Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/04 9:03pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "IS WADE AN ADHERENT OF ID THEORY?!?!?! ANSWER PLEASE, WADE!!!!" on 09/16/04 7:38am
To answer the title question of your previous post, yes I am an adherent of ID theory (at least when it comes to the origin of life on earth).
>>None of those questions fall into the realm of
>>testable science (so far). We can test for design
>>without being able to answer those questions.
>
>Yes you can. But those "questions" ought to be
>answered if you expect ID to be considered a competing
>theory.
I don't think those questions need to be answered before it can be rationally accepted. Suppose we know ID theory is true and yet we can't identify the designer. Should scientists pretend not to know that ID theory is true? Obviously not.
>>For instance, suppose we found an obelisk on a moon of
>>Jupiter. Does the fact that we cannot answer those
>>questions mean we should pretend it wasn't designed?
>
>No, Wade. If we found an obelisk on a moon of Jupiter
>that, to the best of our abilities, seemed to be
>created by an intelligent entity, we wouldn't pretend
>that it wasn't designed.
>
>But (and here's the difference between science and ID)
>WE'D SURE AS HELL TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO MADE IT.
Fair enough. Nonetheless, we may have to face the fact that scientific means are not able to answer those kinds of questions. And if they can't, we should still accept ID theory if there is sufficient evidence. That's what my point was.
>>>See? You have to defend your assumptions.
>>
>>What assumptions?
>
>OK. In the context of your "Jupiter Obelisk"
>hypothetical situation, let's look at something you
>said. I asked questions about the Intelligent
>Designer like, who or what was it, where did they/it
>go, how did they/it do it, etc. to which you said:
>
>"None of those questions fall into the realm of
>testable science (so far). We can test for design
>without being able to answer those questions."
>
>This statement only makes any sense if we, right up
>front, assume that the designer is supernatural
Well, I have to disagree. It could be aliens from outer space and we could still find to trace of them (at least not yet). I don't think science (yet?) is anywhere near capable of identifying the designer, though I think we are at least close to rationally inferring ID in the origins of life.
>It seems that you've already decided that we can't
>figure out who or what the Intelligent Designer is
No, I haven't decided that at all. Should scientists go find out who the designer is? If they're capable of doing it, I'm all for it. But for now it seems an exercise in futility.
>>Those questions aren't about the assumptions of ID
>>theory.
>
>YES THEY ARE.
Then please give me one specific example.
>How can you claim the the theory of
>"INTELLIGENT DESIGN" assumes nothing about an
>intelligent designer? Oh. Wait... You said the
>following:
>
>>Yes there is a designer,
>
>O.K., then, according to you, the existence of this
>Intelligent Designer IS an assumption of ID theory.
Yes, that's true. Nonetheless, it makes no assumptions about the identity of the designer, which is what one of those questions asked.
>>And that is not intrinsically problematic.
>
>You're right, it's not. What *is* problematic is that
>you seem to be saying that it's OK that ID theory
>makes this extremely significant claim, that certain
>aspects of certain biochemical systems were designed
>by an Intelligent Designer, yet it seems that NO ONE
>who supports ID theory is trying to validate those
>claims
It should be pretty obvious that this is not the case. There are thousands of people trying to validate those claims (e.g. the explanatory filter, analysis of various biochemical systems). Perhaps the evidence is not enough yet. But let's have no illusions that these people aren't trying!
, and even worse, you seem to think that the
>HUGE HOLE in ID theory (its very namesake, the
>"Intelligent Designer") shouldn't make a difference
>when we, as rational people, consider ID as a valid
>scientific theory!
>
>OK. I'm going to omit our little "quark"
>side-discussion here, except to respond to one
>incorrect claim you made.
>=======================================================
>IGNORE THIS NEXT PART IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT QUARKS
>=======================================================
>
>>>(A little background - the problem with subatomic
>>>particles is that they are physically smaller than
>the
>>>wavelength of light, which means that photons
>actually
>>>"miss" them, which is why we can't see them using a
>>>light microscope. So we'd need to use particles with
>>>a shorter wavelength than that of photons, and a
>>>detector that can detect them in order to see things
>>>smaller than the wavelength of a photon.
>>
>>Hence they are unobservable. We can of course use
>>other particles, but the existence of those particles
>>is wrapped up in theories inferred from data
>>and...long story short they are still unobservable
>>entities even if we can rationally infer their
>>existence from empirical data
>
>So, "if we can't see it with our own eyes, or hear it
>with our own ears, it doesn't exist."
You’re taking what I said to a misguided extreme. Of course I'm not saying they don't exist. I was doing the opposite, for my point is that we can rationally infer the existence of something even if it cannot observed (the existence of quarks was supposed to be an example that illustrated my point).
>If our human senses were the limits of our knowledge,
>we'd still be living in the dark ages.
That was precisely my point!
>>Does the fact that we
>>can't answer those questions become intrinsically
>>problematic?
>
>It is dreadfully problematic that the proponents of ID
>theory have not EVEN TRIED to answer them.
Because at the current stage in the game it's an exercise in scientific futility. One step at a time. They haven't even gotten the ID theory accepted in the scientific community yet. They're still working on a reasonably compelling case.
Now they have actually tried to answer some of those questions--but they are on philosophical grounds. Currently it doesn't look promising to identify the designer in any scientific way.
>OK. Let's condense that exchange for the Reader's
>Digest crowd:
>
>Duane: "The problem with ID is that a good scientific
>theory should have its assumptions questioned."
>
>Wade: "Why is that a problem with ID?"
>
>Duane:"Because I asked a bunch of questions about the
>assumption of INTELLIGENT DESIGN theory: that there
>exists an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, and you said that
>INTELLIGENT DESIGN theory shouldn't have to answer
>questions about the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER"
Again, you have taken what I said to a misguided extreme. It's okay to ask questions. But the problem is that answering those questions on scientific grounds does not appear feasible (at least not yet). We shouldn't expect ID theory to answer those questions at this stage of the game. The fact that it cannot (yet?) answer the questions on scientific grounds is not inherently problematic. We should be more concerned with things like testable predictions regarding the veracity of ID theory itself.
>Ah. Finally something that makes sense..
>
>Wade Said:
>>A theory by itself cannot do anything.
>>The adherents of a theory can discuss the
>>assumptions, hence I suspect you were on tenuous
>>ground (we're talking about the theory--not its
>>adherents).
>
>You're right. A theory by itself cannot do anything.
>The things that a theory by itself cannot do include
>the following:
>
>1) Do experiments on itself
>2) Try to disprove itself
>3) Explain why it should be considered our "current
>best educated guess" about what it explains
>4) Ask questions about its assumptions, and determine
>if they are reasonable or not.
>
>Hell, a theory can't even write itself!!! Wait a
>minute...
>
>I think I see the tricky game you're trying to play,
>and I'm going to call attention to it right now, so we
>don't go down the road you're trying to take this
>discussion:
>
>You've basically said the following things:
>
>
>1) ID theory assumes the existence of a designer
>Wade: "Yes there is a designer"
>
>
>2) ID Theory itself says nothing about the designer
>Wade: "none of the assumptions ID contains necessarily
>has answers to those questions"
>
>NOTE: "those questions" were the 12 very simple
>questions about the designer - who or what? how?
>where? etc.
>
>
>3) That's not a problem with ID theory
>Wade: "And that is not intrinsically problematic."
>
>
>4) It's a problem with the ADHERENTS of ID theory
>Wade: "(we're talking about the theory--not its
>adherents)"
>
>
>Hold on a second... So you're saying that the
>assumptions of ID theory are the problems of the
>adherents of ID theory.
???
Perhaps giving an example of an assumption of ID theory being a problem of the adherents of the theory would help explain yourself.
ID theory does contain certain facets like the existence of the designer etc. Nonetheless, asking questions about the theory is the job of its adherents. Suppose ID theory does not have any answers to those questions per se. Given the nature of the questions involved, that ID theory does not (yet?) have those answers is not inherently problematic.
>So, then, what about:
>
>5) A theory can't do anything without people to talk
>about it - proponents and opponents.
>Wade: "A theory by itself cannot do anything"
>
>
>So you're saying the following:
>
>"I'm defending ID theory as a theory, and the fact
>that it doesn't answer questions about its assumptions
>isn't intrinsically a problem for the theory itself."
>
>Sure. That of course is true for any theory. But I'm
>asking about those assumptions. Who's going to answer
>my questions? Who?!?!
I can answer them to the best of my ability. However you may have to come to grips with the fact that we cannot answer those questions on scientific grounds.
>Wade: "The adherents of a theory can discuss the
>assumptions"
>
>A-HA!! The answer! "The adherents" will answer my
>questions!!!
Those questions may not have answers on scientific grounds. That's the problem with your questions. Hence it may be unreasonable to expect ID adherents to have answers (on scientific grounds) for those questions. That's what I've been trying to get across.
>OK, Wade, so who are the adherents?
>...<
>Are YOU an adherent?
Yes.
>If you answer one question in this entire post, answer
>this one:
>
>=======================================================
>==
>Are you, Wade, an adherent of Intelligent Design
>Theory?
>=======================================================
>==
See my first sentence in this post.
>>>OK, then if we assume that a "designer" exists, why
>>>aren't we trying to figure out who or what that
>>>designer is?
>
>Then Wade Said:
>>You think of a scientifically valid means to do that,
>>let me know.
>
>Uh - I think that's the as-yet-nameless "Adherent's"
>problem.
Depends on what you mean by "problem." The fact that we don't yet have a means to identify the designer does not mean ID should be ruled out by fiat. I think we can rationally infer design without being able to identify the designer (as I have previously illustrated). But you're right that the issue is one of ID adherents. But I just don't think there's a scientifically feasible way to answer that question (yet?).
>>>>In its current scientific
>>>>form, it assumes we can rationally determine if
>>>>something is designed even if we can't identify the
>>>>designer.
>
>OK - I can buy that.
>
>But if it assumes that we can "rationally determine if
>something is designed," don't Ya think we ought 'ta
>investigate WHO DESIGNED IT? Yah??? Fer Shure!!!
I have no disagreement with you on that. I'm just saying that it's not (yet?) scientifically feasible.
>>>Look. Here's the whole point of this discussion.
>>>Biological evolution has an analogous assumption -
>and
>>>here it is:
>>>
>>>"Life arose from simple spontaneously occurring
>>>precursor molecules, which then evolved via currently
>>>understood and demonstrable processes into the form
>>>that life exists today."
>
>And Wade Respondeth:
>>And that does contain the assumption that there
>>existed molecules and natural processes back then.
>
>
>And we're TRYING OUR ASSES OFF to figure out what
>could've existed back then, and how they could've
>interacted to create more complex molecules, etc, etc.
And yet there are some assumptions there that cannot be answered scientifically, e.g. ultimate origins. Those things are philosophical in nature.
>Wade said:
>>Let's see if I can find an analogy to the "who
>>designed the designer" objection.
>>Attempts to explain
>>the origin of life by natural processes are invalid,
>>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>>processes.
>
>Huh - here's a funny problem with ID theory - unless
>it assumes that "natural processes" were "Designed" by
>the "Intelligent Designer," or that they occurred [...]
Ah but you're missing the point. My point is that the fact that we don't have an ultimate explanation for those questions I asked is not inherently problematic for abiogenesis.
>Wade Says:
>>Attempts to explain
>>the origin of life by natural processes
>>are invalid,
>>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>>processes.
>
>Uh-oh. That's bad news for pretty much EVERY theory
>that attempts to explain our origins
And that's my point exactly. The idea that everything in a theory should be ultimately accounted for is unreasonable. There will always be at least some unanswered questions. Some may inevitably lean toward the metaphysical and the philosophical, in which science has no domain.
>Wade Said:
>>And if you appeal to the big bang (or
>>anything else) will similarly generate the exact same
>>problem with that explanation.
>
>Well Wade, we're all screwed. Guess we can't possibly
>know anything.
Again, you're missing the point. See above.
>I said:
>>>there are entire periodical
>>>publications devoted to trying to figure out if it's
>[biological evolution and natural generation of life]
>>>true or not, and if it is true, how it happened.
>
>Wade said:
>>And I don't think they will ever succeed in showing
>>any possible means for organic evolution.
>
>Good for you. I must tell the thousands of men and
>women working on that problem your decision...
>
>"Well, Wade doesn't "Think" that we'll ever succeed.
>Better give up."
I'm not saying we should give up now. I'm just calling it like I see it. I don't think the research will work for abiogenesis, but I still think we should try a few more decades (to test and confirm the prediction of ID theory) before we abandon abiogenesis and accept ID.
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? One evolutionist I talked to said 30 years. I agreed that this was reasonable. How about you? When should we give up the failed search for a naturalistic means? 30 years? Centuries? Never?
>I Said:
>>>If ID were legitimate, why aren't there scientists
>>>trying to show how the designing was done, and by who
>>>or what? Why aren't we looking for the designer?
>
>Wade Said:
>>The explanatory filter allows us to reasonably infer
>>design even when we don't know who the designer is.
>
>Hold on... Let's examine Wade's "Explanatory Filter"
>
>Wade's Explanatory Filter should allow us to
>reasonably infer murder ever when we don't know who
>the killer is.
Well, yes. There are hundreds of unsolved murders in New York City alone. The explanatory filter is just an elucidation of a concept that's been known for years. The currents of nature aren't capable of causing a certain affect (e.g. the conclusion from the autopsy is murder) so ID was probably involved.
>So you're basically saying that "we know murder was
>committed," but that you can't, won't, willln't,
>wasn't, worrn't, wxxzn't, say anything about the
>murderer?
Again, you're taking my view to a misguided extreme. In the case of murder, it is feasible using non-philosophical means to identify the killer (in at least some cases). But we don't have a comparable thing for ID in the origins of life.
>I said:
>>>I mean, they claim, from within a realism-based
>>>framework, that some designer REALLY existed that
>>>actually, artificially DESIGNED LIFE! Why aren't
>they
>>>looking for him/it?
>>>
>>>That's why I say that ID is disingenuous. They're
>not
>>>even trying to legitimize their assumption.
Depends on what the assumption is. If it's the identity of the designer, then no it's not an assumption. The existence of the designer is at the heart of the matter.
As for investigating the identity of the designer, see what I have said before (repeatedly) regarding current scientific feasibility.
>I said:
>>>So, explain, in addition to answering my first
>>>questions,
>>>
>>>13) Why don't any ID-scientists study the designer?
>>
>>Asked and answered.
>
>Uh... Wade, the only conclusion I could possibly draw
>from this response, based on your post is that
>
>"ID-scientists" do not study the "Intelligent
>Designer" because they are not adherents of, nor are
>they proponents of, nor are they defneders of
>Intelligent Design Theory.
I'll try to make myself clear. The reason why they are currently not investigating the identity of the designer is that this investigation is not (yet) scientifically feasible and they still have to work on getting the scientific community to accept ID theory to begin with. One step at a time please.
>>We can
>>rationally infer design even if we don't know exactly
>>how it was done (e.g. the pyramids).
>
>Uh... Wade, anyone who watches the Discovery Channel
>knows how the pyramids were built.
We have lots of theories on how it could have been done, but at least since the time I graduated from high school no one really knows how it was actually done.
>Finally, Wade, you said:
>>>>I never though you'd be this paranoid. Look, there
>>>>are a lot of people who don't have any religious or
>>>>political agendas here (such as myself). Behe was a
>>>>Roman Catholic, and only "converted" to ID theory as
>>a
>>>>result of the evidence (as he perceived it). That's
>>>>true for most in the ID movement. Most are
>perfectly
>>>>willing to modify their religious views if the
>>>>evidence demands it (some common examples: the age
>of
>>>>the earth and the big bang theory). But as they see
>>>>it, an ID is rationally necessary. The new
>>>>“upper-tier” movement is showing some considerable
>>>>differences over the “lower-tier” movement (ICR and
>>>>the rest).
>
>And I said:
>>>Paranoid? I'm only saying what every rational person
>>>(including myself) thinks about ID.
>
>
>And you (FINALLY) (NO, REALLY...) said:
>>All these "rational" people are paranoid
>
>Yes, rationality == paranoia
There's a reason why I put the word "rational" in quotation marks. I consider myself reasonably rational, and yet I don't believe ID is solely motivated by religion/politics. In fact there's evidence that this is not the case.
>As far as I can tell, everyone who knows what
>Intelligent Design Theory is, seems to say that it
>assumes an Intelligent Designer.
>
>But NO ONE is willing to defend the assumption that ID
>theory assumes a desgner.
Again, that is not the case. There are lots of people trying to defend the existence of the designer. Pick up Mere Creation at a bookstore, for instance. Nonetheless, the identity of the designer cannot (yet?) be feasibly established by scientific means.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 