine the identity of the designer. But should that mean we should rule out ID even if we know it's true? Merely because we can't identify the designer? Obviously not. Things like that are why the inability to answer those particular questions is not problematic.
Speaking of unexplained data, abiogenesis is in the same boat (perhaps worse). Now if you come to me and claim that my computer could have formed through non-artificial means, I might reasonably request how could this possibly have been done. You have no answer. Similarly, there is no naturalistic explanation (yet?) for life on earth, despite decades of research. Perhaps a few more decades of research is needed, however.
>ID makes no attempt to explain unexplained data
Quite the opposite. It explains the origin of life on earth that abiogenesis (so far) fails to adequately explain, exactly as ID theory predicts. Granted, perhaps more research is necessary. Perhaps a few more decades of confirming this testable prediction is needed. Nonetheless, let's have no illusions about ID not being able to (at least in principle) explaining data and making testable, potentially falsifiable predictions.
In short, there's no valid "short-cut" victory for those who despise ID theory. You have to deal with the evidence alone to decide whether or not to accept/reject ID theory.
>>No you won't. Quarks are in principle
>>unobservable. (We can, of course, observe their
>>effects that allow us to reasonably infer their
>>existence.)
>
>It isn't just the EFFECTS that make the difference.
>It's the theories that predict these things, and the
>complementary evidence. That helps to strengthen our
>"inference" by building up data that all neatly fits
>in like a puzzle piece.
Fine. But the same can be said for ID theory (at least in principle).
>>It's not silly at all. Confer my example with the
>>obelisk on a moon of Jupiter. Does the fact that we
>>can't answer those questions become intrinsically
>>problematic? Not in the least.
>
>Yes, they do because within that unexplained data
>lurks the potential to topple the entire notion.
The idea that there might be some upcoming data to topple the theory is a problem for scientific theories in general. ID is not unique. It is not intrinsically problematic. If it were, and the geological evidence suggested ID theory for the obelisk, should we pretend not to know that the obelisk was designed merely because we can't identify the designer? Obviously not.
>>Let's see if I can find an analogy to the "who
>>designed the designer" objection. Attempts to explain
>>the origin of life by natural processes are invalid,
>>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>>processes.
>
>So too does it apply to a designer. Both sets of ideas
>are invalid by that criteria.
Precisely. That's why the criterion fails to work.
>>I'm also not comfortable with the "demonstrable
>>processes" considering they don't (yet?) exist for the
>>origin of life any more than “demonstrable processes”
>>exist for how a computer can be made solely by natural
>>(i.e. non-artificial) means.
>
>The fundamental molecules of life have been
>demonstrated to occur when lightening strikes, given
>the conditions of primitive earth.
That's nice. But again we're still not anywhere near creating a life form through non-artificial means, especially given how obsolete and useless the Miller experiment is given up-to-date information regarding the conditions of the early earth.
Even so, let's pretend those problems didn't exist. Is the creation of amino acids an important step? Absolutely. But we're still nowhere near to solving the problem.
>>And I don't think they will ever succeed in showing
>>any possible means for organic evolution.
>
>With the Miller experiments I mentioned before, they
>are well on their way.
Not quite. The Oparin/Miller hypothesis encounters severe, even fatal problems on several fronts. Geochemists have failed to find the nitrogen-rich prebiotic soup required. In fact, geological and geochemical evidence suggests the prebiotic atmosphere was hostile--not friendly--to the formation of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life.
>(in fact, progress has been
>made far beyond what Miller showed)
Decades of research in the origin of life has led more realization of the immensity of the problems rather than its solutions, at least that's what one leading one leading biochemist had to say on the issue.
You seem optimistic about the future of abiogenesis, that scientists will eventually find a way. Given what I've read, I am not so optimistic. I think eight decades from now the ID prediction will continue to be confirmed. Perhaps by then we may even have a substantial portion of scientists become ID theorists due to the weight of the evidence.
But I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
>>The explanatory filter allows us to reasonably infer
>>design even when we don't know who the designer is.
>>If you have a similar procedure for identifying the
>>designer, submit it to the ID scientists. If not,
>>please recognize the limitations of science.
>
>If by "design" you mean that it appears to have been
>made by a who or what, that's one thing. If by design
>you mean only by something alive that purposefully
>made it, then you've limited yourself to a specific
>assumption that isn't truly reflective of the possible
>answers to the situation.
The explanatory filter detects design, that's all.
>>Asked and answered (for the first ones). We can
>>rationally infer design even if we don't know exactly
>>how it was done (e.g. the pyramids).
>
>No, we can't.
That's obviously not true. Think back to the obelisk scenario, or suppose we find robots on Pluto or an exact copy of the Rosetta Stone there. Even if we don't have a clue who made it or how it was done, ID would be the rational conclusion.
>>All these "rational" people are paranoid (or at least
>>irrational, seriously confused etc.) if they think
>>it's being motivated solely by political/religious
>>matters, especially given the lack of evidence to
>>support that assertion (confer my examples) etc.
>
>Because ID is an age old knee jerk reaction to Darwin,
>one can safely bet that the roots are largely
>political and religious.
If you ignore all relevant evidence to the contrary, then yes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 