Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 18, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

An article from the theistic evolutionist BioLogos Foundation argues that “pragmatically” the argument for design “is in fact an argument from ignorance” because “it seems like you need to test for (lack of) natural explanations to discover irreducible or specified complexity.”5
These accusations bear little resemblance to the actual theory of intelligent design, as put forth by ID proponents. Indeed, if the positive case for ID shows anything, it’s that this objection is incorrect.
ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind.
If we did not have these observations, we could not infer ID. We can then go out into nature and empirically test for high CSI or irreducible complexity, and when we find these types of information, we can justifiably infer that an intelligent agent was at work.
Thus, ID is not based upon what we don’t know — an argument from ignorance or gaps in our knowledge — but rather, is based upon what we do know about the origin of information-rich structures, as testified to by the observed information-generative powers of intelligent agents.
Casey Luskin, “Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections” at Hillfaith (May 17, 2022)

Casey Luskin links to the whole series at this page.

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

Comments

Just a small point of fact:
...he’s just repeating Dawkins’ Weasel program, which supposedly was not an analogy for evolution, but here it is again. The coins are flipped, and heads are locked in place...
It's very old hat now, and Dawkins has said he never bothered to keep his original program, never thinking it would become controversial, but there have been several recreations using Dawkins' description which work perfectly well without needing locks or latches.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

JVL at 52, Quit posting fiction.relatd_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

If an unguided process could produce the results in question, then there’d be not need to propose guidance.
But a purely random process would not result in cumulaative change. Cumulative change happens (see Lenski's LTEE) ergo evolution is non-random. I call that guided, others call it what they call it. We can argue what "guided" means or we can look at what happens and consider explanations.
We don’t propose that raindrops need to be guided to fall to earth via the natural processes that we know of. We could say that each raindrop is guided, and that’s fine – but we also have natural mechanisms and factors that can explain their creation and movement from cloud down to the ground.
Well, apart from not knowing what gravity is, only what it does, I agree.
The same is not true of evolution – although it should be the same sort of thing.
It's work in progress. There's an old Arab saying, "the dogs bark but the caravan carries on." In this respect, evolutionary science is the caravan and objectors are the noisy dogs. Criticisms of evolutionary theory are ignored and the real work carries on. This could change if some ID proponent were to do some serious research and produce support for a better explanation for biological phenomena than those we work with currently.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

JVL
The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That’s not the same as elimination.
First of all, yes - that's good. Highly, highly, highly, highly unlikely because ... mutations occur at a certain frequency and have a certain effect on the organism (detrimental, neutral or positive). Then, there is not an infinite amount of time for mutations to work within. So, ID says highly unlikely because a certain number of mutations are needed (the exact number is not required) and there is a finite period of time for them to occur. If, for example, it would take twice the age of our universe for a functional string of code to emerge, then yes, it could still happen but we generally call that opportunity "eliminated". Any person could win the lottery 5 times in a row. But the reason sensible people do not mortgage their house and borrow money to play is because that rare chance is, for practical purposes, eliminated. That's how ID views the unlikelihood of a natural, unguided process achieving the result observed.Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

JVL
what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods?
One mathematical principle that would rule out changes is the number of mutations required versus the time available for those mutations to become fixed.Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

ET: Nature has already been eliminated, so there isn’t any turning back. The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That's not the same as elimination.JVL_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: The waiting time for two mutations is one such. The number of mutations required versus time allotted for fixation is the simple math. The number of mutations required? Having a particular target in mind is like saying: when will I win the lottery? You might not ever win the lottery. And that is a different question from: will someone win the lottery? That's one issue. The other has to do with the probability of two mutations arising in the same individual which is much less likely to happen that for the two mutations to arise in two separate individuals who then breed and pass the two mutations to their offspring. There are some other ways to misinterpret the probabilities; my favourite example is how to get 8 heads in a row when flipping a coin. Dr Behe has been told over and over again that he was making a mistake similar to those I've just elucidated but he didn't back down. Perhaps he was embarrassed that he made such a rookie mistake. I don't know. I do respect Dr Behe because he is always straight and is always willing to defend his views, like at the Dover trial, unlike some of his fellows who bailed.JVL_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

ET: You have been told many times what ID is for. You have been told many times that is goes past design detection. You have been given research agendas I've been told ID is only about design detection and I've been told that it goes past that. I haven't seen a published, multi-point ID research agenda that has any wide-spread support. Most of the ID 'research' I've been shown has a focus of trying to show that unguided processes are not up to the job. They are not researching the design or anything past it. And it suits me fine imagining a lab with genetic engineering being carried out and software being downloaded. Well, you can dream as much as you like but that's not the same thing as actual, physical evidence that that's what happened. The genetic code is testable evidence for ID. What test is that? And yet no one can even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form! But they do! That's why there is a lot of work being done on genes that turn other genes off and on. Again, it seems that most life forms have the genetic records of how to make most of the proteins used to create life and what is different from species to species is the timing and order of when genes are turned on and off. And those switches get tripped based on the chemistry around them. I will ante up $10,000 against you to see which side has the science and which side has the cowardly liars. As long as experts in the field are the judges. Which you won't agree to because you know they disagree with you. Why not have a panel of judges from the guided and unguided camps populated in the same percentage of which biologists support unguided evolution and which don't? That seems a fair representation of the situation? What am I denying that doesn’t support my view? Be specific or admit that you are just a desperate coward From Darwin on just about every book published about evolution has a statement of the theory of unguided evolution which, at its simplest, is: universal common descent via inheritable variation. That is what we observe in the lab and in the field. We never observe a new species just popping into existence. ID exists because you and yours have FAILED to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. ID exists as a replacement for something called scientific creationism and it was created, according to the Wedge document, to get God back into science and the classroom. That's been documented. Now, some of the later converts may not have that motivation but they're not the ones who started the movement. Probability arguments are used because you and yours don’t have any supporting evidence. Do you think quantum mechanics is a valid scientific notion? You are aware that quantum mechanics has a large number of probabilistic arguments and rules? They talk about probability clouds. What about plate tectonics? Is that a proper scientific notion? What is the mechanism that moves the continents around? Can we predict where they will go? Is it all just down to dumb luck? What about weather prediction? Is that scientific? Considering things like the butterfly effect does it even make sense to predict the weather beyond some probabilistic arguments? The reason some sciences have probabilistic arguments is because there is a certain amount of uncertainty in the system. IF we were never able to detect any trends or tendencies, i.e. if everything was truly random, then we couldn't have some of those sciences. But there are trends and tendencies. And remember, many ID arguments made by ID proponents is that some events are NOT IMPOSSIBLE but highly improbable. Those are not arguments made by unguided evolution supporters, no one forced the ID proponents to utilise those arguments, they are not necessary because of any failing in unguided evolution. Those arguments and approaches were invented by ID proponents as the rock-bed of their stance: okay, yes, unguided evolution COULD HAVE done it but it's just incredibly highly improbable. Kairosfocus's arguments are almost complete along those lines. He could make other arguments but he doesn't because he hasn't got any physical evidence aside from the contended design. So he makes a probabilistic argument.JVL_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

FH
Anyone else like to take a look at the article?
Thanks for the reference. This is helpful. We often ask for some defense of blind-evolution and don't often get very much. So, this is something anyway. I took a look - couldn't get much farther than this though: He talks about the probability of getting 100 coins to flip heads.
One approach is to throw all 100 coins at once, repeatedly, until all 100 happen to land heads at the same time. Of course, this is exceedingly unlikely to occur. An alternative approach is to flip all 100 coins, leave the ones that landed heads as they are, and then toss again only those that landed tails. We continue in this manner until all 100 coins show heads, which, under this procedure, will happen before too long. The creationist argument assumes that evolution must proceed in a manner comparable to the first approach, when really it has far more in common with the second.
He's saying "the creationist argument" (assuming he includes ID in this) is like the first example. Probability is measured so that all coins are flipped at once and all have to land heads. That, supposedly, is how Behe and Meyer measure the evolution of specified complexity? Not as a gradualist process but the entire flagellum, for example, has to appear in one event? This is beyond a parody - just absurd and lacking knowledge of what evolutionary critics are saying. Additionally, in his second option - he's just repeating Dawkins' Weasel program, which supposedly was not an analogy for evolution, but here it is again. The coins are flipped, and heads are locked in place, and eventually they all become heads. That is not how evolution works. There's no foresight, no goal - no locking mechanism. The heads that work for today will cause extinction tomorrow. The heads that work for fitness in one niche work against fitness as the environment changes. Plus, the coin-flipper itself (random mutation generator) is blocked by repair mechanisms that do not allow 100 heads to be established. This part I did like at the beginning however:
Evolution says that natural forces have led organisms to become more complex over time, but our everyday experience is that things break down unless energy and intelligence is expended to maintain them. Since probability is the branch of mathematics that quantifies our intuitions as to what is likely and what is not, it is natural that it should appear in anti-evolutionist literature.
It's good at least to see that evolution goes against our intuition. We don't experience non-living things growing more complex, powerful or intelligent. As stated, we see things break down. We don't experience non-living things caring about survival or fighting against death, changing their powers so they can be immortal. Soap bubbles just exist for a while, then they die. They don't try to become new beings in order to maintain their bubble. Becoming just basic chemicals is good enough. So why should living things be different? That's what goes against intuition and goes against actual observed nature. So evolution would actually need a lot more evidence -- bold claims require bold evidence.Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

A visual that explains anti ID https://mobile.twitter.com/BillyM2k/status/1527134430027845633jerry_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

But if evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods?
The waiting time for two mutations is one such. The number of mutations required versus time allotted for fixation is the simple math. The actual probability of a stochastic process - probability of a random output to create a functional communication network would also be a mathematical projection.Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

FH
I suggest there is a real Third Way (Noble, Shapiro et al. seem to have set off fifty ways) in that guidance may be inferred or ignored as a matter of choice and emotional comfort.
If an unguided process could produce the results in question, then there'd be not need to propose guidance. We don't propose that raindrops need to be guided to fall to earth via the natural processes that we know of. We could say that each raindrop is guided, and that's fine - but we also have natural mechanisms and factors that can explain their creation and movement from cloud down to the ground. The same is not true of evolution - although it should be the same sort of thing.Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

JHolo:
Fair enough. Every time we have seen a code the cause has been human. Now, we observe a code in DNA and we don’t know the cause, science says that we infer a human cause. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, you are sorry and you are also unable to think. If humans couldn't have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency, duh. Nature has already been eliminated, so there isn't any turning back.ET_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
This is a mathematical argument using probability.
Probability arguments are used because you and yours don't have any supporting evidence.
Unfortunately, my math is a bit too rusty to convince others that “complex specified information” as offered by ID proponents is not an argument against evolutionary theory but a failure to correctly represent evolutionary theory.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution and you couldn't support your accusation is your life depended on it.ET_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Details are somewhat vague and variable, but ID proponents argue evolution is inaccurate...
No, it doesn't. You are obviously just willfully ignorant. ID is not anti-evolution. ID argues against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes having the ability to produce the diversity of life. How many times does this have to be explained to you?ET_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Who's being dismissive? Me? KF? Jerry? Support your answer with examples found from comments above.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

FH, dismissive rhetorical assertions don't change the balance on merits or the realities of sciences crippled by imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. It remains that you cannot account for code based algorithmic protein synthesis at OoL and onward for Oo body plans, on forces observed to cause the like effect while excluding intelligently directed configuration, resorting only to blind chance and mechanical necessity. Code is language expressed in alphanumeric characters, here, using monomers chained to form string data structures, often with editing involved. Algorithms are inherently goal oriented and editing is worse. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information
The argument for ID in part is based on information but it is not the major argument. The complete unlikelihood of natural phenomena is the most striking. The fine tuning of the universe and the fine tuning of Earth are extremely implausible. That’s what Denton’s book is about. But other phenomena are also improbable. Namely ecologies. We just assume they happen and to a large part they do but think how fragile they are. Dominance by one element or the elimination of one element could destroy the ecology and the inhabitants of it. We constantly hear the environmentalist warnings on this. But maybe the ecologies were designed to begin with natural mechanisms that prevent too much change. So that the fact that natural selection is limited to trivial things is a feature of design.jerry_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Anyone else like to take a look at the article?
I believe Rosenhouse used to come here or was at least discussed here He makes the same nonsense mistakes/misrepresentations that others have. He must know what he is doing is bogus but yet he persists. Why?
The basic ingredients of evolutionary theory are simple, empirical facts. Genes really do mutate, sometimes leading to new functionalities, and natural selection really can string together several such mutations into directional, evolutionary change. On a small scale, this has all been demonstrated and observed.
agreed to by ID.
But if evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods? If there is a mechanism for small change, then how can any calculation or abstract theorem rule out simply repeating the process to produce large change?
What has been shown to be impossible by ID. His god of Deep Time is not enough but ignores other obstacles. Some of the above ID agrees with except the deep time bit. There isn’t enough time. He also ignores that the process he describes will kill the organism eventually. And the source of Evolution is not in the DNA. In other words he provides a superficial explanation that cannot work using his god of Deep Time. But I am sure the soft headed will nod. Natural Selection works in genetics and seems obvious till you realize it cannot work for anything but very minor things. Rosenhouse is not soft headed but he is using nonsense to make his case. What drives him to do this? Aside: there is a research program that would prove his thesis that Deep Time works to produce significant change. But the evolutionary biologist community avoid it like the plague. I wonder why?jerry_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Just glancing again at the Casey Luskin quotes in the OP:
ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind. If we did not have these observations, we could not infer ID. We can then go out into nature and empirically test for high CSI or irreducible complexity, and when we find these types of information, we can justifiably infer that an intelligent agent was at work.
This is a mathematical argument using probability. Unfortunately, my math is a bit too rusty to convince others that "complex specified information" as offered by ID proponents is not an argument against evolutionary theory but a failure to correctly represent evolutionary theory. Never mind, help is on the way. Amazon, ever hopeful I might exceed my monthly quota on Kindle, have drawn my attention to a book by Jason Rosenhouse, professor of mathematics at James Madison University, called The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. Of course, I don't expect anyone here to buy the book, but handily, he has also recently had an article published in Skeptical Inquirer which seems to summarize his arguments. Anyone else like to take a look at the article?Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

No meat so far. So speculation revolves around guidance. Evolution proposes a mechanism that involves genetic variation and phenotypic differential reproduction to explain the pattern of life's diversity that we see and the pattern of genetic inheritance we observe. Details are somewhat vague and variable, but ID proponents argue evolution is inaccurate and insufficient, the process is obviously guided and... Well here things get vague. I suggest there is a real Third Way (Noble, Shapiro et al. seem to have set off fifty ways) in that guidance may be inferred or ignored as a matter of choice and emotional comfort. Problem solved!Fred Hickson_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

PS, Johnson, in his reply to Lewontin, is revealing:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original -- the context is Lewontin in NYRB] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
For further record, Lewontin annotated, we are not setting up a strawman:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

JVL, your claimed evidence is unable to account for either origin of life or for origin of body plans, especially required information, certainly not on observational evidence of capability. Further to this, you are dragging a red herring across to the same strawman. I pointed out that inductive reasoning follows a pattern as described, correctly. ET correctly used it. You attacked a strawman. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

ET: kairosfocus is right. If every time we observe X and the cause has always been Z, then when we observe X and don’t know the cause, science says that we infer Z
Fair enough. Every time we have seen a code the cause has been human. Now, we observe a code in DNA and we don’t know the cause, science says that we infer a human cause. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.JHolo_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

ET
The genetic code is testable evidence for ID.
True, because we can produce functional code using intelligence. Natural causes cannot produce it at all.Silver Asiatic_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Earth to JVL- ID exists because you and yours have FAILED to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. So go soak your head and get over it.ET_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

JVL:
So, what is ID for then? Where does it go past: we’ve detected design? What is the research agenda? Why is it that the ‘how’ is well above your capabilities?
You have been told many times what ID is for. You have been told many times that is goes past design detection. You have been given research agendas. And the fact that humans cannot create life in a lab is proof it is beyond our capabilities. And it is a given that we can't produce planets or laws that govern nature.
Let me ask: don’t you care about the when and how? Don’t you have even any kind of speculation about those things? I would assume that, as a curious, intelligent person, that you would think about those things.
What I want has NOTHING to do with ID. And, unlike you, I understand reality. And it suits me fine imagining a lab with genetic engineering being carried out and software being downloaded.
I don’t think ID has any testable evidence that there was a designer around at
The genetic code is testable evidence for ID.
Besides, the ideas of unguided evolutionary theory are being tested and checked all the time.
And yet no one can even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! Evolutionary biologists don't even know what determines biological form! There is a reason that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Because all you and yours have is a narrative. Nothing more.
Pretty clearly not true.
I will ante up $10,000 against you to see which side has the science and which side has the cowardly liars. Stop lying. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. You can't provide any references to the contrary. You can't say who the author was. You can't say when it was published. You can't say what the predictions are. What am I denying that doesn't support my view? Be specific or admit that you are just a desperate coward You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al.
Just because I disagree with them?
No, just because you don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al. What part of that don't you understand?
ID needs to have a plan and a roadmap of where it’s going and what it’s going to do.
You don't know anything about it. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design. That is by far more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes has. There isn't any viable scientific alternative to ID.ET_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

ET: No one even asks about the who and how until AFTER intelligent design has been detected. The SCIENCE of ID is in the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. And given that the how is well above our capabilities, it is beyond desperate to ask ID, which isn’t about the how in the first place, to say something about the how. So, what is ID for then? Where does it go past: we've detected design? What is the research agenda? Why is it that the 'how' is well above your capabilities? Let me ask: don't you care about the when and how? Don't you have even any kind of speculation about those things? I would assume that, as a curious, intelligent person, that you would think about those things. Science mandates that the claims being made have evidentiary support. They also have to be not only testable but tested and confirmed. You don’t have that. I don't think ID has any testable evidence that there was a designer around at . . . what time was it? Who did what exactly? Besides, the ideas of unguided evolutionary theory are being tested and checked all the time. Not only with field observations, some of them quite long terms, but also with lab experiments. There is a reason that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Because all you and yours have is a narrative. Nothing more. Pretty clearly not true. But, one thing I do know after a long time talking with you is that you're not going to accept any source or reference I give for the theory of unguided evolution. So, there's not much point in me doing some work finding one or two or three or many, many such references. Again, are you actually doing science when you just deny everything that doesn't support your view? You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al. Just because I disagree with them? That's not a logical argument. ID doesn’t care if you agree with it. All that matters is that you don’t have any viable alternative to ID. ID needs to have a plan and a roadmap of where it's going and what it's going to do. It can't just continue to viably exist as a protest movement. It must have an idea of what to do next. Aside from the infamous Wedge Document I've yet to see one. If you complain and protest about the captain of the local football team but don't have a better plan for winning games then you're not likely to be hired if the position becomes vacant. There are lots and lots and lots of obvious research questions for unguided evolutionary research. What are the main, core research questions for ID that are not just trying to prove the negative that unguided processes are not capable.?JVL_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

ET: Whatever, JVL. I KNOW that you are full of it. You don’t even know what science entails. The fish is an intelligent designer, JVL Again, I would love to see ID proponents come up with more evidence and data for their hypothesis. I would love them to try and nail down when design was implemented. I would them to try and figure out how design was implemented. I think it's good and healthy for scientific hierarchies to be challenged and tested as long as the challenge is well founded and strong. I fully appreciate the theological views and faith that some commenters here have. I am not questioning that or attempting to cast aspersions on it in its pure form. I once heard the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, talk about his faith and its relation to science, evolution in particular. He said, very clearly, that true faith must be in accordance with the science; that it was up to the faithful to figure out how their faith fit into the scientific landscape. He was honest, he was sincere and he was also, clearly, devote. I respect him a lot, not just because he accepted the science, because he saw, clearly, what being a person of faith meant in the modern world. He understood and articulated that faith, like science, has to adapt and change with new data and evidence. And, he clearly indicated, that true faith, true understanding, was aside and separate from topics like evolution and such. Real true faith was about something else.JVL_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

JVL:
ID wants to make one single argument and get everyone to agree with it.
You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don't have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al. ID doesn't care if you agree with it. All that matters is that you don't have any viable alternative to ID.ET_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply