Science “Proves” Nothing

_{Barry Arrington
October 1, 2014

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

When someone says “the science is settled” one of two things is true: (1) they know better and are lying; or (2) they are deeply ignorant about the philosophy of science. Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sydney writes:

. . . science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.

But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing. Every theoretical model is a good description of the universe around us, at least within some range of scales that it is useful.

But exploring into new territories reveals deficiencies that lower our belief in whether a particular description continues to accurately represent our experiments, while our belief in alternatives can grown.

Will we ultimately know the truth and hold the laws that truly govern the workings of the cosmos within our hands?

While our degree of belief in some mathematical models may get stronger and stronger, without an infinite amount of testing, how can we ever be sure they are reality?

I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.

Or perhaps you prefer Popper:

Science does not rest on solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (New York, Routledge Classics, 1959, reprint of first English edition, 2002), 94.

Comments

"And I insist that you answer the question itself. Anyone else is invited to try." G, I'm afraid that you are on the wrong site if you expect to have questions answered. Insults they are good at. Sarcasm they are good at. Twisting words they are good at. Quote mining they are good at. Logically defending their own religion, not so much. But keep asking. It is entertaining.not_querius_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

HeKS: You are very dishonest intellectually and I'll show it to you. I asked you a fair question. I HAVE JUSTIFIED WHY IT IS A FAIR QUESTION. You dismissed without giving reasons, just using irony to insult me. You know what they say, "irony is the strength of the cowards". If you really had a reason to dismiss the question (apart from not being able to answer it and to accept the implications of that) you would have given your reason. You haven't, you simply treat me like it is a foolish question. It might be a foolish question. But you are not smarter that me if you can tell why it is a foolish question. So now, I'll add ANOTHER FOOLISH question that you CAN'T ANSWER. Explain why the next question is not relevant in the context of ID: Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature? Choose the feature you want. And I insist that you answer the question itself. Anyone else is invited to try.Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

KF:
So, just the mere fact of that consistent shape establishes the fact of the general shape of the earth, a sphere, near enough for government work.
Certainly. But not by “direct apprehension through the senses,” but rather by means of reasoning employing the axiomatically derived geometric facts to which you refer. IOW, a model. That is why for most of human history there was no knowledge of the shape of the earth despite common, widely viewable eclipses throughout that history, and why we credit Aristotle with originating a brilliant deduction that disclosed that shape. If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” as Barry stated, why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle? Was his the gift of superior eyesight?
By contrast the remote past of origins is NOT observable, only traces form it are.
I’ve made no comment regarding the reliability of models events in the present relative to models of events that occurred the remote past. My comment concerned Barry’s mischaracterization of an eclipse as “direct apprehension through the senses” of a round earth.Reciprocating Bill_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Hi HeKS, You are correct. I think there may be a tipping point of some kind.Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

@UB #171

G’Mo: “Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. UB: This would be humorous if you weren’t serious.” G’Mo: And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims.
Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you.
It seems we've come to the same conclusion. See my comment #170. You can only spend so much time trying to have a discussion with someone who thinks that type of argument is effective or reasonable.HeKS_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

"Because there is nothing you can do to the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon to relate it to an amino acids except translate it. There is a physiocochemial discontinuity between them that must be preserved by the organization of the system in order for translation to be obtained" Why this can only be achieved by means of an IC system? That was my question. Answer in relation to biological systems, please. "UB: “But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact” G’Mo Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please. Read the link I provided." I don't see the answer to my question there. Can you write it here? "UB: “No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation” G’Mo: How do you know? From several years of reading advocates of natural causes, as well as their materialists counterparts who attempt to keep them in check. The links you provide give no substantive source for translation." Argument fro self knowing. Heearing someone talk about something is not proof of anything. The question remains unanswered: How do you know there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation? Demonstration, please, in a biological context. "If it is unknown, then I obviously have nothing to recognize. If it was suddenly known, then it would demonstrate the capacities to which it is being assigned. This should seem rather obvious." Unknown things exist. How do you avoid confusing an existing but still unknown very complex process with the action of an intelligent agent? Why do you avoid this question so hard? "Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you." No, I won't because it's a fair question. You claim certain features cannot be explained by any natural mechanism. PROVE IT. " What exactly do you think information does without translation?" A lot of things. But I asked you: "Anyway, translation of what? I can find a lot of examples of “translation” in nature. In life and in non-life. So, what are you talking about exactly? And how do you explain the origin of that translation?" Why don't you answer?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

RB: The facts of a 3-4-5 triangle were discovered then were the subject of a proof, not invented by those who looked at such. This is a direct implication of the logic of an XYZ Cartesian type space such as we study in school algebra then calculus. It cannot not obtain, it is necessarily true -- and yes other spaces are possible, with different geometries and more broadly topologies, but then we must be careful of equivocation about what we are discussing. Likewise the direct implications of space are that a sphere will be such that any cross section through the centre will be circular by the necessities of space and what a sphere is. Rays that run tangential to such and terminate on a surface behind, will mark out the locus of a circle's circumference. This is the only 3-d body with that property. That is why given that rays of light on the relevant scale act as geometric rays do, we see the consistently circular shadow cast on the Moon in a lunar eclipse. So, just the mere fact of that consistent shape establishes the fact of the general shape of the earth, a sphere, near enough for government work. By contrast the remote past of origins is NOT observable, only traces form it are. Explanatory constructs for how that reconstructed past came to be are twice removed from being observations. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

HeKS: Really? Well, I don't wan to troll. Let's make it simple. Choose any natural feature you like and tell me what ID explains of it. I remind you "ID states that certain features of the universe and of life are best explained by means of an intelligent cause".Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

G: Can you prove the truth of any scientific explanation at theory level? ANS: No, so it makes no sense to demand of design theory what does not obtain for anything of that level. What can readily be shown is that the design inference, per inductive inference to the best explanation, is the best current explanation for FSCO/I and on the needle in haystack blind search on the gamut of atomic resources available in the solar system or cosmos, it is maximally unlikely that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity will ever give rise to FSCO/I. It so happens that cell based life is full of such, and further the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that supports that sort of life based on C Chemistry aqueous medium cells, is also indicative of design. By the sorts of standards of warrant that lie behind say the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, which is not about to be subjected to selectively hyperskeptical challenge, save by cranks. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

wd400: I must confess, I wasn't sure what you were really getting at, and wanted to change my post. But I just couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say, and just waited for you to respond. My point, in a way, was this: if, e.g., it turned out to be true that the sun revolved around the earth, then everything we thought we knew turns out to be wrong. And then we would be right to say that "science proves nothing," as we would have to invent an entirely new way of thinking scientifically. But, perhaps, this was your point as well. Having said this, I would just further point out that, e.g., when defining the electrical field, one has to adjust charges and distances, and, then, using the defining formula, "define" what a 'esu' (electro-static unit) is. Science, of course, cannot explain 'why' the electric field works the way it does; it can only explain what measurements you can expect. In this sense, it would be proper to say that "science proves nothing." IOW, science is limited in its scope. A lot of what ails us societally, spiritually, and even scientifically, is the lack of humility on the part of scientists. I can measure your height, weight, and IQ; but that doesn't mean I've "explained" you. I can plant electrodes in your brain and predict what you will do next; but I still have not "explained" you. It will be a happy day when scientists, especially radical atheistic scientists, can accept this delimitation. All the best.PaV_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

UB: “You can’t translate information without an irreducible complex system.” G’Mo: Why? Demonstrate this, please.
Because there is nothing you can do to the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon to relate it to an amino acids except translate it. There is a physiocochemial discontinuity between them that must be preserved by the organization of the system in order for translation to be obtained. Here
UB: “But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact” G’Mo Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please.
Read the link I provided.
UB: “No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation” G’Mo: How do you know?
From several years of reading advocates of natural causes, as well as their materialists counterparts who attempt to keep them in check. The links you provide give no substantive source for translation.
G’Mo: Anyway, if there could be a natural explanation, How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? You don’t answer the question. You are in denial.
If it is unknown, then I obviously have nothing to recognize. If it was suddenly known, then it would demonstrate the capacities to which it is being assigned. This should seem rather obvious.
G’Mo: “Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. UB: This would be humorous if you weren’t serious.” G’Mo: And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims.
Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you.
UB: “You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth.” G’Mo: In your original phrase you didn’t mention “translation”. You are now asking me for an example to a different thing.
Yawn. What exactly do you think information does without translation? - - - - - Read the link I gave you. Really, think seriously for a while before responding. cheers...Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Guillermoe, At this point I just have to conclude that you are a troll. You do not seem to have the least bit of understanding about any of the issues you're discussing and your arguments read like you're quick-referencing something like RationalWiki to reproduce tired and misguided arguments. Case in point: You argue that if we conclude something was designed, our experience tells us that we must conclude it was designed by humans, and if it couldn't have been designed by humans, then it must not have been designed. Try telling that to the people who who work at S.E.T.I. The reality of the matter is that our uniform and repeated experience allows us to detect design simpliciter, and we do this when we find such things as the presence of complex and specified information. If we detect design in some medium that could not have been caused by humans, we do not conclude that it must therefore not have been designed. Rather, we reasonably conclude that there is some source of intelligence other than humans. That is exactly the logic upon which NASA's SETI program is built. Also, you have again invoked a fallacy you clearly don't understand and tried to apply it to ID. First it was an argument from ignorance, now you say it is an argument from self-knowing. You are wrong again. An argument from self-knowing is a deductive argument, though it is an invalid one. It makes a claim about the way things really are, end of story, not about the way things currently stand. You are trying to convert a perfectly valid aspect of abductive argumentation, which is used across the historical sciences, into a logical fallacy. It doesn't work. The simple fact that you don't understand what proper argumentation looks like doesn't mean that what you're looking at is a fallacy. In any case, I think I've spent enough time on this discussion with you.HeKS_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

UB: "You can’t translate information without an irreducible complex system." Why? Demonstrate this, please. "But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact" Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please. "Perhaps you should still yourself long enough to learn what ID is about" Indeed, still I don't know how ID explains the existence of IC systems in nature, for example. "No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation" How do you know? Here are some sources, by the way: http://130.14.81.99/ps/access/SCBCCX.pdf http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032776 And this comes from a very quick search.. Anyway, if there could be a natural explanation, How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? You don't answer the question. You are in denial. "Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. This would be humorous if you weren’t serious." And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims. I insist: you said "The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished" show it to me with an example. Choose any feature you like and demonstrate that there cannot be any other cause than yours (also, describe that cause, please). "You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth." In your original phrase you didn'tmention "translation". You are now asking me for an example to a different thing. Anyway, translation of what? I can find a lot of examples of "translation" in nature. In life and in non-life. So, what are you talking about exactly? And how do you explain the origin of that translation?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

KF:
And so, when observed circumstances — facts — impose a certain spatial situation, there are concomitant necessarily true further facts. To the point where the observation is tantamount to an observation of those facts.
Only if one is aware of the concomitant facts of geometry relevant to the phenomenon, and their application to that phenomenon. IOW, aware of the model, and its application. Absent awareness of those concomitant facts of geometry and their application, there is no direct, “apprehension though our senses” of the fact that the earth is round. That is why for most of human history there was no knowledge of the shape of the earth despite common, widely viewable eclipses throughout that history, and why we credit Aristotle with originating a brilliant deduction that disclosed that shape. If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle?Reciprocating Bill_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

There surely is an explanation to this mechanism (at least a hypothesis), but I don’t need to. How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process?
No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation. But now that you bring it up, on what material grounds do I prefer a unknown process over a known process?
Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose.
This would be humorous if you weren't serious.
Why “without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint”? Natural environments have informational constraints that force organization. Evolution is exactly that.
You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth. You simply do not know what you are talking about. cheers...Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change.
You can't organize the living cell without the translation of an informational medium into physical effects. You can't translate information without an irreducible complex system. These are incontrovertible facts. So, from a pre-biotic (non-information, inanimate) environment an IC system must arise just to be physcially capable of organizing the cell (and initiating Darwinian evolution). You want to posit a fully natural deterministic source for this IC system. But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact. Perhaps you should still yourself long enough to learn what ID is about, instead of merely parroting others (who take life's informational requirements for granted as you do).Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Jerry: "By definition, intelligence interventions are often one time events." How do you know that definition is correct respecting the intelligent designer of life? "theory of natural evolution explains changes in life since the first cell appeared" I know. I've heard many times in ID circles "evolution cannot explain this feature" but I never heard "ID explains this feature in this way". That was what I was talking about. That many people say "Evolution doesn't explain this", but when you ask ID doesn't either. So, what's the point with saying that evolution cannot explain this or that?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

UB: G: So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning? UB: Posit a natural process for the rise of dimensional semiosis* and I’ll take a stab at it. G: Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis? UB: Protein Synthesis. There surely is an explanation to this mechanism (at least a hypothesis), but I don't need to. How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? UB: The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished. No, PB, you have not posit a cause at all. What's exactly the intelligent cause? Plus, " the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished" is false. Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. "To achieve the translation of nucleic codons into amino acids requires very specific physical conditions that are unique throughout nature – they are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the recording and translation of language and mathematics" That they are nowhere else proves nothing. That they are found in mathematics is not surprising, mathematics is a tool we developed to study our universe. Obviously, they share characteristics with the universe. "What is a more viable scenario: that a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics is the likely source of the origin of life" Depends on what you are talking about exactly. Spiderman is capable of language and mathematics, yet, him being the cause of life is not a very viable scenario. So, what is the "a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics" you are talking about exactly? "or - that the physical capacity of language and mathematics arose in a pre-biotic environment without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint" Why "without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint"? Natural environments have informational constraints that force organization. Evolution is exactly that.Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Joe: This is nice: "1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design." No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change. Also, specified complexity is a very confusing term. Many natural things can have high levels of specified complexity. Usually, to solve this, ID adds characteristics to the definition of specified complexity that involve the assumption of purpose. Yet, purpose has not been detected in nature. "2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity." True, but as said in 1, irreducible complexity can be the result of evolution (there is no biological reason for this not being true, try to justify that IC systems can't evolve naturally) and many natural features show high levels of specified complexity or we have to assume purpose in living organisms, which is a phallacy: we would assume purpose to conclude there was purpose. "3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity." False. Refuted in lab experiments. "4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems." What is the EXPLANATION? how does ID exactly EXPLAIN this systems? "via intelligent agent"? That's an explanation? "There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems." First: IT HAS BEEN DONE!!! Second: NO!!!! To falsify intelligent design you should explain how the design happens or what's the designer, and then I have to falsify THAT. "3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems" This is argument from self-knowing: I don't know how natural mechanisms would explain this, so ID is a better explanation (though there is no explanation)". "How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone" Argument from self-knowing: "I don't know a natural mechanism that explains this, therefore it doesn't exist". How did the intelligent cause produce ATP Synthase? Do you know Occam razor's? If you claim the ATP Synthase was produced by the intelligent cause without evidence, I can reject it without evidence. "Very wrong! We would infer it was some other intelligent agency as nature doesn’t magically gain some ability just because humans weren’t around." FALSE. All those other instances you say we know were not designed by "some other intelligent agency". They were designed BY HUMANS. If you can directly extrapolate the characteristiscs of those objects to any other, the characteristic is DESIGNED BY HUMANS. If it could be wrong to extrapolate the characteristic "BY HUMANS", there is a chance that it is also wrong to extrapolate the chracteristic "DEISGNED". Anyway, this is a phallacy: false analogy.Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

No, I am not confused. You accuse evolution of not explaining things. Yet ID doesn’t explain them. And it doesn’t explain anything else. So, what’s the deal? What the heck should we expect from ID?
No theory of natural evolution explains changes in life since the first cell appeared. If you differ on this then we suggest you delineate such a theory with supporting evidence. By definition, intelligence interventions are often one time events. If they did happen, there may be little if any forensic evidence for the actual event. That does not rule it out but it could be the explanation for much that we see. Not a guarantee but definitely a possibilityjerry_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Joe: "We don’t have to. All we need to do is detect intelligent agency activity" You said you detect DESIGN. Designing is to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created). To detect design you MUST detect those plans and decisions. Basically, that's detecting purpose. Anyway, can you give me examples of the activities of intelligent agency that have been detected? "Doubtful- well perhaps to people like you." Ironic. "Investigation. What prevented Stonehenge from being a very complex natural process?" Past observations. What past observations allow you to distiguish designed living organisms from undesigned living organisms? "And yet evolutionism doesn’t have any answers, let alone CLEAR ANSWERS." And my dady is going to beat you. How old are you? Feathers are altered scales from dinosauria skin. That's ONE answer.I have just proved you wrong. Now, do the same applying ID. "Then tell us all of the “deep, thorough, explanations/ answers of evolutionism" Ask a question. Ask a question you can answer with ID, I will answer it with evolution and we'll see. "That is only an OPINION. And seeing that I know better I can dismiss it." You can prove me wrong by just mentioning ONE example of something that we know for certain was designed and we can't say anything about the designer. "A cl;ass of causes, duh. Intelligent agencies make up a class of causes. Are you really that daft?" I might be daft, yeah.. But I guess I'm not daft enough to say the if I know something is intelligently designed I can tell the designer belongs to the intelligent class. Are you serious? "Officer, I can give information about the criminal you are looking for. He broke the law". "Nope. Obviously you have never conducted an investigation" I HAVE conducted investigation and I HAVE CHECKED THE DEFINITON OF DESIGN: Design: deliberate purposive planning. How can you detect purposive planning without detecting purposive planning? "It doesn’t, you are confused" No, I am not confused. You accuse evolution of not explaining things. Yet ID doesn't explain them. And it doesn't explain anything else. So, what's the deal? What the heck should we expect from ID? "No one has done such a thing for Stonehenge." No, because in that case we know the designer. Sorry, I'll rephrase: Science mandates also that the materialistic processes involved in the design or the designer itself be DESCRIBED and VALIDATED BEFORE accepting the design inference. Better, uh?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

K "F/N: Let us refresh minds again on design, in the simplest definition: intelligently directed contingency (as shown in both plans and the results of the process), as we are all intimately familiar with" Can you prove any feature in nature to be the result of "intelligently directed" processes?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

K: Answered what?Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

HeKS: "I’m talking about the application of mind to the achieving of some functionally specified goal." Can you give me an example from nature where you can detect that mind and its goal? "The evidence of purposeful design is overwhelming on any objective analysis" Examples, please. "but due to Methodological Naturalism it is claimed to be merely an appearance of purposeful design" What criteria that is not MN do you use to analyze this evidence? "For example, someone visiting South Dakota who had no knowledge of Mount Rushmore could stumble across it and know immediately that it was the product of intelligent design rather than natural processes" Yes, because that person SURELY has seen mountains in their natural state and knows that sculptures are not a natural part of mountains. And that person also surely has seen sculptures and knows that humans can do that. And it is also natural to attribute things in our planet that don't seem natural to human beings. You see what clearly comes from your example: analogy IS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE. Inference of design IS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE. What's our past experience? Complex things around us are designed by us. So, it's natural that we are biased to think that complex things are designed, wether they are designed or not. "As another example..." Can you give me a biological example of a natural feature in a living organism that can be explained by ID? An example for which we can prove it's designed? "We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!! How do you know this?" PAST EXPERIENCE. We know humans build things because we have observed that they do. "How do you know it was humans rather than aliens?" Because aour past experience proves that humans exist and does not prove that aliens exist, so it's much much more likely that humans built Stonhenge. That allows us to say A LOT of things about the designers of Stonehenge. What can we say about the intelligent designer of life on Earth? "Would you like to assert that there is, in fact, no evidence that Stonehenge is the product of design and that it is very likely a natural occurrence because we don’t know who did it?" I didn't say that we can say EVERYTHING about the designers of Stonehenge, I said we could say a lot. When you detect design, you can say at least SOMETHING about the designer. Don't distort my arguments, please. " I was saying that if you bypass the question of the truth of UCA in order to discuss the mechanism of UCA, then you are assuming the truth of UCA because it is logically impossible to discover the true mechanism by which something happened if that thing didn’t actually happen in the first place." The truth of many things is conected to its mechanisms. You can discuss if those things are true BY DISCUSSING THEIR MECHANISMS. There is no rule that states that one comes before the other. "Second of all, even if it were true that there were no other explanation that made sense" It is true. Can you give me another explanation? "that in itself would not make UCA plausible if UCA itself could not realistically account for the evidence." I know. But there is evidence for UCA. It's ironic that you say such thing when a typical argument for Id is "evolution cannot explain this". "you have just admitted that you think it would be appropriate to make a design inference if intelligent design could account for the evidence and no other explanation could account for the evidence or could not account for it nearly as well." No, I didn't say that. I said that to infer intelligent design you have to prove there is goal. I clearly said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Basing an inference in having NO OTHER explanation is argument from self-knowing. I said there is evidence for evolution and UCA AND THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION. "An argument from ignorance takes the form: “We don’t have evidence that x is wrong, therefore x is right.”" You are right!! Your phallacy is argument from self-knowing, not argument from ignorance. "“We observe an effect, x is causally adequate to explain the effect and is the most common cause of the effect" Can you tell me how do we know what is the MOST COMMON CAUSE of living organisms? Can you tell me how many features in living organisms WE KNOW are couse by ID and how many of them are natural evolution? Can you describe THE CAUSE X you say it's "causally adequate"? If you can't answer this questions your inference is just wishful thinking. "The methodology I would use is simply to follow the evidence where it leads" That is not mechanistic? Can you give me an example of evidence of something that is not made by humans and is not natural? "And I explained exactly why. But you’ve ignored that explanation, quoted only the initial claim absent its justification, and answered “REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY?”" Ah, you need me to explain why all you said afterwards is bullshit. Science can be wrong. But science always follows evidence. So, if science assumes true something wrong it's because evidence led to it. An evidence, most of the time, ends up leading to valid knowledge. Now, check the definition of myth: a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age taken by preliterate society to be a true account, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs, etc., came into existence. Man, it looks quite a lot more like ID than science. " Would you like to tell me why a methodology with an a priori commitment to the implementation of a possibly false philosophical presupposition is less prone to accepting myths (widely held but false beliefs; especially those related to early history and the explanation of natural phenomena) than a methodology that allows the evidence to speak for itself and lead where it may, without predetermined philosophical commitments that block avenues of investigation?" Id does not allows evidence to speak. ID puts words in the mouth of evidence. How do you detect purpose in nature? What evidence of purpose in nature you have? There is none. You assumed purpose. And since you interpret evidence subjectively, evidence tells you what you believe is true. Even if it is a myth. "Because one aspect of creating the strongest possible abductive argument is to show that competing explanations are either inferior or simply causally inadequate" Ahh, argument from self knowing, again. You still have not told me what the ID explanation is. How can an explanation like UCA be inferior in quality to an explanation that DOESN'T EXIST? (Yo recognize that in the following point) "if you are asking what are the precise methods that were employed to effect the final implementation of the designs, that is not a question that can be answered directly from the scientific evidence" You are saying that you don't have an explanation from ID, right? But it's a better explanation!! Higher quality!! Sorry this is really long.Guillermoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

U.B. - "We needn’t play games. Neither of us has an instruction list for the origin of life." Resentment, deflection and games is all they have as evidence on their side. They haven't even admitted to themselves yet that hating Christianity isn't proof enough of blind undirected Evolution being a fact. U.B. - "The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished." And don't ever ever let them off the hook for providing evidence that blind undirected forces of physics and wiccan brew chemical cocktails accomplish anything remotely brilliant.DavidD_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis?
Protein Synthesis.
Can you explain how ID produce that structure in nature?
We needn't play games. Neither of us has an instruction list for the origin of life. The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished. To achieve the translation of nucleic codons into amino acids requires very specific physical conditions that are unique throughout nature - they are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the recording and translation of language and mathematics. What is a more viable scenario: that a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics is the likely source of the origin of life - or - that the physical capacity of language and mathematics arose in a pre-biotic environment without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint, and when it arose, the details of its construction were fortunately encoded in the very information that it made possible?Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

G'moe:
In all other instances were these objects are found they were designed by humans. So, according to your reasoning., we should conclude that the intelligent designer is US.. Pretty wrong, uh?
Very wrong! We would infer it was some other intelligent agency as nature doesn't magically gain some ability just because humans weren't around.Joe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

For Gullermoe: OK seeing that evos choose to be totally clueless I will continue to expose their ignorance. Yes Intelligent Design is both testable and potentially falsifiable: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. As Dr Behe said:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1) How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive case. For example: As I posted in an earlier blog: The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective*- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are. How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function. ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design. * Emergent collective properties, networks, and information in biology, page 23:
In the same vein, ATP synthesis in mitochondria can be conceived of and explained only because there is a coupling between ATP-synthase, the enzyme responsible for ATP synthesis, and the electrochemical potential. Hence ATP synthesis emerges out of this coupling. The activity of ATP-synthase alone could have in no way explained ATP synthesis. It is the merit of Mitchell, to have shown that it is precisely the interaction between two different physico-chemical events that generates this novel remarkable property. (italics in original)
Next we take a look inside ATP synthase- “Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase”:
Abstract: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms. However, information about its energetics is limited compared to that of the reaction scheme. Actually, fundamental questions such as how efficiently F1-ATPase transduces free energy remain unanswered. Here, we demonstrated reversible rotations of isolated F1-ATPase in discrete 120° steps by precisely controlling both the external torque and the chemical potential of ATP hydrolysis as a model system of FoF1-ATP synthase. We found that the maximum work performed by F1-ATPase per 120° step is nearly equal to the thermodynamical maximum work that can be extracted from a single ATP hydrolysis under a broad range of conditions. Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.
Highly effiecient, irreducibly complex, and no way- physiochemcially to get the two subunits to come together-> there's no attraction and no coupling. See also: Davies et al., “Macromolecular organization of ATP synthase and complex I in whole mitochondria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Tamás Beke-Somfai, Per Lincoln, and Bengt Nordén, “Double-lock ratchet mechanism revealing the role of [alpha]SER-344 in F0F1 ATP synthase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesJoe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Not good enough for someone who wants a CLEAR ANSWER
And yet evolutionism doesn't have any answers, let alone CLEAR ANSWERS.
Science is about deep, thorough explanations/answers.
Reference please. Then tell us all of the "deep, thorough, explanations/ answers of evolutionism.
If you REALLY determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design.
That is only an OPINION. And seeing that I know better I can dismiss it.
Causal class? What is that?
A cl;ass of causes, duh. Intelligent agencies make up a class of causes. Are you really that daft?
To prove design you must prove purpose.
Nope. Obviously you have never conducted an investigation
Then way you always talk abut how evolution DOESN’T explain certain things instead of talking about how ID DOES explain those things.
It doesn't, you are confused.
Science mandates also that the materialistic processes involved in the design be DESCRIBED and VALIDATED BEFORE accepting the design inference.
No, it doesn't. No one has done such a thing for Stonehenge.
In fact, rejecting other materialistic processes DOES NOT automatically validates the inference of design.
I didn't say that it did. You have issues
And ALSO, rejecting ONE materialistic process is not equivalent to rejecting ALL NATURAL MATERIALISTIC processes.
I know.
That’s why the idea of “if I can’t explain it naturally now, it’s not natural” is a phallacy.
No one holds to that idea. You are confused.
I think you should know this things if you understood science. I know those things. I also know that you are ignorant.
Joe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

As I said above, design involves purpose. I invite you to you me how you detect and test purpose.
We don't have to. All we need to do is detect intelligent agency activity. From there we can infer a purpose from the design, if purpose is warranted.
Also, Arthur Clarke said that a very advanced technology might be indistiguishable from magic.
So what?
In the same way, a VERY complex natural process might be indistiguishable from the activity of intelligent beings.
Doubtful- well perhaps to people like you.
So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning?
Investigation. What prevented Stonehenge from being a very complex natural process?Joe_{October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply