| Subject: usefulness |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/27/04 12:20pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Analogies" on 09/26/04 8:14pm
>
>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.
No, but your analogy contains a hidden assumption, and that assumption is that life is not THAT much different than anything people make. That's rather at the heart of the issue.
>
>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).
And even if they did, it wouldn't be as though they designed life itself. They modified what was there to suit their purposes. That's quite a bit different than "making life from the ground up."
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.
I'm not sure that those are the only two possibilities. It's not it's all nature, or it's all design. There are many variations in between, and possibly quite exotic ones at that. We can't simply take what we hold to be true in everyday life and apply it to an extraordinary circumstance and expect it to hold.
>Fine. But ID would still be the best explanation
>given the circumstances of the analogy.
If you assume that by designed it means an intelligent entity which I've pointed out is not necessarily the case.
>
>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.
Well, the question of the creation of life isn't exactly one of those questions that's easily answered in say a hundred years of biology. It's sort of like asking how the universe started, or why you're here, or any number of extremely complicated questions that don't have any immediate answer.
Also, "artificial intervention" isn't defined well enough here to really mean anything. I suppose one could always say some artificial intervention was in place, but that depends on how broad you make your definition.
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.
A few more decades? I think you have some unrealistic expectations of science. Since the beginning of man to Issac Newton was the extent of time it took for someone to formulate a way to deal with motion in an understandable way. It's not that answers can suddenly be gripped out of the air when we want them. Knowledge comes in fits and starts and stammers. That, as you should know, takes time, and sometimes it requires a BUNCH of time.
>
>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.
Yes, that's the disputable point alright, and also what you consider to be a "natural mechanism" for life to emerge to be.
>
>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?
I'll answer your question with a question. How many more decades should we pursue physics? There are so many years of fruitless research with small gains. When should we finally give up and just admit that physics just exists and we'll never figure it out?
>
>What relevant data in those questions is unexplained?
Who or what did the perceived designing?
>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.
I didn't say to "rule it out". Have you ever seen rock formations such as in the grand canyon with rocks that seem to be sculpted by a person so well is their fit? There are two ideas that readily spring to mind, namely, is this something someone intentionally made, or is this something that's come about in some other way. No one jumps to the conclusion immediately that "AH HA! This looks like design, so an intelligent designer must have made it!" To do so would be foolish because it rules out the other possibilities in advance.
In other words, the appearance of design alone is not sufficient to suppose a maker made it. (unless of course you've seen and know that it's something normally made, but even then you can't be assured of its origin) Please explain to me why this is not true.
Things like
>that are why the inability to answer those particular
>questions is not problematic.
Indeed it is. Seeing design and inferring it was actually designed by a creator is a problem, because it doesn't follow that this is the golden rule. In fact, it's violated over and over.
>
>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.
I don't think any scientist is saying with certainty that abiogenesis is the definitive way life came about. What they have shown is that it's possible that it COULD have.
I'm not aware of ID showing in any particular way that life COULD have been brought about by a designer. Are you?
>
>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.
I don't think saying "someone did it" is all that explanatory. It's possible ID could make some potentially falsifiable predictions, to that I'll agree. The problem is that no one ever lays down predictions that ID makes that ought to be in principle falsifiable. If this was all designed then x and y should folow kind of predictions never seem to make it to a codified form concerning ID.
>
>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.
Ummm, well, there is the whole problem of ID not making any predictions specific enough as to be falsifiable. Everyone seems to keep ID general, because they know if they begin to commit to specfics it's likely that data will emerge that will show those predictions to be false, and at the end of the day adherents of ID theory really aren't interested in whether or not their theory holds water. They're interested in maintaing the idea, and throwing up false controversy in an attempt to confuse the average guy into thinking there is disharmony in science when there really isn't on the basic points.
It's not much different that what the cigarette companies are being taken to court for right now. I wonder if in the future they'll hall ID'ers in for doing the same thing; namely obfuscating issues and creating a sense of controversy where none exists. Distrust science, ID'ers chant quietly; look at all these issues here! Surely science is falling flat on its back!
But science keeps right on trucking along and making progress while simultaneously reducing the room for ID'ers to introduce their special brand of "controversy".
>
>Fine. But the same can be said for ID theory (at
>least in principle).
Sure it could be said in principle. The problem is that "in principle" is where it always remains because no ID'er is bold enough to come out with a list of predictions that are testable.
>The idea that there might be some upcoming data to
>topple the theory is a problem for scientific theories
>in general.
I'm aware of that, but ID omits a big piece of information out of their "theory"; namely why it is that when something appears designed that it had to be made by a someone. That's critical data to omit, and isn't quite in the same league as finding data down the road that makes you rethink something about the nature of light, or any other given theory.
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.
Again, you bifurcate the issue. It is not made by someone or nature exclusively. There are all sorts of variations in between. Finding out that nature didn't make it on it's own totally does not mean therefore that it was totally designed.
As an example, think about the obelisk this way. We find out that the planet is incapable of making this sort of design on its own. However, millions of years ago a little asteriod popped the dirt, and from there, the planet had some special mineral that gradually built the thing up.
Or maybe some passing space aliens hawked a loogie out their spaceship window, and nature took over from there. Or maybe what we consider design is an inherent property of the universe and that humans are just practicing what the universe impresses upon everything.
It's not an all or nothing question necessarily.
>
>Precisely. That's why the criterion fails to work.
I don't think that means the criteria itself is wrong. I think it indicates we misunderstand things, and we're attempting to ask a question that we haven't quite figured out how to fully formulate.
A good question though, is if we are going to pose that something infinitely exists, why should we decide that we need the assumption of a creator when having something like mass always existing accomplishes the same purpose with fewer extravagant implications?
>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.
I haven't heard anything about early earth that makes the Miller experiment useless and obsolete. Perhaps you'd care to explain this further.
And you still need to explain what you mean by "non-artificial means".
>
>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.
Of course not, but we've shown a fundamental building block of life is possible given natural processes concerning just one little occurence of what Miller made in his lab, and the experiment has been done using other variations with success.
>
>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.
Miller was only the pioneer. He showed that it was possible; he was not the authority on abiogenesis. Since Miller, it's been shown that other gasses work with equally successful outcomes. The point is that Miller showed the possibility with a certain mixture, but since then others have done it with the same success with other mixtures.
The atmosphere being hostile to Miller's experiment is of little relevance.
>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.
That's not uncommon or negative. The problems outstanding are better realized when you have more knowledge of the thing to begin with.
>
>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.
Maybe, but I think you have false hopes. The fact of the matter is that abiogenic origins have been shown to be plausible concerning the early Earth. Knowing that, it seems that it's possible for life to be produced via natural processes with no appeal to a creator.
ID on the other hand, has done nothing to show that life was created on early earth by a someone or something. It remains a possibility, but one without any sort of real life experimental evidence.
>
>But I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
I suppose.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The explanatory filter detects design, that's all.
So? Does design detection imply actual design?
>
>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.
umm, see, the thing here again is that you're assuming because something looks designed that it must be. All those things you mentioned above we know have been designed, but perhaps when we first encountered them not necessarily so.
Just because we see something we know to be designed on a usual basis doesn't on its own mean that we know it was designed. We simply infer that it was based on what we know to be designed. Strong hunches do not a truth make.
>
>If you ignore all relevant evidence to the contrary,
>then yes.
Where is all this evidence to the contrary? Why should I view ID as anything BUT an attempt to sneak God in the back door? What lends it legitimacy as an idea?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 