Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/31/04 2:44pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Comments" on 10/16/04 5:44pm
>>ID meets that. One could potentially falsify an ID
>>claim (with the current version of ID) by showing how
>>it could have developed naturally,
>
>Assuming that a natural mechanism of life was found,
>would YOU consider ID theory to be falsified
In that particular instance, yes.
>or would
>you adopt the typical ID modus operandi wherein ID is
>retooled to point out more areas where information is
>lacking that "a designer" could then be snuck in?
>
>I don't think ID is capable of being falsified on this
>criteria at all. Stakes would be pulled and replanted
>in other areas of ignorance.
Just because ID is refuted in one particular aspect of biology doesn't mean it's refuted in all of them. Some things might be designed, others maybe not. It would be irrational for us to arbitrarily accept an “all or none” approach.
And again please recognize that ID is not an argument from ignorance, but from processes and aspects of life that we do know about (e.g. irreducible complexity, biological information etc.). And it's not just an argument from incredulity so much as global disciplinary failure on the part of Darwinian evolution.
> or yielding
>>unfavorable (for ID) calculations from the explanatory
>>filter.
>
>You've never really defined what an explanatory filter
>is, or how it works, or how it should be used
Texts of this sort abound in ID literature. I suggest The Design Inference for a rigorous answer to your questions.
>>Depends what you mean by "postive evidence."
>
>By "positive evidence" I mean evidence that does not
>rely on a negative.
There we get into a problem. Any positive evidence for ID you could reinterpret as "negative evidence." Any suitable argument for ID (and rational ones can and have been made, e.g. in cryptology, archaeology and forensics) relies on the belief that the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of producing specific effects. Additionally, I too could consider evolutionary theory to consist of nothing but “negative evidence” against ID, because any evidence for naturalistic evolution will naturally constitute evidence against ID theory. Similar things could be said for other theories (most notably physical laws). So a requirement of “positive evidence, not just negative arguments” gets pretty intellectually shaky in practice.
> It does
>>predict that a natural means would not be discovered,
>>though also earmarks of intelligent design (e.g.
>>predicting the existence of biological information)
>>etc.
>
>But as I lengthily discussed above, "nots" aren't
>particularly strong evidence for a theory
That's actually not the case, otherwise cryptology, forensics etc. would be in trouble. For instance, the fact that the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of producing the Rosetta Stone is strong evidence for it being designed. We rationally infer design all the time. Trying to say "You can't do it in biology!" seems little more than special pleading. The actual evidential arguments must be addressed.
>>It sure does: the designer uses similar structures for
>>similar functions.
>
>Why would a designer that designed life be limited by
>such a thing?
I never said the designer would be limited, only that the designer might use similar structures for similar functions (just as engineers and computer programmers often do). The basic idea is hardly unreasonable.
> As a programmer, I use similar
>>code for similar functions.
>
>As a programmer, you are limited by the semantics of
>the language you program in.
Not at all. We could create and use completely new programming languages each time we write a program. And we could start from scratch every time we make programs that have similar functions, trying strenuously to make them as different as possible. Nonetheless we programmers often use similar procedures for similar functions out of convenience.
>Are you insinuating a
>designer is limited by some set of rules?
In the sense that I talked about above, then yes. The designer could choose to limit oneself to using the same set of rules like a programmer (again, out of convenience) uses the same programming language or an engineer uses similar structures.
>>Organs deteriorate and become vestigial.
>
>So the design is falling apart?
Perhaps so.
>The designer felt the
>need to include redudant organs just in case?
No, the organs were at one point not vestigial but useful but as time went on the organs deteriorated into becoming vestigial (similar to the standard evolutionary theory).
>>Again, similar structures...
>
>And again, why?
See above. Why do engineers and programmers do it?
>>However, ID does explain things
>>like the existence of those sophisticated biochemical
>>machines resistant to gradualist scenarios (e.g.
>>irreducible complexity)
>
>I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is
>that nobody has shown why and by what criteria the
>thing should be "irreducible" in the first place.
It's been done several times! A biochemical system is irreducibly complex if removal of any of the various components (which can be listed in detail, as IIRC Behe does) causes the system to effectively cease functioning. This can be rigorously defined and applied and be perfectly testable.
>Because something may not work the same when taken
>apart isn't necessarily a problem for evolution
It's a problem for the "direct approach." Nonetheless, it does leave the possibility of an indirect route, but Behe and other ID adherents believe such routes are improbable.
>, the origin of biological
>>information, the sophistication and workings of the
>>blood cascade, the chemical incompatibility of those
>>RNA components and many other facets surrounding the
>>origin of life etc.
>
>
>I fail to see how evolution can't explain these
>things.
Well, let's deal with biological information. Blind chance seems to have been mostly rejected as a possible candidate. Another one is more deterministic chemical processes. Problem? One is that we haven't discovered any that can do the job. IN DNA, there aren't even any chemical bonds between the nucleotide in the spine of the double helix. Thus, the chemical constituents that are responsible for the message text in DNA don't chemically interact with each other in any significant way. Second, any newly discovered physical laws will have to be consistent with the ones we already know. Third, laws almost by definition describe highly regular occurrences, i.e. order not information. (ABABABABABABABABABABABAB is ordered, but uninformative, whereas MYLASTCARWASAPIECEOFCRAP is informative but not due to simple order).
>>Then you should read Dembski's The Design
>>Inference. How does evolution justify itself
>>mathematically by the way (apart from
>>microevolutionary statistics).
>
>I'm not sure what you would qualify as "micro"
>evolutionary mathematics, but I think equations like
>mutation rates and population shifts which are
>mathematical notions based upon evolutionary
>assumptions seem to turn out excruciatingly close to
>reality
Micro-evolutionary statistics (like those you mentioned above) refer to the directly observable changes we see in life forms.
>>Many ID adherents have made their claims quite
>>specific. Again, perhaps reading some ID material
>>would be beneficial.
>
>Maybe THEY have, but so far you really haven't.
Much of it involves rigorous technical detail, which is a bit of trouble for me to reproduce in entirety here, but quite convenient for you to go to a local library and check out some of my references.
>When in fact I have read ID claims before, they play
>the same song and dance that you seem to be
>performing. Hide behind the multitudinous "others".
Then for starters please read Dembski's The Design Inference. It passed through some heavy peer-review and is mathematically and technically rigorous (from what I've read anyway).
>>Additionally, many of your criteria seem to be what
>>characterizes a good scientific theory rather
>>than a scientific theory per se. There are
>>dozens of theories that definitely fit the category of
>>being "scientific" even though they are discredited
>>and don't match your criteria very well at all.
>
>These are the criteria that are acceptable to ME
Ah. That would explain it then. In that case, I could ay that orthodox evolution is not an acceptable scientific theory (by criteria that are acceptable to ME).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 