Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 5/05 2:01pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Double bubble" on 05/ 2/05 6:59am
>>There are a number of problems with that. One you have
>>to realize that different burdens of proof are there.
>>Nobody denies that life could be artificially created,
>>so demonstrating a means would serve little purpose
>>for ID.
>
>Artificially created from non-life? I think quite a
>few folks would disagree with this.
You think there are "quote a few folks" who believe life cannot be artificially created?
>>Contrast to abiogenesis, where it is
>>doubted that a means could be created by its critics.
>
>I'm afraid your above statement would be just AS
>doubted as it offers not a single shred more of
>evidence for itself.
Critics nonetheless claim that abiogenesis has no means to work with. An experimental demonstration of a means would carry great weight in supporting the theory, not to mention disproving ID. The opposite just isn't nearly as true for ID.
>>Second, a known mechanism for artificially creating
>>life will certainly be created eventually.
>
>This sounds much like the tenacity you impute
>scientists with having. "No known means to create
>life? It'll eventually happen. We'll stick with ID."
Not really, for a number of reasons. One, if abiogenesis has a means, an intelligent agent could create life merely by simulating natural conditions. If abiogenesis does not have a means (and life began to exist) ID would still have a means (because life got there somehow). Second, there is technological progress. For instance, we can create DNA, RNA, AMP etc. from previous materials, but the same can't be said for undirected chemical reactions. Third, if all else fails nanites can conceivably do the job (assembling things atom by atom). Fourth, do you really doubt life could be created artificially? It doesn't seem to be a controversial point even among supporters of abiogenesis.
>>It’s only a
>>matter of inevitable technological progress; it’ll
>>inevitably be a moot point and is thus not a coherent
>>criticism.
>
>So there are problems with ID that will eventually be
>solved?
I have already given numerous reasons why this isn't a problem for ID.
>>Third, there are already some
>>aspects of life that can be created artificially, but
>>there aren’t any known means to produce naturally.
>
>Artifically assuming the pieces of life are already
>there
No. I am assuming the amino acids were also created artificially.
>>Already human scientists can use chemicals to create
>>amino acids and nucleotides. A chemist can take these
>>building blocks to produce proteins and nucleic acids,
>>and from this can even make RNA and DNA. So, there
>>are known mechanisms for ID to work with, but
>>there are no known mechanisms for organic evolution to
>>produce RNA and DNA.
>
>Yeah, basically you are saying that so long as the
>fundamental building blocks of life are there, then
>someone can manipulate them.
No. I do claim that there is pre-existing matter, I am not assuming the building blocks (e.g. amino acids) were always there.
>>Why? Well there are a number of known chemical
>>problems with the naturalistic scenario. For instance,
>>the processes to get the components for the nucleotide
>>are chemically incompatible. An intelligent chemist
>>can make these nucleotides with ease in a laboratory
>>thanks to artificial intervention, but undirected
>>chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce shapeless
>>goop and undesired products.
>
>So amino acids were always here?
No. Remember the post you were responding too: I already pointed out that amino acids can be synthesized.
>If so, then we don't
>need a designer involved to make life. Sooner or
>later, provided the amino acids were already here, one
>is bound to get a viable sequence.
Not necessarily. Note the multiple problems I pointed out earlier. You've simply ignored them and claimed (without reason) that one is "bound to get a viable sequence." If that is true the problems I pointed out need to be overcome.
>>When it comes to the fact that ID has known mechanisms
>>but abiogenesis doesn’t, would you still accept the
>>old paradigm despite the confirmed, falsifiable
>>predictions etc.?
>
>Based on your presentation, yes.
Thank you for your straight answer.
>>And
>>besides, you're straying off the topic. Given the
>>scenario (the magician shuffling the cards, the exact
>>specified order yielded) would not design be the most
>>rational inference?
>
>It would be AN inference, but I'm not so sure about
>the most rational. Inferences, as we've discussed
>before, are neither rational nor irrational. (in as
>far as their definition goes)
It is true that just because something is an inference, it doesn't necessarily imply that the inference is rational. But there are obvious cases of rational inferences (e.g. scientific theories). Why wouldn't this inference be the most rational one?
>I would say that the above explanation would be the
>most readily supposed, and I would suspect would
>probably be the answer to the situation
So if the explanation is probably true why wouldn't it be the most reasonable one?
>but there
>really isn't a logical structure to back up that
>feeling.
That's true for a lot of scientific theories. Nonetheless they are rational to believe.
>>Additionally, you criticized me for equating "most
>>probable" with most rational. If a theory is e.g. 99%
>>likelihood of being true (the highest likelihood of
>>any competing theory), why wouldn't it be the most
>>rational one to believe?
>
>Because probability on its own does not determine what
>is rational to believe.
If it is known with near-certainty that the theory is true, why wouldn't be rational to believe?
>>Which is irrelevant, because abiogenesis did not have
>>the benefit of pre-existing biochemical machinery.
>
>And apparently ID does.
No, but ID has the capability of producing biochemical machinery (whether it be through nanites or something else).
>>In this case, the predictions are evidence. Without
>>the predictions there'd be no evidence for these
>>physical laws.
>
>I'm sorry, but you aren't going to be able to shove
>predictions into the evidence bin.
In this case they are (regarding physical laws). Perhaps it is difficult to see why without a specific example. Note the problems of getting functional proteins. Do you understand why some scientists have taken that as evidence for ID?
But let's take a hypothetical example. If life had a beginning and there are indeed problems of abiogenesis that cannot be reasonably surmounted, you would not constitute this as evidence for ID?
>>Which has been my point all along. The criticism that
>>ID has an added complication is not enough.
>
>It is when it comes to the fact that it has an added
>complication AND that added complication has never
>been broken down into testable, simple assumptions.
What assumptions? (Note: I may make the criticism of special pleading if you tell me what the assumptions are.) That ID is necessary? Empirically testable and falsifiable predictions exist for that.
>>I gave reasons suggesting that appealing to
>>undiscovered laws was not reasonable when it comes to
>>biological information. See this post where I explained why appealing to laws was
>>problematic.
>
>Let's look at the reasons you gave:
>
>
>Still, appealing to unknown laws has superficial
>plausibility, since laws by their nature describe
>highly regular phenomenon. For instance, all the amino
>acids are of the L-form, and all the amino acids are
>connected with peptide bonds. But appealing to even
>unknown laws has problems when it comes to the origin
>of biological information.
>
>First of all, it would seem that you assume life is
>not a regular phenomenon.
That is not what I said.
>Second of all, you simply say "appealing to
>unknown laws has problems when it comes to the origin
>of biological information" but not even the next
>paragraph really seems to explain why that would be
>true.
The text that comes after the paragraph you quoted does indeed explain the problems of appealing to unknown laws. You simply skipped over it.
>>>or perhaps some sort of fundamental
>>>universal law that trends towards lower entropy
>>>resulting in life
>>
>>We have a fundamental universal law that does the
>>exact opposite.
>
>Trending toward lower entropy resulting in life is
>precisely how life on Earth came about.
And yet we've never seen this imaginary law that is supposed to be fundamental and universal.
There are a number of problems here. One, as I have already pointed out, we have a fundamental universal law that tends towards higher entropy, the exact opposite direction. Second, this imaginary law will have to be consistent with known laws, and that includes the laws of chemistry (note the chemical problems of abiogenesis).
Third, note that in this case ID is appealing to what we do know about mathematical probability and known chemistry. In this case, abiogenesis is appealing to laws that we don't know about and haven't observed. Factors like these are why I believe ID explains some data better than abiogenesis.
>>Well, the same thing is true for the robots on Pluto.
>>We can tell it was designed, but I never said anything
>>about the scenario that would narrow down the
>>designer's identity. Once again, it sounds like you
>>were doing special pleading.
>
>But that's just the thing, the robots on Pluto ALLOW
>one to narrow down an identity
Not really, no more than life on Earth anyway. The only thing we know is that both were intelligently designed. Aliens are an equally good explanation here.
>>No, but they're the only "stuff" that amino acids can
>>be made of.
>
>How do you know that?
How do I know that amino acids need to be made of matter? I suggest you read an introductory book on biochemistry.
>>No, but I am of course assuming the uniformity of
>>nature; that the laws of chemistry that hold on Earth
>>also hold millions of light-years away.
>
>But that's not the ONLY thing you have to assume was
>uniform. You have to assume that as you go backwards
>in time the laws are uniform
Well, yes. However, ID would not be alone in making that assumption for Earth 4 million years ago. Origin-of-life researchers also assume the laws of chemistry were the same etc.
>>The answer appears to be "yes." Is it?
>
>Based on your presentation it is.
Again, thank you for a straight answer.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 