Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/27/05 10:55pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Mainly" on 04/27/05 7:37pm
>>>>You’re missing the point. The new theory (ID) will
>>>>have a known means, possible...
>
>>>But having a known means in this case just sets all
>>>the questions back one notch.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Because having a "designer" as a cause simply delays
>questions like "Where did the designer come from, why
>did he/she design, Why did it decide to design THIS
>way as opposed to THIS way". The same questions that
>remained unanswered in organic evolution remain
>unanswered here
No they don't. The question at hand is the origin of life on Earth. ID answers that question. Furthermore, merely that ID has a known possible mechanism does not "put the questions back a notch." The questions regarding ID you mentioned were already there without the known means.
>>No it isn't. You don't have one scientific
>>objection to intelligent design theory.
>
>I don't have a scientific objection to the theory that
>the world rests on tortoise shells either.
Such objections can easily be made (appealing to direct observations, actual empirical data etc.).
>>It seems like
>>you're trying to make it inadmissible on purely
>>philosophical grounds.
>
>Science doesn't exactly operate on philosophy first
>and THEN whatever reality has to say as subsidary; the
>objections I'm making ARE reasons that theories in
>science are rejected. (e.g. theories making too many
>initial assumptions
ID doesn't do that, given the definition of the theory.
>models not being good fits,
ID doesn't have that problem; it fits the empirical data quite well (as far as the data not being problematic to the theory, even though the theory makes falsifiable predictions).
>situations in which the models don't yield accurate
>answers)
Where does ID not yield accurate answers?
>>The idea that nature
>>prefers the simple over the complex is indeed a
>>philosophical principle (and one that not everybody
>>thinks is true).
>
>It's one thing to say that theories with simple
>assumptions have borne out to be more accurate
But there are lots of theories, particularly in modern physics, that have rather complex assumptions (e.g. QM). Additionally, the complexity for ID isn't as bad as you seem to make it out to be.
>>Second, if the theory really is true
>>the extra dimension is not unnecessary. The third
>>problem I'll get to later.
>
>Yeah, but that's true for any theory, no matter how
>crazy.
The problem is that if you don't think the theory is true you need to justify it evidentially, rather than appealing to some philosophical principle of simplicity. The claim that artificial intervention "is not needed" is a direct attack on theory's veracity (since the theory is essentially "artificial intervention is necessary"). You then need to attack the theory on evidential grounds rather than trying for a short-cut philosophical victory.
>>>>Remember, in this scenario we humans
>>>>who have artificially created life without using the
>>>>supernatural.
>>>
>>>Kind of begs the question.
>>
>>How so?
>
>It begs the question of whether or not WE created life.
Well, if scientists did indeed artificially create life (take some chemicals, use them to create amino acids and nucleotides, use those products to make proteins and DNA...assembling the various created components to make a life form), why believe they didn't create life in this scenario?
>>I'll go the extra mile and give a counterexample.
>>Under this definition, atomic theory (like many other
>>theories) is an inference. It is a rational
>>inference? I believe so. Inferences can be rational.
>> The claim that "inferences are not rational by
>>definition" is false.
>
>They CAN be rational, but they are not by definition.
Okay, then it seems like I simply misunderstood what you meant when you said "inferences are not rational by definition" as it seemed you were saying "inferences cannot be rational, the definition prevents that." But then would the inference we were originally talking about be the most rational inference?
>>It explains it better because it predicts the
>>kinds of problems with the old paradigm and can give a
>>means on how it could have been done (unlike
>>the old paradigm).
>
>Would you feel better if the old paradigm posited
>rabid wombats as the mechanism by which it happened?
If they experimentally demonstrated it, yes.
>>Additionally, the observations
>>that are problematic to the old paradigm are not at
>>all problematic for the new one.
>
>Yes they are, unless you are simply content with the
>answer "a designer did it".
You're making it sound like a design inference is automatically unacceptable. In any case, the data is not problematic for the theory because it predicts that such data would occur.
What would be problematic data is if scientists had an experimentally demonstrated means by which life could evolve from non-life without artificial intervention.
I am not content with "design did it" by the way. I would prefer scientists find a means by which it could be designed.
Of course, I expect a similar thing to be true for organic evolution.
>>We even
>>use it on SETI—which in this case does not involve
>>human intelligence.
>
>Now remind me, has it been successful here? Are we not
>applying what we know humans can design and trying to
>look for something SIMILAR?
Broadly, yes. But then the same thing goes for ID in biology. One thing that is similar with many humanly-made things is that the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of producing them. If artificial intervention is necessary for the thing to exist (or at least meet the criteria SP and "specification" in the explanatory filter) then design is a legitimate inference.
>>If artificial intervention is reasonably necessary,
>>(if non-artificial causes seem insufficient) ID is a
>>rational inference even if the designer is nonhuman.
>
>But life "is created" all the time without any
>intervention.
I meant from non-life. Sure, RNA can be created from within the cell. But organic evolution (among other things) says RNA came about without the benefit of a cell's biochemical machinery. That's quite a bit different. ID does not dispute biogenesis, it disputes abiogenesis.
>>Quantum mechanics is not in the same league with other
>>theories because it makes things more complicated than
>>necessary.
>
>Not quite. Quantum mechanics didn't start out with an
>entire set of complicated theories to explain what it
>saw.
Maybe not the entire set, but there some complicated things introduced (e.g. the mathematics).
>>Lots of complicated mathematics—let’s just
>>stick with Newtonian laws. What, Newtonian mechanics
>>has problems? That’s okay, there are solutions to
>>them and we just haven’t discovered it yet.
>
>Except QM offers predictions that explain existing
>data BETTER
And that's precisely what ID does, for reasons I already explained.
>>All else held constant, the theory A that
>>predicts the data that is problematic with theory B
>>explains it better.
>
>But it doesn't. Moving on.
Uh, ID does predict the existence of such observations that are problematic with abiogenesis, remember?
>>On what grounds does it not explain the data better?
>>Because you just don’t like it philosophically?
>
>No, because it opens up a whole slew of MORE
>complicated questions that are probably and would
>ALWAYS probably be unsolveable. (Who designed this,
>why, where did they come from...etc. etc.)
That's it? That is not enough to justify the claim that it doesn't explain the data better. Consider again the robots on example. Does the mere fact that we have tons of unanswered questions make the explanation inferior? Obviously not. If the ID theory predicts the existence of the problems of the naturalistic formation theory, it explains such data better. The existence of such questions is irrelevant.
>>You used the fallacy of equivocation. The filter's
>>definition of "chance" and what you said are not
>>exactly the same thing.
>
>If that's the case, then the FILTER uses the fallacy
>of equivocation. It cannot rightly call chance what is
>not chance, can it?
It can in the context from which it means. Besides, it still accurately detects design, which is the main purpose of the filter.
>The "theory" doesn't predict or even
>necessitate the things it assumes.
Yes it does. The claim that artificial intervention is necessary predicts that we would not e.g. find a naturalistic means to do the job. In fact the theory necessitates it. If the observations were different, the theory would be disproved.
>It simply assumes
>them because it knows them to be true at the moment.
Additionally, the origin of the theory is irrelevant; what matters is the evidence. Even if ID originated from a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter, ID should be rejected only on the basis of the evidence itself.
>> Even then, this form of ID has been around for quite
>>a while (though not necessarily in the majority of
>>scientists). And finally, ID doesn’t make predictions
>>just with current data. It also makes
>>predictions of the future which, if disproven,
>>would spell absolute doom for the theory.
>
>My tortoise shell theory can make predictions for the
>future, but if I set it up and use a little common
>sense while doing so, I can make predictions in such a
>way that the future PROBABLY will not refute what I've
>said
Good for you, but you're using a false analogy. The theory in its basic defined form makes the falsifiable predictions without any ad hoc hypotheses.
“Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.”
That they are necessary lends itself to falsifiable predictions. And if they are indeed necessary it means that organic evolution (and any other competing theory) cannot be correct.
>>True, if aliens came from outer space and said they
>>designed life and backed it up with videotape
>>recordings, that might do it. Not only that, but if
>>we make a time machine and use it to go back in time
>>and see the designer, then it’s falsified then too.
>>Also, if a wizard comes and allows us to see into the
>>past, the same sort of thing could also happen.
>
>I find it somewhat ironic that you place the idea of a
>designer coming down on par with all of these things
I do because it is a fantastic and extraordinary event; not at all on par with experimental demonstrations that could falsify ID.
>>I think you drastically missed the point of what I
>>said. I’m not talking about the fantastic or
>>extraordinary, I’m talking about more mundane
>>scientific observations.
>
>Another irony. YES, you very much ARE talking about
>the fantastic and extraordinary.
I feel the same way about organic evolution.
>>In contrast, there
>>doesn’t seem to be anything comparable for
>>abiogenesis; no experimental demonstrations that can
>>do the same for the old paradigm. For instance:
>
>I'd think that IF it could be shown than Earth could
>NOT have reasonably been expected to have the
>conditions necessary for life to form (whatever those
>conditions ultimately end up being) then abiogenesis
>would definitely go down the tubes.
And there we have the claim of ID, arguments stemming from mathematical probability (of e.g. biological information), to the geochemical evidence (remember what I said about Miller's experiments being obsolete? It's because the early Earth didn't have the required conditions) to other observed barriers of abiogenesis.
The problem however comes down to what observations could be made to show that naturalistic processes are not reasonably capable of forming life on Earth. Abiogenesis has problems? "That's okay. There are solutions and we just haven't discovered them yet."
For instance, when chance is impotent, people have appealed to physical laws not yet discovered.
>>Really? So if I talk to evolutionary scientists
>>regarding the multiple problems of abiogenesis, their
>>attitude won’t be “we’ll solve the problems
>>eventually”?
>
>I don't think they'd necessarily would say that
>they'll solve the problems AND abiogenesis WILL be the
>answer.
I disagree. What other answer would they be willing to accept (given that life had a beginning)?
>Abiogenesis
>has SOME evidential support, which is quite a bit
>better than ID at this particular point in time.
Ha! Why is that the case? ID makes falsifiable predictions, has a known mechanisms above and beyond what abiogenesis has etc.
>wouldn't expect scientists to throw their hands up in
>the air and start grasping other theories with less
>evidential support simply because they encountered
>problems. Some problems take time to work out. Some
>problems take an extremely LONG time to work out.
Great. I agree. The question is, how long before we switch to another theory that solves those same problems (e.g. ID)? So far, your answer seems to be never! (Barring extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the mere existence of the theory that solves those problems and predicts their existence.)
>>Well, ID theory I suppose, since that seems win the
>>game of inference to the best explanation in this
>>case. Now please answer my question!
>
>If the odds were a trillion to one in terms of organic
>evolution, then I wouldn't accept organic evolution.
>
>However, I wouldn't be so brash as to automatically
>accept design as the answer in lieu of organic
>evolution.
And here we get to the question: why not? Does it not win the game of inference to the best explanation?
>>You are very good at avoiding the question. Please
>>answer it instead.
>
>You mean how long before we switch to a WORSE theory?
>I'd say never.
I never said it was a worse theory. In this scenario, ID continues to have its falsifiable predictions confirmed, abiogenesis still has unresolved problems that the other theory accounts for and explains.
ID will always be the worse theory? Why is it worse? What makes it worse? The falsifiable predictions? The fact it predicts the data that are problematic for the other theory? What?
As I pointed out, the existence of unanswered questions is not sufficient grounds to throw out ID. You’ll have to find something else.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 