Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 3/04 2:22pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "usefulness" on 09/27/04 12:20pm
>>
>>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.
I think you might be making hidden assumptions about my assumptions.
>>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.
Well, that's the same thing with abiogenesis.
>>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.
I assume you're referring to natural vs. artificial. Hybrid scenarios could perhaps be constructed, but beyond that what other possibilities are there?
>>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.
Really? What other alternative is there? Artificial processes presupposes at least some intelligence.
>>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.
Perhaps so, but nonetheless this prediction has been confirmed. How about you answer my question about how long research on abiogenesis must continue, and how long the prediction of ID theory could be confirmed, before ID can be rationally accepted?
>Also, "artificial intervention" isn't defined well
>enough here to really mean anything.
You can look it up in the dictionary if you're at all confused. But honestly it doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp. Take for instance the obelisk or robot example. A rational inference of ID could be made nonetheless.
>>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.
Then how long should the problems of the paradigm remain unsolved before we accept one that predicts those same problems? Forty years? A century? Never?
>>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.
Why is that disputable? Natural mechanism = non-artificial. How can you dispute the fact that the beliefs I believe are what I believe?
>>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?
You haven't answered my question at all. How many more decades of fruitless research in resolving the problems with the current paradigm should continue before accepting ID? You can't sweep the problem under the rug like that. It's not rational to accept a belief regardless of the evidence.
>There are so many years of fruitless research
>with small gains. When should we finally give up
False analogy. I'm talking about problems with some particular theories, not an entire branch of science as vast as physics. I'm not saying we should give up on biology for instance, just (if the problems remain unsolved) certain theory/theories.
Also, the problems for abiogenesis don't exist in physics. Many explanations work just find without problems. Some do, and if after decades of research we can't solve the problems and we find a better paradigm, then that paradigm should be accepted.
The issue is how long we should put up with a troubled paradigm before we give up on it. Humans sometimes form scientific theories that are wrong.
>>What relevant data in those questions is unexplained?
>
>Who or what did the perceived designing?
That's not data. That's a facet of the theory. In any case we could apply the same sort of "unexplained questions" with abiogenesis and just about every other theory, thereby invalidating them all. That surely is a high price to pay.
>>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".
Fine, but then don't insinuate that this unanswered question is any reason to reject ID theory.
>>Things like
>>that are why the inability to answer those particular
>>questions is not problematic.
>
>Indeed it is.
WHY? I'm getting awfully sick of the avoidance of an explanation here.
>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.
What golden rule? And why is the fact that we can't identify the designer 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.
>
>I don't think any scientist is saying with certainty
>that abiogenesis is the definitive way life came
>about.
Perhaps not with absolute certainty, nonetheless abiogenesis is the generally accepted paradigm of what actually happened. Open a biology textbook and see what they teach.
>>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.
Again, go back to my obelisk/robot examples. How well does your objection work there? It does, like it or not, explain why we haven't found natural mechanisms yet.
>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.
But I just provided one.
>>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.
Again, I just provided one. Ignoring it doesn't make the prediction go away.
>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
Read Mere Creation and then tell me that they don't commit to specifics regarding their theory.
>and at the end of the day
>adherents of ID theory really aren't interested in
>whether or not their theory holds water.
Then why have they spent so much effort into that area? Your remark is clearly false and misguided.
>>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.
I suggest you read some ID material. There are a lot of predictions that are testable that you seem to be ignorant of. I already provided one example.
>>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 it's likely to have been made by someone. And this all depends on what you mean by "appears." After all, it "appears" that gravity exists. IT "appears" that microevolution is true etc. And given the specific nature of these "appearances" we have rational reason to accept them.
>>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.
I'm not bifurcating the issue in that manner. (Nor do many other ID adherents, confer Behe). Nonetheless, we can put it this way. At least some ID intervention existed or there was none. This is a valid bifurcation.
>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?
Now you seem to be talking about ultimate origins. My response would be this: what are the so-called "extravagant" implications? Second, mass existing forever leads to metaphysical absurdities.
>>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.
That doesn't surprise me.
>Perhaps
>you'd care to explain this further.
In short, the starting conditions don't quite match up. The primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything. Instead it was composed of things like water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. You just can't get the same experimental results with that mixture. The Miller experiment is obsolete.
>>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.
And it's now known the Miller experiment fails to work in practice as it pertains to the early earth.
>>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.
See above on the early earth conditions I described. And nonetheless what you said doesn’t change the fact that the Oparin/Miller hypothesis is obsolete and discredited, pioneer or not.
>>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.
Except that these "problems" are not problematic for ID theory, in fact they were predicted. I think eventually we might have to come to grips with the fact that the current theory might be wrong.
And how long should we put up with the current theory’s problems? How many more decades of fruitless research in resolving the problems with the current paradigm should continue before accepting ID? Or should we just accept the paradigm no matter what? If you say “yes” can you understand some people’s belief regarding the unwillingness of some people in the face of the evidence?
>>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.
On what grounds? Chance doesn't seem to work (scientists no longer seem to believe in it). One might appeal to natural laws that haven't been yet discovered (as Klaus Dose and others have). But that doesn't seem plausible to biological information, since laws (almost by definition) describe highly regular phenomena (order, not information) and that the undiscovered laws will have to be consistent with existing ones.
BTW, I could make a similar claim and say that ID has shown to be plausible.
>ID on the other hand, has done nothing to show that
>life was created on early earth by a someone or
>something.
It's done lots of things on that regard. Read Mere Creation and see their attempts.
>>The explanatory filter detects design, that's all.
>
>So? Does design detection imply actual design?
If the filter is used correctly, then yes.
>>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?
There have been a lot of ID adherents that have denied that charge (e.g. Behe). The burden of proof on their dishonesty rests on you.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 