Intelligent Design Multiverse Philosophy Science

Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

Spread the love
File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From math prof Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

Sean Carroll has a new paper out defending the Multiverse and attacking the naive Popperazi, entitled Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. He also has a Beyond Falsifiability blog post here.

Much of the problem with the paper and blog post is that Carroll is arguing against a straw man, while ignoring the serious arguments about the problems with multiverse research.

the problem with the multiverse is that it’s an empty idea, predicting nothing. It is functioning not as what we would like from science, a testable explanation, but as an untestable excuse for not being able to predict anything. In defense of empty multiverse theorizing, Carroll wants to downplay the role of any conventional testability criterion in our understanding of what is science and what isn’t.More.

Downplaying testability is the whole point of postmodernism. Who is to judge?

And the multiverse is postmodern physics. Wait till it meets up with postmodern (algebra is racist) math.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

101 Replies to “Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    The multiverse seems to be more like a mathematical conjecture. Nobody, not even its proponents, seems to think it is testable by current science so that is all it can be for the present. Does that mean it should not be pursued as far as it can? No, of course not. No ideas should be off-limits to science. Maybe it is a dead-end but maybe in the context of some future discovery it will lead to a great breakthrough. We don’t know but “don’t know” is not a reason to give up.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, the question is, is it a scientific study or highly mathematical philosophy that by wearing the lab coat locks out other significant options. KF

  3. 3
    tribune7 says:

    No ideas should be off-limits to science.

    Except ID, of course.

  4. 4
    clehrhoff says:

    They sure are spending a lot of time and money on this unfalsifiable idea.

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    It’s just that it’s difficult to theorize any intrinsic natural process that could cause our universe to simply pop into existence out of nothing 13.8 billion years ago.

    In other words, it addresses the problem of how the universe (time, space, mass, energy, etc.) could cause itself to come into existence from non-existence. Notice that quantum fluctuations aren’t the solution, since they require TIME for probability to exist.

    Thus, Physicist Andrei Linde speculated that our universe is just one of many “bubbles” that spontaneously appeared as part of a natural “multiverse” with miraculous abilities and eternal existence.

    The multiverse idea brings us full circle with our ancestral myth makers. Logically, it’s no different than postulating the existence of a Giant Cosmic Turtle that lays eggs which become new universes! His speculation is not testable or scientific, but it does get skeptics out of an ideological jam.

    In other words, God didn’t do it, but Nature somehow musta.

    -Q

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth. In fact, as is shown in the following video, there is fairly strong evidence that can be mustered against their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses,,

    Multiverse Mania vs Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo

    And whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics, and evidence, behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk
    Paper:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRZECqs8Iqeqv0GzP5lV6et_K9_rYrz06Tchoa4U0Rw/edit

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, When atheists have faith/ideological commitments they dress them up in lab coats. KF

  8. 8
    critical rationalist says:

    While a theory being testable is key factor, testable theories are common. Anyone can come up with a testable theory, so they are a dime a dozen. What we need are good explanations, which are very hard to come by.

    For example, can any ID proponent here explanation why ID would predict organisms would appear in the order of least complex to most complex?

    It’s unclear how ID predictions are unique, given that its designer is defined as abstract and has no defined limitations and given our current, best test theories about how knowledge grows, including in the case of human designers.

    Let me guess: “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”?

    In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with anything better than the above that would actually hold up, if we try to take it seriously, for the purpose of criticism.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

  9. 9
    critical rationalist says:

    @Tribune7

    S: No ideas should be off-limits to science.

    T: Except ID, of course.

    You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.

    Example? See my challenge above. How does ID explain the specific order of organisms we observe? Give us something to concider!

    If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today, but then explains the problematic aspects of the theory, then by all means, it will considered.

    But, until then, you’ll have to excuse us for not thinking “That’s just what the designer must have wanted” represents anything remotely like that.

  10. 10
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.

    No, I’m saying when someone in academia loses his job (or is told to shut up) for attempting to advance a new theory, then it is fair to say the theory is off limits.

    ID summed up simply:

    1. Designed objects exist in nature (true, undeniable)

    2. Designed objects have characteristics that can be objectively determined (again, silly to deny.)

    3. The objective characteristics of designed objects are IC, CSI, pick something else. (Fire away, Feel free to refute. Have seen attempts, haven’t seen knockouts).

    4. Biological organisms (and other naturally occurring things) have the objective characteristics of designed items. (Again feel free to refute).

    The point is that unlike critics of the multiverse (or The Big Bang for that matter), the rebuttals to ID are rarely objective and never conclusive.

  11. 11
    Barry Arrington says:

    CR:

    You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.

    Are you kidding? A-Mats don’t need us for that. They are doing it all by themselves.

    Just ask Larry Moran whether Darwinism (defined as a predominately adaptationist process) has been refuted. He will tell you yes it has.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Barry Arrington @ 11

    CR:

    You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.

    Are you kidding? A-Mats don’t need us for that. They are doing it all by themselves.

    Just ask Larry Moran whether Darwinism (defined as a predominately adaptationist process) has been refuted. He will tell you yes it has.

    Not exactly:

    Larry Moran Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:45:00 PM
    jeffw asks,
    How does evolution by accident explain convergent evolution(evolving the eye several times independently, for example)?

    That’s due to natural selection. Darwinists, also called adaptationists, attribute everything to natural selection. Pluralists like me don’t deny natural selection but we know that there are lots of other things going on.

    The debate between supporters of Gould and supporters of Dawkins has been going on for 30 years. If you support Dawkins you are happy to be called a Darwinist. If you support Gould, as I do, then that label is odious and incorrect.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    “failing to refute Darwinism.”

    That’s like saying you have failed to refute the pseudo-science of tea-leaf reading.

    In fact, given the fact that it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution has turned out to be, it is an insult to compare tea-leaf readers to Darwinists. At least they do no real harm in their delusions.

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

  14. 14
    critical rationalist says:

    Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID.

    What gives?

    Again, If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today, but then explains the problematic aspects of the theory, then by all means, it will considered.

    So, when will ID get around to doing just this?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    critical rationalist:

    Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID.

    We don’t really know the order of appearance but terraforming would be something to consider.

    Again, If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today,

    Neo-Darwinism doesn’t explain anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities. ID explains much, much more than that. ID explains the genetic code and all that goes with it. ID is the only possible explanation for it, too.

  16. 16
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID.

    Nor have we done so via thermodynamics, gravity, or relativity.

    Just because a discipline does one thing, doesn’t mean it does everything.

  17. 17
    critical rationalist says:

    Now we’re up to four comments.

    Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.

    Tribue7, seems to think the order in which organisms appeared in the biosphere isn’t relevant and therefore not worth explaining.

    However, for the sake of argument, even if either of these were the case (which I’m not suggesting) this wouldn’t prevent other theories from explaining and predicting the specific order of least to most complex as a necessary consequence, where ID could not. And, therefore, it would still fail to explain the biosphere at least equally as well.

    Specifically, ID, the supposed scientific theory, has no necessary consequences that would result in, and therefore predict, in the order of lest complex to most complex. This is because ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such what it knew, when it knew it, etc. A such, it could equally predict an appearance of most complex to least complex, or all at once. Or any possible order. By nature of explaining everything it explains nothing. (Note: that’s not a feature.)

    At best, one could say “that order is just what the designer must have wanted”

    But, by all means, the challenge is still open.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    critical rationalist:

    Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.

    What “order of appearance”? What about terraforming? I know I specifically said it was something to consider. Physics doesn’t allow for a poofing of a planet and inhabitants, so terraforming would be the best answer to your challenge.

    FIRST it would be important to understand what, exactly, was intelligently designed. We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop. Then we can determine how much variation is possible given a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change. Then we could tell what, if any, interventions were required to get from the terraforming stage to today.

    You also have to remember that neither Darwin’s nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex. And given that the fossil record is incomplete much of what we “observe” may not mean what you think it does. The alleged order is illusory.

  19. 19
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    Tribue7, seems to think the order in which organisms appeared in the biosphere isn’t relevant and therefore not worth explaining.

    Explain, explore, ponder all you want. It’s an interesting and good thing to do.

    But it’s not what ID is meant to do and it’s silly to accuse proponents of some violation of propriety for not using it to do so.

  20. 20
    critical rationalist says:

    @Tribune7

    But it’s not what ID is meant to do and it’s silly to accuse proponents of some violation of propriety for not using it to do so.

    Then it would seem that refuting Darwinism isn’t something that ID is not “meant” to do? The mere negation of an explantory theory does not produce a new explantory theory.

    Until a new theory is proposed that explains the same aspects of the biosphere that Darwinism does, equally as well, in addition to explaining specific problematic aspects of the theory, that Darwinism cannot, it will continue to be the deepest theory we have of biological origins.

  21. 21
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET

    FIRST it would be important to understand what, exactly, was intelligently designed.

    ID doesn’t claim that biosphere was the intentional outcome of a designer?

    We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop.

    The kind of organism in question is the kind we find in our biosphere because, well, that’s what ID claims is designed, right?

    Furthermore, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving something is knowing how. This includes creating organisms in the order of most complex to least complex or even all at once.

    Then we can determine how much variation is possible given a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change. Then we could tell what, if any, interventions were required to get from the terraforming stage to today.

    Except, using “a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change” is not a necessary consequence to obtain the biosphere we observe. This is because the origin of an organism’s features is the origin of requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will covert raw materials into those specific features, including those specific features we find in the biosphere. So, it’s a question of knowledge.

    As such, ID’s designer could just as well have created organisms in the order of least to most complex or even created them all at once without requiring a sequence of interventions over time.

    IOW it’s unclear why ID’s designer selected this particular methods out of all those that were not profited given it’s lack of defined limitations.

    You also have to remember that neither Darwin’s nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex.

    it doesn’t? How could raw materials get transformed into complex organisms before the requisite knowledge of which specific transformations to perform to construct them had been created?

    Specifically, that knowledge would have only came into existence by subjecting the knowledge of how to construct simpler organisms to a form of variation and criticism. Since it did not exist before then, that order was a necessary consequence of the theory. It’s is in this sense that the theory is hard to vary, because it cannot be significantly modified without also significantly impacting its ability to explain the phenomena in question.

    On the other hand, ID’s designer has no limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc. And unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent it from achieving an order of most complex to least complex or even all at once, is knowing how. And nothing in the supposedly scientific theory limited what ID’s designer new, when it knew it, etc. So, that order is not a necessary consequence of the theory.

    And given that the fossil record is incomplete much of what we “observe” may not mean what you think it does. The alleged order is illusory.

    And given that the sun is often behind the clouds, our record is incomplete as well. But out theories of optics, geometry, etc. explain why we shouldn’t expect to experience the sun it during those times. And the sun actually being there, at those times, regardless of whether we observe it or not, plays a key part in a number of independently formed, hard to vary explanations about other aspects of the world that we experience. Furthermore, when we “expreince” the sun rising in a mirror on on TV we don’t think there are actually are two suns or the sun is actually rising twice, etc. Again, this is due to our theories of optics, geometry, etc.

    The same can be said about the fossil record. Our current, best theory of fossilization tells us that we should not expect to observe every transitional form under all conditions. And transitional forms actually being there, at those times, regardless of whether we observe them or not, is part of a number of hard to vary independently formed explanations. What we think is happening, in reality, is based on our current best explanations, not merely what we experience. All observations are theory laden.

  22. 22
    critical rationalist says:

    I wrote:

    As such, ID’s designer could just as well have created organisms in the order of least to most complex or even created them all at once without requiring a sequence of interventions over time.

    Correction

    To quote Popper…

    Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

    It’s unclear why ID’s designer selected this particular method, out of all those that were not prohibited, given it’s lack of defined limitations.

    So, at best, one could say “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”

    That is, unless ID proponents choose to be more specific about their designer in a way that necessary consequences. However, no such limitations will be forthcoming. This is because, in doing so, ID proponents would exclude their preferred designer.

    Again, I won’t be holding my breath.

  23. 23
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    Then it would seem that refuting Darwinism isn’t something that ID is not “meant” to do?

    And you would be right.Explaining an aspect of nature is what it is meant to do.

    But how is rejecting ID because of the fear it might overturn a different theory, science?

  24. 24
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist:

    “For example, can any ID proponent here explanation why ID would predict organisms would appear in the order of least complex to most complex?

    It’s unclear how ID predictions are unique, given that its designer is defined as abstract and has no defined limitations and given our current, best test theories about how knowledge grows, including in the case of human designers.”

    I addressed that point here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/note-to-darwinists-language-itself-is-anti-science/

    comment #10 (to you).

    But you did not answer.

    Could you answer now, please?

    If you make a challenge, you should follow it up.

    I have made, many times, a challenge that nobody has even tried to answer. I copy it here, for your consideration. One never knows…

    Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions?

    1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

  25. 25
    gpuccio says:

    Seversky at #12:

    Yes, Moran is certainly a very good example of the following very scientific attitude:

    Q: How can you exaplain functional information in biological objects?

    A: Of course, neutral variation had an important role.

    Q: But neutral varitaion can do nothing to overcome probabilistic barriers!

    A: Of course, natural selection had an important role.

    Q: But natural selection has extremely limited powers, it cannot do that!

    A: Of course, neutral variation had an important role.

    And so on.

    If you doubt my statements about RV and NS, maybe you have missed my OPs about those points:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/

    and

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    CR quotes Popper, to wit:

    “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
    Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010
    Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/

    Tom Bethell, who fairly recently wrote ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’, also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory.

    Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – video – 5:54 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    “it does not speak about reality.” ,,, If anything describe Darwinism accurately, those six words are it.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    CR, you have been advised any number of times that the design inference is about detecting — per empirically tested, reliable sign — design (= intelligently directed configuration) as key causal process, not about speculations regarding designers.This for the very good reason that that is the key point to be established per empirical evidence, in an era where a priori imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism is undermining science as an empirically grounded search for the truth about our world, how it works and how it comes to be as we see it around us. Also, this is what the evidence primarily warrants. Why do you continue to insist on dragging a red herring away to a strawman caricature about designers you wish to mock and/or dismiss? That twerdun is patently prior to whudunit. KF

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    to add to gpuccio’s comment at 25

    “But natural selection has extremely limited powers, it cannot do that!”

    Besides natural selection being shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed ‘designer substitute’, as Darwinists falsely imagined it to be,,

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    ,,, besides natural selection,,, for all practical purposes, random variation is also now known to be virtually non-existent:

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    Besides both natural selection and random variation being shown to be virtually non-existent, Darwinists still do not accept that as a falsification as their theory. To wit, via Popper, their theory does not speak about reality:

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

  29. 29
    critical rationalist says:

    Now we’re up to seven comments with two new authors. Yet no one has presented an explanation for that specific order.

    Gpuccio claims to have answered my question, but doen’t quot it and asks yet another question. BA77 quotemines and generally missuderstands Popper and KF joins the fray by telling me something I already know: ID does’t explain that order.

    Again, merely negating a theory does not result in a new explantory theory. So, when ID provides those explantory replacements, it will be considered again as a explantory replacement theory.

    After all, science is supped to maximize explantory power, by deferring to the best explanations, right? Or did I get that wrong?

  30. 30
    ET says:

    critical:

    ID doesn’t claim that biosphere was the intentional outcome of a designer?

    Originally it was, then it evolved. Your question doesn’t follow from the part you quoted.

    We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop.

    The kind of organism in question is the kind we find in our biosphere because, well, that’s what ID claims is designed, right?

    And another non-sequitur.

    You also have to remember that neither Darwin’s nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex.

    it doesn’t?

    No, it doesn’t:

    Can evolution make things less complicated?

    “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

    And again, evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot explain what we observe. If it could then we wouldn’t even be discussing ID

  31. 31
    critical rationalist says:

    I don’t know why you say so. ID’s designer, or designers, is not abstract at all: we simply don’t know who he is.

    But it is absolutely not true that it has no defined limitations: it seems to have a lot of limitations, perfectly evident in the features of its design.

    For example, it seems to need time to implement design.

    It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions.

    It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs.

    It certainly has to act in space and time, and to interact with existing matter to input specific configurations in it. That requires a specific interface, that can certainly be the object of scientific approach.

    It needs to design reusing what already exists, IOWs through designed descent.

    If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?

    For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things?

    In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc.

    So, will that mean we will be more advanced than the biosphere’s designer?

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Yet no one has presented an explanation for that specific order.

    I have and you have yet to properly address it. Your non-sequiturs and ignorance of evolution are not arguments.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    critical:

    If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself?

    ID is about the DESIGN and NOT the designer. How many times do you have to be told that? It’s as if you are incapable of learning

    For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things?

    Intelligence- it is not smart to keep reinventing things that you already have.

    In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts.

    Special pleading

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    CR falsely accuses me of misunderstanding Popper, and yet it is CR who is misunderstanding Popper.

    CR then completely ignores the fact that both NS and RV are empirically shown to be virtually non-existent. That is to say, CR does not accept empirical falsification for Darwinism, i.e. falsification of NS and RV.

    Thus, whatever CR is doing, he is not doing science. i.e. He is, via Popper, not speaking about reality.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    a few more details on exactly why Darwinism fails to qualify as a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory are in the following video:

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

    As you clearly see from the preceding video, not only does Darwinism fail to qualify as a real science, Darwinism’s reductive materialism is directly contrary to the entire field of mathematics, which is the backbone of modern science.

  35. 35
    Eugene S says:

    34 comments about evolution and design, while the OP is about the multiverse hypothesis 🙂

    CR is hopeless 🙂 He, for some strange reason, thinks that simple-to-complex cannot be designed. Why not?! God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires. True, He is not arbitrary with His creation but wants to teach us something.

    I don’t know why this can cause a problem worth mentioning at all.

    Such ‘arguments’ always remind me of a cynical remark by Dostoyevsky in his diaries about his contemporary atheists: They think, he wrote, that with their silly arguments they can make me doubt! They cannot even guess what sort of doubts I went through [paraphrase].

  36. 36
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    After all, science is supped to maximize explantory power, by deferring to the best explanations, right? Or did I get that wrong?

    Darwinism does a poor job in explaining how life came about. It’s clearly not an adequate explanation. ID is far superior. So we should defer to that, correct?

  37. 37
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist:

    At last it seems that you have read my comment, instead of simply saying that “I don’t quote it”! (I did quote it)

    “If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?”

    It’s simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or madalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consnious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.

    So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present.

    Then, I do agree with you that ID, once design has been inferred for biological objects, has the chance, and I would say the duty, to try a scientific approach to the designer(s). That appproach, being scientific, can only be done fron facts, IOWs from what we know of the designer: its designs.

    So, when I list the many limitations that the biological designer seems to exhibit, I am not inventing them “a priori”: I am inferring them from the biological design.

    “It seems to need time to implement design.”

    and

    “It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions.”

    and

    “It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs.”

    are simply inferences made from the biological design.

    They are inferences from facts, like the basic inference of design itself.

    You ask:

    “What are the implication of those limitations?”

    The implications are clear enough: there are resons why the biological designer has, or chooses, to act this way.

    The simple question should be: are these limitations compatible with the working of a conscious, intelligent, purposeful designer? (or with some set of them?)

    The answer is obviously yes. All those “limitations”, for example, are in some form present in human designe. Therefore, they are obviously compatible with design.

    You ask:

    “What are the implications of needing to reuse things?”

    I am really amazed at that question. Are you serious?

    Just ask any software programmer, or if you like, just ask any housekeeping wife (or husband, to be politically correct!) 🙂

    Why should a conscious intelligent designer “need to reuse things”?

    It’s simpler.

    It’s easier.

    It’s cheaper.

    It makes a lot of sense.

    The right question is: why should an intelligent designer re-build things, when he can reuse what he has already built?

    I can see no reasonable answer to that.

    Are you familiar with Object Oriented Programming? OOP is definitely an evolution of programming strategies. And it is based on reuse of what already exists. Exactly like biological design.

    You say:

    “In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc.”

    It’s a very strange idea, but let’s just say that it is a remote possibility. Humans are silly enough to do even that!

    “So, will that mean we will be more advanced than the biosphere’s designer?”

    Maybe. In principle I have no objections to the idea that human designers could in the end be better than the biological designer. As you may have noticed, I have nowhere said that the biologal designer needs to be perfect, or the best of all times.

    However, I have serious doubts that being able to waste resources, maybe simply to indulge our personal delusions of grandeur, is really the way to be better.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    CR, as you have chosen to twist my comment into a strawman, I join GP in his response to you just now:

    [CR:] “If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?”

    [GP:] It’s simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or modalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.

    So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present.

    KF

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    CR, seems to believe that Darwinism explains ‘order of appearance’ better than ID. But only in the broadest sense is this true. It is true that single celled organisms appeared before multicellular organisms, but other than that, there is little ‘order of appearance’ to give support to Darwinian theory.

    We have bacteria, microbes, Ediacaran fossils, sponges and jellies, and then the Cambrian explosion

    Yet, the Cambrian explosion itself is a complete departure from CR’s ‘order of appearance’ line of reasoning.

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4

    , as Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

    But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion – ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity) – infographic
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73671.html

    Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    In Allaying Darwin’s Doubt, Two Cambrian Experts Still Come Up Short – October 16, 2015
    Excerpt: “A recent analysis of disparity in 98 metazoan clades through the Phanerozoic found a preponderance of clades with maximal disparity early in their history. Thus, whether or not taxonomic diversification slows down most studies of disparity reveal a pattern in which the early evolution of a clade defines the morphological boundaries of a group which are then filled in by subsequent diversification. This pattern is inconsistent with that expected of a classic adaptive radiation in which diversity and disparity should be coupled, at least during the early phase of the radiation.”
    – Doug Erwin
    What this admits is that disparity is a worse problem than evolutionists had realized: it’s ubiquitous (throughout the history of life on earth), not just in the Cambrian (Explosion).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00111.html

    “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.”
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    Moreover, this top down pattern is even detectable in the human fossil record:

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246.
    (emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)
    https://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pay-no-attention-to-that-data-behind-the-curtain/

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

  41. 41
    critical rationalist says:

    ID is about the DESIGN and NOT the designer.

    And part of the design is the order in which it appears, unless you’re assuming that specific appearance is random?

    For example, when an automobile manufacturer designs a vehicle, it is designed to use one or more common platforms which are designed to have a specific lifespan. And future vehicle are designed with utilizing them in mind, or some yet to be competed future common platform. Temporality is literally part of the design and it represents solutions to solve specific problems.

    If you claim something was designed by a designer, your claiming that temporality is also part solution that designer came up with, which has implications. My question is, “why that specific solution” and what does that imply about ID’s designer?

    If nothing can be implied then, at best, you could merely say “That’s just what the designer must have wanted” which explains nothing. Apparently, that solution was arbitrarily selected.

    For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things?

    Intelligence- it is not smart to keep reinventing things that you already have.

    If you’re a current day automotive manufacturer, it’s not smart to redesign a car for every customer because you won’t be able to build one every few years. That means one customer every few years. All of the resources you’ll need will cost more than you could possibly make. And since current day automotive manufacturers have boards of directors, limited finances, etc. They would go out of business.

    But ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, including how much knowledge is has, when it possessed it, etc. So, there are no limits as to how many cars it could build for customers. Heck it doesn’t even need customers because it doesn’t need to make a profit, have expenses for engineering talent / R&D, a board of directors to appease, etc.

    Whether it’s not smart to “reinvent” things you already have depends on what resources and knowledge you have. ID’s designer has no such limitations.

    Special pleading

    Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer from achieving it is knowing how.

    It’s unclear how this is special pleading. Or are you suggesting that is a false dichotomy? If so, why?

    For example more energy falls on the Earth’s surface every day that the entire population of the Earth uses in an entire year. The only thing that would prevent us from harnessing it is knowing how. And that doesn’t include things like building a Dyson sphere around our sun, reproducing nuclear fusion, etc. So, not only could we have abundant energy, but do so cheaply, cleanly and efficiently. And the same can be said for manufacturing , as current day 3D printers are just the beginning.

    IOW, you’re assuming we cannot create the necessary knowledge to utterly transform manufacturing, design, etc. to the extent that this argument simply will no longer hold. Assuming we don’t give up or blow ourselves up, we can achieve it. It’s a matter of knowing how.

    Does your designer not possess this knowledge, and therefore is bound to the same means of design and construction that we are?

  42. 42
    ET says:

    And part of the design is the order in which it appears, unless you’re assuming that specific appearance is random?

    And I told you that until we know what determines the organism we won’t know what the order means.

    My question is, “why that specific solution” and what does that imply about ID’s designer?

    It solves the problem of our existence. It implies there is a real purpose to that existence. It also means we have been looking at biology incorrectly.

    But ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, including how much knowledge is has, when it possessed it, etc.

    Thick as a brick- ID is not about the Designer. We observe our designers constantly reusing existing things. So we apply that knowledge to what we observe with respect to biology.

    Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer from achieving it is knowing how.

    Exactly- there also has to be a want and/ or need

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    CR @ 41, selective blindness.

    First CR refused to acknowledge that NS and/or RV are both now shown to be virtually non-existent and that Darwinian evolution is therefore falsified.

    Then CR, when shown his supposed ‘order of appearance’ does not,,,. contrary to what he believes, conform to Darwinian presuppositions, again refused to acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is therefore once again falsified.

    I’ve been down this road with other Darwinists before. No matter what evidence is presented to CR that falsifies Darwinism, CR will continue to refuse to acknowledge Darwinism’s falsification.

    For instance, I could further present

    Michael Behe – Observed Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    or this,,

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    or this,,

    Information is Physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35I83y5Uro

    or etc.. etc.. etc…,,, But none of the scientific evidence matters to CR because he apparently does not really care about the science but is only concerned about protecting his ‘anti-ID’ beliefs no matter what truth he has to ignore and/or lie about.

    It is pathetic and sad.

  44. 44
    critical rationalist says:

    CR, seems to believe that Darwinism explains ‘order of appearance’ better than ID.

    Already addressed.

    From an earlier comment.

    Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.

    […]

    However, for the sake of argument, even if either of these were the case (which I’m not suggesting) this wouldn’t prevent other theories from explaining and predicting the specific order of least to most complex as a necessary consequence, where ID could not. And, therefore, it would still fail to explain the biosphere at least equally as well.

    Specifically, ID, the supposed scientific theory, has no necessary consequences that would result in, and therefore predict, in the order of lest complex to most complex. This is because ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such what it knew, when it knew it, etc. A such, it could equally predict an appearance of most complex to least complex, or all at once. Or any possible order. By nature of explaining everything it explains nothing. (Note: that’s not a feature.)

    BA wrote….

    We have bacteria, microbes, Ediacaran fossils, sponges and jellies, and then the Cambrian explosion

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Assuming that’s true, for the sake of argument, then by all means, use ID to explain those things just as well, the go on to explain all those supposed specific exceptions via some means better than “That’s just what the designer wanted”

    That’s the challenge. I’m not still seeing it.

    Even the false theory that all swans are white would be better than the true theory that all swans have a color.

  45. 45
    critical rationalist says:

    First CR refused to acknowledge that NS and/or RV are both now shown to be virtually non-existent and that Darwinian evolution is therefore falsified.

    Again, unless ID explains the same phenomena just as well, then goes on to explain all of the supposed specific devotions, in specific detail, then there is no refutation. The negation of a theory does not result in a new explanatory theory.

    For example, if there are deviations in the fossil record as you claim, then why those specific deviations at those specific times? What explanation does ID present other than “Those specific deviations occurred at just those specific times because that’s just what the designer must have wanted”

    That’s the challenge. I’m not holding my breath.

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    CR, the evidence of deeply isolated islands of function in biological systems starts with protein fold domains in AA sequence space, leading to an insuperable information creation challenge for the range of augmented darwinist mechanisms. Likewise, the top-down phyla etc first nature of the fossil record directly implies core body plan programming first, which is precisely the part where random changes in embryological development are overwhelmingly likely to be fatal. Adaptation of body plans as part of robustness of design is what is indicated, and given peculiarities of taxonomy that can readily go up to families. Darwinist body plan origin tree of life evo schemes are dead, just the corpse is propped up as it is not convenient to admit that the king is dead. What is left when blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have long since run out of steam, is intelligently directed configuration. And we have yet to touch the root, which is where all of this begins: you have to explain, on good observational warrant, the blind watchmaker origin of encapsulated, gene-using metabolic automata with embedded von Neumann kinematic self-replication facilities, aka cell-based life. You simply cannot, period. So we find that design is at the table as of right from the OOL root on up. The king is dead, stop propping up the corpse. KF

    PS: Why do you still keep on resorting to the rhetorical trick of setting up a strawman ID is about designers trick? FYI, if you are at all a bona fide participant in the discussion, the design inference is about empirically warranted, reliable inference to intelligently directed configuration as credible causal process, per tested, reliable sign. Discussion of whodunit, why may be entertained thereafter but that cannot be primary, on the evidence.

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Apparently CR does not understand scientific falsification. When a proposed theory is scientifically falsified with empirical evidence, in this case NS and/or RV mechanisms of Darwinism are each falsified, then that means the theory is empirically shown to be false, period. It does not matter if someone may falsely believe that Darwin’s theory explains some other thing better than competing theories. Which it doesn’t,,,

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
    Casey Luskin
    January 29, 2015
    Excerpt: Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem:

    [W]e are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/

    When a theories’ foundational assumptions are falsified with empirical evidence, again in this case both NS and RV, then the theory is wrong period, full stop! There is no ‘but if’ left for the theory. To pretend otherwise is insanity. As Feynman stated:

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    Of related note as to the sheer insanity inherent to Darwinian thinking:

    Jay Homnick wrote:

    It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/

    And indeed, Darwinists have lost their mind. In fact they deny, along with their free will, that their mind even exists in the first place.

    Determinism vs Free Will – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI

  48. 48
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist:

    Could you please address my comments at #37?

    If you like, of course.

  49. 49
    critical rationalist says:

    CR: “If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?”

    G: It’s simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or modalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.

    If that’s all that is required, then those limitations are not required either. As such, it’s unclear why we should assume those limitations as the basis of making predictions.

    So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present.

    Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, I would again point out the mere negation of a theory does not result in creation of a new explanatory theory. And, since ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such as what it knew, when it knew it, etc. at best, one could merely say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Which would equally as well refer to wanting to create organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once.

    We’re up to 25 comments, yet no better explanation has been presented.

    “It seems to need time to implement design.”

    “It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions.”

    I walked to and from my technology client’s office yesterday. It’s a 30 minute walk. Following your logic, “I seem to need to walk to reach my current on-site project”, but that would be false. My car works just fine. The weather was nice and I chose to walk because I missed working out earlier over the weekend. Even if I walked every day for the entire length of my contract, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have other options. This simply doesn’t follow from observation.

    “It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs.”

    ?It’s supposed designs would include methods of error correction, which would include the knowledge of what transformations of matter would result in reverting the changes. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing now. This includes correcting the very errors in question. We cannot now, nor can our own cells, because the necessary knowledge is not present there. However, assuming we create the necessary knowledge in time, will eventually be able to correct those errors, where nature could not.

    Again, it’s a question of knowing how. Our explanation for why those variations go uncorrected is because the knowledge of how to correct them doesn’t exist. It hasn’t been created yet. It’s a necessary consequence of the theory. But ID’s designer has no such limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc.

    Was there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.

    The implications are clear enough: there are reasons why the biological designer has, or chooses, to act this way.

    Great! That’s exactly what I’m asking for. What are they?

    The simple question should be: are these limitations compatible with the working of a conscious, intelligent, purposeful designer? (or with some set of them?) he answer is obviously yes. All those “limitations”, for example, are in some form present in human design. Therefore, they are obviously compatible with design.

    I’m not following you. Are you saying that ID, the theory, always assumes those limitations are actually present in its designer. And therefore it always assumes they are present when making predictions? So, When should I expect ID, the theory, to be updated to reflect this? Otherwise, ID is also compatible with not having those limitations and is, therefore, also compatible with the order of appearance of most complex to least complex or even all at once, which is my point. That order is not a necessary consequence of the theory. At best, “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”

    CR: “What are the implications of needing to reuse things?”

    G: I am really amazed at that question. Are you serious?

    Just ask any software programmer, or if you like, just ask any housekeeping wife (or husband, to be politically correct!) ????
    Why should a conscious intelligent designer “need to reuse things”?

    I’m a technologist. Roughly speaking, that means solving problems with technology, which often includes writing software.

    How does that work? I start out with a feature to develop, which is a problem to solve. Since I don’t already know what instructions are needed ahead of time, I have to make educated guesses as to what instructions will actually solve that problem, actually input them into the system, wait while the compiler converts those high-level instructions into low-level instructions that will actually be executed by the hardware, start them executing with sample data, then run tests on the output and discard any errors I find. I then repeat the process until the test passes. This takes time. Furthermore, changing or updating those instructions can introduce errors because, again, any changes I might make start out as educated guesses, that would need to be converted, tested, etc. So, the process starts all over again.

    Not to mention that I have to be efficient enough to compete with other consultants that work in my industry. And my clients have limited budgets and deadlines to meet so they can compete with other companies in their industry, etc. It’s the same as with the automotive example in my previous comment.

    However, ID’s designer is abstract. It doesn’t have budgets, shareholders, the need for engineering staff, R&D departments, dry runs, crash safety tests, etc.

    Even human software developers can update their software when new versions of the OS they run on is released. .

    Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing how. That means that any order of appearance that isn’t probated by the laws of physics would be possible for IDs’ designer because it has no defined limits of what it knew, when it knew it, etc.

    Or are you suggesting there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.

    It’s simpler.
    It’s easier.
    It’s cheaper.
    It makes a lot of sense.

    See above. Things are cheep now were very expensive in the past. What changed? We created the knowledge to achieve them cheaply, more efficiently and even via simpler methods. That argument only follow if you assume we will not or cannot create significantly new knowledge, so that would always continue to be the case.

    CR: “In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc.”

    G: It’s a very strange idea, but let’s just say that it is a remote possibility. Humans are silly enough to do even that!

    What’s strange and silly about it? Take construction, for example. We’re already started 3D printing homes, which takes significantly less time to construct reduces costs and means you could print a different home every time because the layout of the walls is determined by the programmable motion of the concrete printer. Want a house with walls in the shape of a circle? How about in the shape of a triangle or in the shape of your initials, etc.? And that’s just what we can do today. The creation of new knowledge we cannot yet conceive of will impact how we designed things in ways we cannot predict. And you argument that designers must have those libations will no longer be applicable.

    The I-4 project in central Flordia will take 2.3 billion dollars at over 5 years to complete. That results in traffic delays and other costs above and the actual construction itself. However, with the right knowledge, construction time could be reduced to months, while doing so even more cheaply and efficiently with less waste, pollution, etc. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving it is knowing how.

    And when that knowledge is created, it will be reflected in the things we design. The most significant quantity in what transformations are possible is knowledge, or the lack of it.

    However, I have serious doubts that being able to waste resources, maybe simply to indulge our personal delusions of grandeur, is really the way to be better.

    Knowledge will allow us to do exponentially more with significantly less. It will come down to a few more CPU cycles to create something new and unique, as opposed to building it out of the same exact parts, because the most efficient means of manufacturing will via programmable constructors. Why buy 10-20 specialized systems when you can buy one that can play all of same roles? Why wait to retool your assembly line, and loose sales to competitors? Why keep inventory when you can simply use multiple programmable systems to manufacture a vast number of products on demand? We’ve already started doing this with books, now think 3D printing on steroids with cars, furniture, and then there is clothing! You’ll never have to wear the same thing twice. Instead of putting your clothes in a washing machine, you’ll put in in a device that will break the garment broken down into raw materials and turned it into something new while being “cleaned” at the same time. Rather than being reformed in the original design, switch it out with something slightly or even entirely different. And that process can probably be refined enough that, eventually, it will take less energy than what it takes to wash the same clothes we wear today. If you need to move some furniture tomorrow, your garage will recycle the matter of your coupe into a SUV over night. But then why do you need to move furniture when you can simply “print” a copy of it at your new location?

    Again, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving this is knowing how. Did ID’s designer not posses this knowledge or did it simply choose to to not use it because “That’s just what it must have wanted” to do? I don’t see any third option options.

    And talk about grandeur, why do we have 300,000 species of beetles?

  50. 50
    ET says:

    CR:

    Again, unless ID explains the same phenomena just as well, then goes on to explain all of the supposed specific devotions, in specific detail, then there is no refutation.

    Just as well as what? Neither Darwinian nor neo-Darwinian can explain the apparent order of fossils. That is because those concepts don’t have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

    Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.

    Wow, only a willfully ignorant punk would say that and here you are.

  51. 51
    critical rationalist says:

    @BA

    I know what falsification is. I’m referring to refuting a theory, not falsifying it.

    From another thread…

    The problem is, this simply doesn’t add up.

    Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that the objective of science should be to increase our ‘credence” for true theories and that ‘credences’ held by a rational thinker actualy does obey the probillity calculus, in practice.

    But when we try to take this seriously, for the purpose of criticism, it fails.

    Example? Take some explantory theory T, such as the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. The negation of T (~T), the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, is not an explantion in the least. It’s merely the negation of T, which doesn’t result in a new explantory theory. Now, with that in mind, let’s suppose it actually is possible, for the sake of argument, to quantify this property that science is supposed to maximize. Let’s call that ‘q’. If explanatory theory T had some amount of q, then ~T has no q at all, as opposed to the 1-q that the probability calculus would require if q actually represents a probability. It’s a category error, of sorts, because ~T, not representing a explanatory theory, has none of what gave T a probality.

    Furthermore, take the conjunction of two mutually inconsistent explantory theoires (T1 & T2), such as quantum theory and relativity. Both of them are provably false. So, their conjunction would have a probability of zero. Yet, the conjunction of those two theoires is the best understanding we have of the world, which is expontationally far from nothing

    Finally, if we expect that all of our best explantory theories of fundamental physics will eventually be superseded, what we would believe today would eventually become negations of the very future theoires that supersede them. However, it’s still those false explanatory theoires, not true negations, that represent our deepest knowege of physics. What will have happened to all the probablity they supposedly have today?

    IOW, what science seeks to maximize is explantory power, not probability or ‘credence’, because rational thinkers do not actually behave that way, in practice.

    And….

    Another example?

    During the 2012 OPERA experiment in Switzerland, neutrinos were detected in a way that indicated they were traveling faster than the speed of light. Did this immediately refute Einstein’s theory that nothing travels faster than C? No, it did not. This is because we did not have a theory that explained why neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light in the OPERA experiment, but not others. IOW, the negation of a theory does not produce a new explantory theory. Before Einstein’s theory was overthrown, a new theory would be needed to explain the same phenomena at least as well, in addition to the additional phenomena of the unique OPERA observations, and we didn’t have one.

    Eventually, it was discovered the theory that the experiment was set up in such as way that observations would be accurate was false, rather than the theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in real space.

    ID, as a negation of neo-Darwinism, doesn’t explain the same phemona, remotely as well, let alone any specific descrepencies we observe. “That’s just what some designer must have wanted” is not such an explanation. Nor is some abstract authorative source that has no defined limitations.

    To quote Popper, “Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.”

  52. 52
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    I honestly have a hard time understanding why you are having so much trouble with this concept.

    You find an object. You want to determine if it’s designed. You apply a test. The test determines with confidence that it is designed.

    The test, however, does not tell you who designed it or how it was designed. Should you reject your new understanding because these questions are not answered?

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    “I know what falsification is. I’m referring to refuting a theory, not falsifying it.”

    To experimentally falsify a theory is to refute it.

    In your barely comprehensible attempt at rationalization for why you don’t believe Darwinism to be ‘refuted’, You appealed to Quantum Theory and General Relativity,,, Ironically, you do not even realize that the most ‘plausible’ reconciliation between the two theories is Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk
    Paper:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRZECqs8Iqeqv0GzP5lV6et_K9_rYrz06Tchoa4U0Rw/edit

    also see

    Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY

  54. 54
    critical rationalist says:

    To experimentally falsify a theory is to refute it.

    It does? See #51.

    The 2012 OPERA experiment represents one example of the contrary. How else do you explain what happened there?

    You appealed to Quantum Theory and General Relativity,,

    Both of which represent anther example of being found in error by experiment. As such, they are false theories, despite having yet to be refuted. Nor is it clear how Christ being resurrected from the dead represents a theory of quantum gravity.

    In both cases, those theories were not refuted because the negation of a theory does not result in a new explanatory replacement theory.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Shsssh, OPERA anomaly was the result of experimental error in one series of tests. Was quickly rectified. Falsification of NS and RV, on the other hand, is accomplished via multiple lines of evidence and experimentation. No one who is knowledgeable even contests the results of the experiments. Not even close to comparable.

    Your intellectual dishonesty in this matter is pathetic.

    And once again, as you yourself give witness to, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science since there is no falsification criteria based in math that Darwinists will accept as a valid falsification (though it has none-the-less been falsified.

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ

    also see:

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
    Paper:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18WD6bF7fTqzJr4SsFxpkIvIuapkxGDfRbAPO1CLd_1U/edit

    You claim that both QM and GR ‘represent anther (sec) example of being found in error by experiment.’

    That claim is ‘not even wrong’. Both theories are confirmed to extraordinary levels of precision by experimentation.

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
    It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
    http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

    As David Berlinski stated:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....the-day-8/

  56. 56
    critical rationalist says:

    You find an object. You want to determine if it’s designed. You apply a test. The test determines with confidence that it is designed.

    Given that ID’s supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. What necessary predictions can be made based on that conclusion, such as the order of appearance of organisms?

    IOW, without there being necessary consequences for the the current state of the system other than being well adapted to serve some purpose, which is not in question in the absence of assuming that object is designed, anyway.

    Who’s to say the designer isn’t actually a entire committee of designers who all made compromises and none of them got what they wanted? What then?

    Who’s to say the designer is basically practicing eugenics, and therefore we’re all just experiments, etc? Who’s to say the purpose that object is well adapted to perform actually represents some purpose that has any significance?

    Do get anywhere like that at all, you’d have to make some very specific assumptions about the designer which, is supposedly absent from the theory itself.

    Again, the mere negation of a theory does not result in a the creation of a new explanatory theory. So, what, if anything does ID refute in any substantial sense?

    The test, however, does not tell you who designed it or how it was designed. Should you reject your new understanding because these questions are not answered?

    Again, what new understanding do I have now, given that we can know nothing about the designer? What predictions does that allow me to make I couldn’t before? What problems does it help me solve that I couldn’t before?

    Which leads me back to my challenge. How does ID explain the order of appearance of least complex to most complex? I’m not seeing it.

  57. 57
    critical rationalist says:

    @BA

    Shsssh, OPERA anomaly was the result of experimental error in one series of tests. Was quickly rectified.

    It was never refuted in the first place, so there was nothing to rectify.

    That claim is ‘not even wrong’. Both theories are confirmed to extraordinary levels of precision by experimentation.

    Except in all the cases where they completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests.

    Again, unless you can point me to a working theory of quantum gravity, both quantum mechanics and relativity have been proven false because they disagree with experiment.

    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

  58. 58
    EugeneS says:

    CR

    “Given that ID’s supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed”

    Well, if you find a body and are able to figure out if it was a murder and not an accident, at least it does matter to the family to know that it was a murder, to say nothing of the fact that the family can claim a different amount of life insurance money, if nothing else. So it does matter sometimes. It also means a lot to the people who live in the neighbourhood regardless of who exactly the killer was. It matters to the town council too, as different level of safety precautions must be taken if it was a murder, not an accident.

    In any case, first you need to be able to classify it as a murder (design).

    All we are talking about is you need a design classifier. What is the problem with the fact that such classifiers exist (in forensics, archaeology, medicine and biology for that matter), other than ideological discomfort of ID opponents?

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    “Except in all the cases where they completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests.”

    Please do cite the exact experimental results where they have been shown to be in error. You are hallucinating.

    “Again, unless you can point me to a working theory of quantum gravity, both quantum mechanics and relativity have been proven false because they disagree with experiment.”

    That is a HUGE non-sequitur. Failure to unify two theories into your ‘imagined’ theory of quantum gravity is NOT a disagreement with experiment it is a disagreement with your false theoretical expectations. Moreover, the expectation of unification, i.e. a ‘theory of everything’ does not follow from math, in fact there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that cannot be ‘unified’ with one another (G. Chaitin), but the expectation for a ‘theory of everything’ is instead an expectation that is born solely out of Theistic presuppositions:

    “So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
    Professor of philosophy Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-others/

    And indeed, when the Agent causality of God is let back into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Planck to name a few, then an empirically backed reconciliation between quantum theory and gravity is found in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Namely, the Shroud of Turin gives evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    http://www.academicjournals.or.....onacci.pdf

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Also see:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk

    Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY

  60. 60
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed.

    You are kidding right?

  61. 61
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist at#49:

    If that’s all that is required, then those limitations are not required either. As such, it’s unclear why we should assume those limitations as the basis of making predictions.

    You seem not to understand. We don’t assume the limitations, least of all to make predictions.

    As I said, all that is required for a designer to be able to design is:

    “that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.”

    So, the steps are as follows:

    a) We infer design by the observation of complex functional information in the object.

    b) At that point, we assume a designer, that is a conscious, intelligent, purposeful being capable of inputting information into objects, as the origin of the observed complex functional information.

    At this point, that’s all that we know of the designer.

    You say that it is abstract: that’s not true. Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features.

    Has this assumed designer limitations? We simply don’t know a priori.

    You seem to believe that it should not have them, that it should be an omnipresent god. But that is only your personal imagination. Nothing of that is in ID theory.

    So, we know nothing of the designer except for what we have alredy said. But we can try to infer new information about it from the only legitimate scientific source: facts, the observable design.

    So, all the limitations that I have listed are reasonable inferences from the observation of biological designed objects. They are not assumptions, and they are not used to make predictions.

    The basic assumptions about the designer, instead, can be the basis for predictions. For example, given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input.

    That’s exactly what I have tried to do with my OPs about functional information jumps in natural history. For example, in the transition to vertebrates.

    These are facts, observable by everyone. They are not in any way predicted by neo-darwinism. They are absolutely predicted by ID. And they are real, abundant, undeniable.

    Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, I would again point out the mere negation of a theory does not result in creation of a new explanatory theory.

    It is true.

    And you don’t understand. This is not simply the negation of a theory. ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result.

    Neo-darwinism is the only existing theory which affirms that a special form of complex functional information arises through a non design mechanism. So, it is obviously part of ID theory to falsify this statement, which, if true, would falsify ID.

    But ID is a positive and empirical theory about complex functional information in any context, and not only the confutation of neo darwinism. Therefore, your objection is completely wrong.

    And, since ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such as what it knew, when it knew it, etc. at best, one could merely say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Which would equally as well refer to wanting to create organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once.

    What you say is really senseless.

    Remember, we infer a designer from what we observe in material objects. Why should we make free assumptions about the designer?

    Why should we assume that it knows such or such, or that it prefers to design things from simple to complex, or vice versa?

    What kind of science is this?

    The only thing we can do, as scientists, is ask ourselves: what does the observation of facts, of designed objects in biology, tell us about the designer? Which is exactly what I have done.

    As I have already said, it’s not the designer that has or does not have, limitations. It’s our knowledge of the designer which has severe limitations. We can say: the designer is an omnipotent being, and has no limitations. Or we can say: the designer has a lot of limitations, and they are such and such.

    Both statements would be mere imagination, and would be completely gratuitous.

    The simple fact is: both a designer without any limitation and a designer with limitations can design. Because all that is required to be able to design is what I have already said.

    But you will say: they will probably design in different ways. That is probably true. That’s why I say: let’s look at the design. That will tell us something.

    And the design tells us something: it tells us that the biological designer has probably specific limitation, for example those that I have listed. That it works under constraints.

    It’s as simple as that.

    I walked to and from my technology client’s office yesterday. It’s a 30 minute walk. Following your logic, “I seem to need to walk to reach my current on-site project”, but that would be false. My car works just fine. The weather was nice and I chose to walk because I missed working out earlier over the weekend. Even if I walked every day for the entire length of my contract, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have other options. This simply doesn’t follow from observation.

    OK, but if all that we can observe about you is your walk, all that we can scientifically infer is that you can walk. And that you have probably chosen to walk, in the circumstances we have observed.

    Which is exactly what I say about the desinger.

    We cannot certainly infer that you have a car, and all the rest, because we can only infer from what we observe.

    You know, maybe the designer is omnipotent, maybe not, but one thing is certain: we are not omniscient.

    Science can only infer from what we can observe. Nothing else.

    Again, your “arguments” are probably bad philosophy, but certainly they are not scientific arguments.

    ?It’s supposed designs would include methods of error correction,

    Biological design certainly does.

    which would include the knowledge of what transformations of matter would result in reverting the changes.

    Yes.

    Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing now. This includes correcting the very errors in question. We cannot now, nor can our own cells, because the necessary knowledge is not present there. However, assuming we create the necessary knowledge in time, will eventually be able to correct those errors, where nature could not.

    OK, and so? We can certainly cure some diseases that designed nature cannot spontaneously cure. And vice versa. And so?

    Again, it’s a question of knowing how. Our explanation for why those variations go uncorrected is because the knowledge of how to correct them doesn’t exist. It hasn’t been created yet. It’s a necessary consequence of the theory.

    And so?

    But ID’s designer has no such limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc.

    Why? This is only your imagination, nothing else. As I have said, we don’t know a priori what limitations the biological designer has or has not.

    Was there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.

    Why? It’s not a hard sell at all. From what we observe, it is reasonable that the biological designer had to act generating first simpler levels of function, and then higher complexity.

    That’s what we infer from what we observe.

    The reason could be that it acquired its knowledge gradually, by experimentation. Or that the knowledge was already there, but the implementation had serious limitations. Or both.

    I have no reasons at all to favour one intepretation over the others, unless and until facts will offer some definite clue. That’s how science works.

    I’m not following you. Are you saying that ID, the theory, always assumes those limitations are actually present in its designer.

    No. As explained, the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts.

    And therefore it always assumes they are present when making predictions?

    No. Predictions are made from the basic assumtpions I have listed, and from nothing else.

    Otherwise, ID is also compatible with not having those limitations and is, therefore, also compatible with the order of appearance of most complex to least complex or even all at once, which is my point. That order is not a necessary consequence of the theory. At best, “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”

    No. Design is certainly compatible with different styles of design, although it is a fact that it usually goes from simpler designs to more complex designs.

    The order we observe in biology is simply the order we usually observe in most cases of design. Therefore, it is an order which is perfectly compatible with design. It is not a consequence of the theory, but it is simply an observed fact which is absolutely compatible with it.

    Why have you this strange idea that a theory should predict every single thing as a consequence of the theory itself? That’s not true. Most observed facts are compatible with some theory, or with more than one, but they are not specifically predicted exclusively by that theory.

    I have already explained what are the specific predictions that ID can do, and from what they are derived.

    Of course, the order from simpler to more complex is perfectly compatible with both ID and neo darwinism. But it is not the exclusive prediction of one or the other.

    Other things, that are predicted differently by the two theories, can serve to make the difference.

    For example, information jumps.

    However, ID’s designer is abstract. It doesn’t have budgets, shareholders, the need for engineering staff, R&D departments, dry runs, crash safety tests, etc.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Again, how do you know all those things? I certainly don’t have such precise informations.

    Even human software developers can update their software when new versions of the OS they run on is released. .

    OK. And new species appearing in the course of natural history do appear to be wonderful updates. What’s your point?

    Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing how.

    Maybe. Ans so? Anyway, just for completeness, you are forgetting that there can also be problems in the implementation procedure, which can require specific steps.

    That means that any order of appearance that isn’t probated by the laws of physics would be possible for IDs’ designer because it has no defined limits of what it knew, when it knew it, etc.

    Or are you suggesting there ever a time ID’s designer did not possess that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.

    Again, why? It’s not a hard sell at all. It is a reasonable possibility. Not the only one, but certainly a reasonable one. I don’t see anything in ID theory that requires that the biological designer is, and has always been, omniscient.

    See above. Things are cheap now were very expensive in the past. What changed? We created the knowledge to achieve them cheaply, more efficiently and even via simpler methods. That argument only follow if you assume we will not or cannot create significantly new knowledge, so that would always continue to be the case.

    The fact remains that at any moment a designer will probably prefer to do things in the cheapest and simplest way.

    And it is not a problem of knowledge only. It is also a problem of resources.

    Things that were cheaper yesterday can become more expensive today, not because our knowledge has become less, but because some resource has become exhausted.

    And again, there is no problem in thinking that new knowledge has been created in the course of biological design. None at all.

    More in next post.

  62. 62
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist at#49:

    What’s strange and silly about it? Take construction, for example. We’re already started 3D printing homes, which takes significantly less time to construct reduces costs and means you could print a different home every time because the layout of the walls is determined by the programmable motion of the concrete printer. Want a house with walls in the shape of a circle? How about in the shape of a triangle or in the shape of your initials, etc.? And that’s just what we can do today. The creation of new knowledge we cannot yet conceive of will impact how we designed things in ways we cannot predict. And you argument that designers must have those libations will no longer be applicable.

    The I-4 project in central Flordia will take 2.3 billion dollars at over 5 years to complete. That results in traffic delays and other costs above and the actual construction itself. However, with the right knowledge, construction time could be reduced to months, while doing so even more cheaply and efficiently with less waste, pollution, etc. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving it is knowing how.

    And when that knowledge is created, it will be reflected in the things we design. The most significant quantity in what transformations are possible is knowledge, or the lack of it.

    No problems with that. But again, knowledge is not the only factor. There are problems of resources, of available procedures, and maybe even of strategies.

    However, I maintain that, at any definite moment and in any definite scenario, a designer will usually implement the simplest and cheapest solution.

    Knowledge will allow us to do exponentially more with significantly less. It will come down to a few more CPU cycles to create something new and unique, as opposed to building it out of the same exact parts, because the most efficient means of manufacturing will via programmable constructors. Why buy 10-20 specialized systems when you can buy one that can play all of same roles? Why wait to retool your assembly line, and loose sales to competitors? Why keep inventory when you can simply use multiple programmable systems to manufacture a vast number of products on demand? We’ve already started doing this with books, now think 3D printing on steroids with cars, furniture, and then there is clothing! You’ll never have to wear the same thing twice. Instead of putting your clothes in a washing machine, you’ll put in in a device that will break the garment broken down into raw materials and turned it into something new while being “cleaned” at the same time. Rather than being reformed in the original design, switch it out with something slightly or even entirely different. And that process can probably be refined enough that, eventually, it will take less energy than what it takes to wash the same clothes we wear today. If you need to move some furniture tomorrow, your garage will recycle the matter of your coupe into a SUV over night. But then why do you need to move furniture when you can simply “print” a copy of it at your new location?

    Well, nothing new here. See above.

    Again, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving this is knowing how. Did ID’s designer not possess this knowledge or did it simply choose to to not use it because “That’s just what it must have wanted” to do? I don’t see any third option options.

    There are many possible explanations:

    a) The designer did not possess that knowledge. As I have repeatedly said. there is no problem with that idea. Have you problems with it?

    b) It is not so much a question of knowledge, but of resources. IOWs, the designer, whatever his knowledge, acts under serious constraints.

    c) There are reasons in the gradual expression of biological design that can be linked to specific purposes. As an artist may want to build up his work gradually, so that the finale is particularly complex and beautiful, so could the biological designer have artistic, or any other kind of specific purposes. We don’t know exactly, but we can try to understand. Always starting from facts.

    And there are probably other possible explanations. I have only expressed those that seem the most reasonable to me.

    And talk about grandeur, why do we have 300,000 species of beetles?

    Why did Shakespeare write 154 sonnets? Why not 3, or 3000?

    I don’t know. We should maybe ask him. Or try to make hypotheses from the little we know.

    Why 300,000 species of beetles? See above.

  63. 63
    Dionisio says:

    Interesting discussion.

    02 KF to SV
    06 BA77
    13 BA77
    24 GP to CR
    25 GP to SV
    26 BA77
    28 BA77
    34 BA77
    35 ES
    37 GP to CR
    40 BA77
    43 BA77
    47 BA77
    48 GP to CR
    53 BA77
    55 BA77
    58 ES to CR
    59 BA77
    61 GP to CR
    62 GP to CR

  64. 64
    Dionisio says:

    @61:

    “Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features.”

    “…given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input.”

    “ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result.”

    “…it’s not the designer that has or does not have, limitations. It’s our knowledge of the designer which has severe limitations.”

  65. 65
    Dionisio says:

    @61:

    “…maybe the designer is omnipotent, maybe not, but one thing is certain: we are not omniscient.

    Science can only infer from what we can observe. Nothing else.”

    “…the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts.”

  66. 66
    Dionisio says:

    @62:

    “As an artist may want to build up his work gradually, so that the finale is particularly complex and beautiful, so could the biological designer have artistic, or any other kind of specific purposes.”

    “We don’t know exactly, but we can try to understand. Always starting from facts.”

    “And there are probably other possible explanations.”

    “Why did Shakespeare write 154 sonnets? Why not 3, or 3000? ”

    “I don’t know. We should maybe ask him. Or try to make hypotheses from the little we know.”

  67. 67
    Dionisio says:

    KF @46:

    the evidence of deeply isolated islands of function in biological systems starts with protein fold domains in AA sequence space, leading to an insuperable information creation challenge for the range of augmented Darwinist mechanisms.

    Likewise, the top-down phyla etc. first nature of the fossil record directly implies core body plan programming first, which is precisely the part where random changes in embryological development are overwhelmingly likely to be fatal.

    Adaptation of body plans as part of robustness of design is what is indicated, and given peculiarities of taxonomy that can readily go up to families.

  68. 68
    Dionisio says:

    @37:

    “The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or madalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consnious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.”

  69. 69
    Dionisio says:

    Eugene S @35:

    “God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires. True, He is not arbitrary with His creation but wants to teach us something.”

  70. 70
  71. 71
    Dionisio says:

    GP @24:

    I have made, many times, a challenge that nobody has even tried to answer.

    Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions?

    1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

  72. 72
    Dionisio says:

    KF @7:

    “When atheists have faith/ideological commitments they dress them up in lab coats.”

  73. 73
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio @61:

    “…the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts.”

    Are those assumptions based on/associated with/related to some kind of empirical evidences?

  74. 74
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed.

    What’s the point of knowing that light being reflected, refracted and dispersed by water droplets causes rainbows? Solving one mystery leads to knowledge that can be used to solve more practical mysteries.

    More relevant: You long believe something to have occurred by chance. You then apply a test and you find, whoa, it’s designed. Don’t you think that can be a life changing experience overturning your entire world view? Don’t you think that can be kind of significant?

  75. 75
    Dionisio says:

    Eugene S @35:

    “God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires.”

    This very wise observation by Dr. Eugene S. reminds me of a real situation that took place in my work. The director of software development, who was the mind behind the successful product that my employer provided to many engineering organizations, was also the project leader for the given product. When his subordinate software developers came to his office to present the results of their work on their task assignments, the boss reviewed requirements, detected and pointed at problems, requested corrections, approved changes, discussed problems, suggested solutions. At least on one occasion, when a new GUI was presented, the boss requested changing the dialog box layout. When someone curiously inquired why, the boss calmly responded “I like it that way”. That’s it. There was no functional difference, it was just a matter of personal preference. Since he was the one running the show and calling the shots, he had the last saying on the issues related to the product that was his “baby” since he imagined it long before it was described to the rest of us.
    This brings up the points of sovereignty and free will.
    We could not ask him to design it differently, unless there was a valid reason, but since he knew much more about the whole engineering design process than the rest of us did, we couldn’t argue on the basis of our ignorance. He could say there’s a valid reason for doing things as per his request, but we couldn’t understand it because we lacked the knowledge or expertise required to understand.
    And this was the case of a human designer, with all his inherent imperfections.
    Therefore, when he said that he wanted something done certain way, that was the rule.
    We have free will, but it’s limited. God’s will is sovereign.
    It’s interesting to see that in a mostly scientific discussion, many times the atheists are the ones who bring up God into the discussion first. Why?
    Lack of solid scientific arguments? What else?

  76. 76
    critical rationalist says:

    @BA77

    To use an analogy, imagine if while driving, you have two maps. One map only works while driving forward and the other map only works while driving in reverse. By nature of supposedly being a map, it shouldn’t matter what direction you’re driving.

    Regardless of the fact that the forwards map has never been observed to be wrong when navigation forwards and the reverse map has never been observed to be wrong when navigation in reverse, the observation that you must switch maps indicates both maps are false because they contradict each other. You just haven’t figured out they are false yet. They are approximations.

    In the above analogy, Quantum mechanics is the forwards map and General Relativity is the reverse map. The observation that we must switch between them tells us they are false.

  77. 77
    critical rationalist says:

    @Tribune7

    CR: [if “having been designed” has no necessary consequences because the designer is abstract] then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed.

    T: You are kidding right?

    No, I’m not.

  78. 78
    ET says:

    Well CR, if you are not kidding then you are willfully ignorant. Saying something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. And for another it points to a purpose.

    That is just for a start

  79. 79
    Dionisio says:

    tribune7 @74,

    Valid points. Thanks.

    However, don’t expect your interlocutor to understand what you wrote. Understanding requires the will to do it. In this case it looks as though your interlocutor lacks it. But that might be my wrong perception.

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    CR, given your embarrassingly false claim that both QM and GR “completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests”, and your pathetic attempt to backpedal from that embarrassingly false claim, I think you would do very well to learn in silence for a while. Perhaps a decade or two. Or better yet, perhaps you should take up some harmless activity that is not associated with science in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. Science is definitely not your cup of tea. Perhaps underwater basket weaving would be more your speed:

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z6tf5l_6zJw/maxresdefault.jpg

  81. 81
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET

    Well CR, if you are not kidding then you are willfully ignorant. Saying something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. And for another it points to a purpose.

    “An intelligent process” is extremely vague. How does it work? If ID’s designer is abstract, in that it presents no explanation as to how it actually archives it’s goal then it’s unclear how you can say other causes do not operate on a similar principle, which would result in the appearance of design.

    Furthermore, exactly what purpose? How can you tell that that purpose is? And what significance does would any such purpose have? Being abstract, it’s unclear why should I care about any purpose, if you could determine it.

    Terrorists build bombs for the purpose of killing thousands of people. Does that mean that people are somehow obligated to be killed by them?

    Having some inexplicable purpose that we cannot comprehend doesn’t seem to be very helpful, in practice.

  82. 82
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    purpose of killing thousands of people.

    Thousands of people are killed. Is it significant to determine if it was by design or by some other means?

  83. 83
    gpuccio says:

    critical rationalist:

    You said, at #56:

    Given that ID’s supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. What necessary predictions can be made based on that conclusion, such as the order of appearance of organisms?

    And, at #77, you answered tribune7’s rightful puzzlement reiterating that you are serious in saying that!

    Well, your statement is definitely amazing in its arrogance and lack of sense.

    Let’s see.

    First of all, I want to clarify explicitly what it mean to say that something is designed.

    I will quote here my definition, taken from my old OP, “Defining design”.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/defining-design/

    “Design is a process where a conscious agent subjectively represents in his own consciousness some form and then purposefully outputs that form, more or less efficiently, to some material object.

    We call the process “design”. We call the conscious agent who subjectively represents the initial form “designer”. We call the material object, after the process has taken place, “designed object”.”

    OK, that should be clear enough. According to that definition, any specific form or configuration of a material object is either designed or not designed. There can be no ambiguity, if we know how it originated.

    Now, let’s assume for a moment that biological objects are designed. It is possible, after all, otherwise we would not be here discussing if it is true.

    We know, or at least you should know, because I have tried to explain it to you in all possible ways, that ID infers, by the presence of complex functional information, that some object is designed. IOWs that it originated from a design process.

    You go on with your wrong statement that ID says nothing about the designer. That is completely false. Of course, ID says that the designer is a designer, IOWs that it has the essential properties that allow a design process.

    Therefore, as I have said to you many times, ID is saying something very specific about the designer:

    1) That he is a conscious agent (capable of subjective experiences)

    2) That he is intelligent (capable of the subjective experience of understanding meaning)

    3) That he is purposeful (capable of the subjective experience of feeling desires)

    4) That he is capable of inputting information into objects, by some interface between his consciousness and biological matter

    And you say that this is nothing?

    However, let’s go back to our mental experiment.

    So, we are assuming that biological objects are designed, Which is certainly possible.

    Now, we infer, by the presence in them of complex functional information, that they are designed.

    Which, if our assumption is true, is certainly true.

    And we can say of the designer only what I have already listed, and nothing more. So, while we can certainly make predictions from those basic assumptions, we cannot make predictions from other features of the designer, because we simply don’t know them. And we don’t like to just imagine things, like neo-darwinists do all the time.

    Now, my simple point is:

    In this hypothetical scenario, you, with your “brilliant” and self-assured reasoning, would still maintain that having inferred the truth about the origin of biological objects “has no clear significance”!

    IOWs you are saying that scientifically inferring the truth about some fundamental aspect of observable reality has no clear significance!

    That’s simple folly. Your way of thinking is arrogant, wrong, and obstinately biased.

    Of course inferring the truth about something is always a major step towards a correct scientific knowledge. There can be no exceptions to that.

    When we understand what is true, we are on the right way to get further correct understanding. It is not important if we can, at present, use that truth to make further detailed predictions, or if we will have to wait, get more facts, or to reason further and better, to do that.

    Truth is truth. If we believe something that is not true, we will only find obstacles in our search for further truth.

    So, the point of inferring if biological objects are designed or not is extremely important, as everybody in the world, except maybe you, seems to understand.

    Because the definition of design is very clear, and has no ambiguities. Therefore, some object is either designed or not designed.

    That’s why we are here, discussing passionately with our friends from the other side. Because it is important. Both us and them know that all to well.

    Except you, it seems. You have the courage to state boldly that it is not important, that it has no significance.

    Of course tribune7 is puzzled! Puzzled is an understatement.

    And what is your justification to state that knowing the truth has no significance?

    That we “cannot make predictions about the order of appearance of organisms”?

    Yes, to say that I am puzzled is really a vast understatement..

  84. 84
    ET says:

    critical:

    “An intelligent process” is extremely vague.

    True but that is the nature of the investigation. We may never know exactly how the design was implemented.

    How does it work?

    We can use our engineering practices as a staring point if it helps.

    If ID’s designer is abstract, in that it presents no explanation as to how it actually archives it’s goal then it’s unclear how you can say other causes do not operate on a similar principle, which would result in the appearance of design.

    If someone can demonstrate such a thing then the design inference is falsified. That is how it works. If nature, operating freely, could produce Stonehenges (for example) we wouldn’t be able to say that the one west of Amesbury (England) was intentionally designed. We would need more evidence than just the structure.

    Furthermore, exactly what purpose?

    That’s for us to figure out. And we can’t do that unless we start looking.

    And what significance does would any such purpose have?

    It could have all of the significance in the universe.

    Having some inexplicable purpose that we cannot comprehend doesn’t seem to be very helpful, in practice.

    Your straw men aren’t very helpful.

    Would it be significant that living organisms did have a software of sorts that runs how cells and organisms operate? I think it would be

    Knowing there is a purpose to our existence should unite us so we can figure it out. That would be very significant.

  85. 85
    gpuccio says:

    tribune7 at #74:

    Thank you for anticipating my point. And with greater simplicity and less words, I believe! 🙂

    That’s efficient design! 🙂

  86. 86
    tribune7 says:

    Thanks gp 🙂

  87. 87
    Dionisio says:

    tribune7,

    FYI (in case you’re not aware of this), anticipating GP’s point, with greater simplicity and less words, is quite an achievement, at least in the area of ID-related explanations.
    Please, without pressure, would you mind to share how you did it? Or at least give us a hint. 🙂
    In my case, the best I can do is read -at my slow pace- GP’s insightful OPs/commentaries and enjoy so much technical and conceptual learning on ID-related topics. In addition, I usually ask a couple of dumb questions that he graciously answers with as much detail as required for the explanations to be clear.
    BTW, after seeing that I noted your good comment @74 several posts earlier than GP did (79 vs. 85) I’m tempted to pat myself on the back, because perhaps that could count as an instance of anticipating GP’s point? 🙂
    Just noticed GP hasn’t responded my question @73. 🙂

  88. 88
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio @83:

    ID is saying something very specific about the designer:
    1) That he is a conscious agent (capable of subjective experiences)
    2) That he is intelligent (capable of the subjective experience of understanding meaning)
    3) That he is purposeful (capable of the subjective experience of feeling desires)
    4) That he is capable of inputting information into objects, by some interface between his consciousness and biological matter

  89. 89
    gpuccio says:

    Dionisio:

    Here I am! Anticipated (maybe my old age!) but not defeated! 🙂

    “Are those assumptions based on/associated with/related to some kind of empirical evidences?”

    Yes.

    The evidence comes from two different kinds of observations:

    1) Complex functional information is generated, in all cases where its origin is known, by conscious intelligent agents (humans), by a design process.

    No other examples of it exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except for biological objects, whose origin is the issue which is being debated.

    This association is universal, and we have countless examples of it. It firmly establishes the connection between complex functional information and design.

    2) If we go back to the definition of design, and if we observe ourselves (humans) in the process of design, we can objectively observe the following:

    a) Consciousness is necessary, of course, I would say by definition. Indeed, design is defined as the output of conscious representations into material objects.

    b) However, cosnciousness is not enough to generate complex design. To harness a great amount of information towards some specific function, and against all probabilistic barriers, intelligence is required.

    Now, intelligence is probably a difficult thing to define, but here I mean a very simple concept: the ability to have the subjective experience of meaning, to represent perceptions in intuitive terms like cause and effect, and in general all cognitive tools that transform simple perception into cognitive judgements.

    It’s intelligence, as here defined, which allows us to understand, and therefore to find solutions not by mere chance, but guided by that understanding. That allows us to overcome the probabilistic barriers, because we don’t have to rely on probability only, but also on our understanding.

    c) But that is still not enough. Generating functional information, harnessing understanding and information towards a function, also requires the intuitive experience of what a function is. Now, a function is simply a desired result, one that is chosen among many other possible ones. That desire is a feeling, and it’s only that feeling that can motivate the final action of design.

    d) Finally, it is self-evident that all those things would be useless and powerless if the designer could not access some interface that allows him to act on matter. Human designers use their body, their hands, their muscles, through their personal consciousness-brain interface. The biological designer needs, of course, some similar interface to act.

    I have suggested many times that the essential nature of the interface between the consciousness of the biological designer and biological matter could indeed be similar to the essence of the interface between our personal consciousness and our brain, and that it is likely to be found at quantum level.

    So, as you can see, all the “assumptions” that I have listed are in reality derived from the definition itself of design, and from what we can dIrectly observe of the design process, and of its connection with complex functional information in material objects.

  90. 90
    tribune7 says:

    Dionisio

    Simply start with an honest question :-}

  91. 91
    critical rationalist says:

    You seem not to understand. We don’t assume the limitations, least of all to make predictions.

    ?You’re not disagreeing with me. ID hasn’t refuted Darwinism because of this very fact. Without limitations, no other explanation can be had beyond “That’s just what the designer wanted”.

    As I said, all that is required for a designer to be able to design is:
    “that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.”

    It is? Lets attempt to take that seriously, for the purpose of criticism, by assuming it is true, in realty, and that all observations should conform to it.

    Does the medical community is consists of conscious intelligent beings? Yes. Are those beings capable of understanding and purpose? Does some subset of those beings intend to cure cancer? Yes. Do they have access to some interface to input functional information into matter? Yes.

    So, assuming that abstract definition of a designer, shouldn’t ID, as you just described it, predict we should already have that cure? If not why? IOW, it seems to me that there is some significant piece of the puzzle missing you would need to add, which isn’t included in your “requirements for a designer”.

    You say that it is abstract: that’s not true. Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features.

    Positive as opposed to what? Are you suggesting there are less positive sets of features one could assume and still end up with a designer having “designed” an object?

    How did the designer end up with the representations that get “input into matter”? If I found the cure for cancer (representation) somewhere on the Internet, then “input them into matter” at a lab somewhere, did I “design” the cure for cancer? Does it matter where I got it?

    Has this assumed designer limitations? We simply don’t know a priori.

    You seem to be confused. I said that, without limitations, it’s unclear how you can make useful predictions about much of anything. As such, it’s unclear how significant it is to claim something was designed by ID’s designer.

    For example, if we take that definition seriously, as if were true in reality, for the purpose of criticism, IDs designer could also just as well have “design” things that look undesigned. Furthermore, it could have “designed” the world we observe, 30 seconds ago, with the appearance of age, implanted false memories, etc. Both of those things are equally compatible with the designer you just described because it doesn’t have any moral character, limits on what it knows, when it knew it, etc.

    You seem to believe that it should not have them, that it should be an omnipresent god. But that is only your personal imagination. Nothing of that is in ID theory.

    ?Why would I argue that ID should not have something it already lacks? Specifically, if ID, the supposed scientific theory, doesn’t explicitly impose limitations then ID’s designer “does not have them”. That an observation about the theory, not a prescription.

    If ID is going to refute other theories, it needs necessary consequences that explain aspects of organisms in the biosphere equally well, in addition to explaining exceptions or problems with other theories. That would imply the opposite, that it should have limitations.

    So, we know nothing of the designer except for what we have alredy said. But we can try to infer new information about it from the only legitimate scientific source: facts, the observable design.

    So, all the limitations that I have listed are reasonable inferences from the observation of biological designed objects. They are not assumptions, and they are not used to make predictions.

    They are? Was it a reasonable inference to assume I had to walk to an from work, because someone experienced me doing so on Friday? No, it’s not. What if someone experienced me doing so every day for the length of my contract? No, that does’t follow either. Not using other options doesn’t mean I don’t have them at my disposal. You’d have to assume things about me than, supposedly we know nothing about ID’s designer. So, how do you know it had to do anything of the sort?

    The basic assumptions about the designer, instead, can be the basis for predictions. For example, given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input.

    I’m not following you. ID says we should predict that appearance of knowledge in objects that contain knowledge?

    That’s exactly what I have tried to do with my OPs about functional information jumps in natural history. For example, in the transition to vertebrates.

    There need not be a transition to vertebrates because all a designer supposedly needs is the properties you described above. And you don’t know enough about the designer to infer it lacked other options. At best, you can say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”.

    And you don’t understand. This is not simply the negation of a theory. ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result.

    It is? Then my challenge should be easy: explain the order of appearance of organisms from least complex to most complex.

    Why should we assume that it knows such or such, or that it prefers to design things from simple to complex, or vice versa?

    The question is, why should’t we? Without limitations ID has no necessary consequences by which to make predictions about any particular order. That’s my point. What you want is to have your cake and eat it too. That’s irrational.

    I have no reasons at all to favour one intepretation over the others, unless and until facts will offer some definite clue. That’s how science works.

    That’s why you have no reason at all to favor the outcome of least to most complex. You don’t know enough about the designer.

    Of course, the order from simpler to more complex is perfectly compatible with both ID and neo darwinism. But it is not the exclusive prediction of one or the other.

    It is the necessary prediction of Neo-darwnism because the knowledge of how to build the most complex organisms requires the pre-existance of the representations of less complex organisms. It literally didn’t exist before then. As such, more complex organisms could not be constructed before then. It’s

    On the other hand, nothing limits what ID’s designer knew, when it knew it, etc. This includes possessing both the representations of the least and most complex organisms in the biosphere. If you say we cannot know whether it did or did not then it’s unclear how you cannot know it merely didn’t choose that order because it “that’s just what it wanted”.

    The fact remains that at any moment a designer will probably prefer to do things in the cheapest and simplest way.

    Which is assuming the future (or distant past) will resemble the past, which is Inductivism. Or that science is supposedly to maximize credence theories, but I’ve posted criticism of this elsewhere.

    And it is not a problem of knowledge only. It is also a problem of resources.

    They are the same problem because the problems of resources are solvable via knowledge. Again, more energy strikes the surface of the earth than the entire population uses in a year. What prevents us from utilizing it is knowing how. And that’s just a drop in the bucket given what is available in the entire universe. Have you heard of a Dyson sphere?

  92. 92
    critical rationalist says:

    No problems with that. But again, knowledge is not the only factor. There are problems of resources, of available procedures, and maybe even of strategies.

    Procedures and strategies are not knowledge?

    However, I maintain that, at any definite moment and in any definite scenario, a designer will usually implement the simplest and cheapest solution.

    And I’m suggesting that trend will not continue because the means by which we design and manufacture things will make the difference between the simplest and cheapest and customization negligible or even indistinguishable from noise.

    There are many possible explanations:

    That’s my point. None of them are necessary, that would in turn imply necessary consequences for the order we observe.

    Which leads me back to my challenge:

    In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with anything better than [“that’s just what the designer must have wanted”] that would actually hold up, if we try to take it seriously, for the purpose of criticism.

    Still waiting…

  93. 93
    critical rationalist says:

    IOWs you are saying that scientifically inferring the truth about some fundamental aspect of observable reality has no clear significance!

    What would the “truth” that some inexplicable mind in some inexplicable realm designed an object via some inexplicable means and methods signify?

    Please be specific. My guess is that anything you might suggest requires assuming things about the designer that is utterly and completely absent it the supposedly scientific there of ID.

    Furthermore, some designer that “just was”, complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, that would result in just the right features, already present, doesn’t sere an explanatory purpose. This is because one could just as efficiently state that organisms “just appeared” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, that would result in just the right features, already present.

  94. 94
    critical rationalist says:

    1) Complex functional information is generated, in all cases where its origin is known, by conscious intelligent agents (humans), by a design process.

    No other examples of it exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except for biological objects, whose origin is the issue which is being debated.

    The problem with this is, no one has formulated a “principle of induction”, that actually works in a way that provide guidance, in practice. So, it’s unclear how why you should assume that experience will continue, but others will not.

    Example? Let’s focus on a relevant aspect of the above and try to “apply” induction to it.

    Conscious intelligent agents capable of the process of design have complex material nervous systems.

    No other examples of conscious intelligent designers exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except those with complex material nervous systems.

    How is that not an inductive inference in the sense you’re referring to?

    Our experience does not tell us to accept one, but not the other because, again, no one has formulated a “principle of induction” that provides guidance as to what specific aspect of our experience will continue and which will not.

    If no such principle exits, then how can it provide guidance, in practice? How does that work?

    Please be specific.

  95. 95
    ET says:

    Then my challenge should be easy: explain the order of appearance of organisms from least complex to most complex.

    1- Terraforming

    2- Terraforming & the order is illusory- a figment of your imagination

    3- Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. There isn’t any knowledge to build eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.

  96. 96
    critical rationalist says:

    Terraforming

    What is required to terraform a plant? The necessary knowledge of what transformations of matter that would result in a planet with life. It’s unclear why that has to happen in least to most complex if the designer knew how.

    the order is illusory- a figment of your imagination

    Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to my point that ID cannot explain any particular order over some other order, or appearing all at once. This is because ID’s designer is abstract and has no limitations of what it knew, when it knew it, etc.

    There isn’t any knowledge to build eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.

    There could be. But that’s not what neo-Darwinism suggests.

    Take the knowledge of what transformations of raw materials would result in a prokaryotes. There could be some knowledge of what transformations to perform to that knowledge that would result in the instructions to building eukaryotes from raw materials instead. That would represent transforming one instantiation of matter (the set of instructions to build prokaryotes) into another set of matter (the set of instructions to build eukaryotes).

    But that’s contrary to Neo-darwnisnm, which says that knowledge did not exist yet, either. Rater the knowledge of how to build eukaryotes when through a process of variation and criticisms, to create genuinely new knowledge did not exist previously.

    That’s what explains the order of least complex to most complex.

  97. 97
    ET says:

    It’s unclear why that has to happen in least to most complex if the designer knew how.

    So what? Terraforming answers your challenge.

    Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to my point that ID cannot explain any particular order over some other order, or appearing all at once.

    It really doesn’t have to explain any order. It explains the existence of living organisms. We infer terraforming was involved given the apparent order. We know that can change once we figure out what determines form, ie anatomy and physiology.

    There could be.

    There isn’t

    Take the knowledge of what transformations of raw materials would result in a prokaryotes.

    That knowledge doesn’t exist. There isn’t anything to find and nothing to stumble upon.

    There is Spiegelman’s Monster that still looms large, though. I bet those molecules have knowledge of that.

  98. 98
    critical rationalist says:

    So what? Terraforming answers your challenge.

    I have no idea how that answers my challenge.

    Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prohibit us, and an abstract designer, from achieving it, is knowing how.

    So, what about terraforming and the order of least and most complex all at once, violates the laws of physics?

    And, who’s to say that ID’s designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations.

    And, if you’re going to appeal to that, as part of the explanation of ID the theory, then when should I expect ID, the theory, to explicitly state that is the case? Again, that will be quite the tough sell, for reasons I don’t need to explain.

  99. 99
    ET says:

    I have no idea how that answers my challenge.

    It accounts for the organization of fossils from simple to more complex.

    So, what about terraforming and the order of least and most complex all at once, violates the laws of physics?

    The bacteria need to make the O2, duh.

    And, who’s to say that ID’s designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations.

    Everything in this universe is bound by physics. So your straw man means nothing. But I am sure that it gives you comfort.

  100. 100
    critical rationalist says:

    It accounts for the organization of fossils from simple to more complex.

    You’ve just repeated yourself. I asked how, not if.

    The bacteria need to make the O2, duh.

    In your example, bacteria would represent a specific example of knowledge of how to make O2. There are other ways to make O2. The designer doesn’t need to use it. So, we’re back to “That’s just what the designer must have wanted.”

    CR: Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prohibit us, and an abstract designer, from achieving it, is knowing how.

    CR: And, who’s to say that ID’s designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations.

    ET: Everything in this universe is bound by physics. So your straw man means nothing. But I am sure that it gives you comfort.

    Except ID doesn’t explicitly state the designer was “in this universe”. Furthermore, getting anyone to update ID to explicitly state its designer was in this universe will be an extremely hard cell. So, it’s not a necessary consequence of the theory itself.

    I don’t know how this is such a difficult concept in respect to scientific theories.

  101. 101
    ET says:

    OK terraforming expects to see simple organisms first to set the stage for the more complex organisms that come later. Bacteria not only make the O2 but they are also good filters, food sources and great for the soil.

    The design is in this universe so we infer the designer was also. That isn’t such a difficult concept to grasp.

Leave a Reply