Book-able view of ID as speculative science
topmind
belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
to test with the scientific process.
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
you; critique away...
-T-
Ken Shaw
To start with you have fallen into a common ID fallacy. Well designed
human objects are no more complex than necessary. Biological systems
are almost universally more complex than is necessary. Claiming that
the "intelligent designer" behind all life does not also follow the
KISS principle means you can't compare complex human creations to
biological systems in your working definition of ID which pretty much
ends the whole issue.
Ken
topmind
This is answered at the bottom of the link:
"The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
trial-and-error, etc."
Been there done that. You are not using the same definition of ID that
I am. Next...
>
> Ken
-T-
topmind
> definition of ID that
> I am. Next...
After thinking about it I realized that this was not very friendly of
me. I accidentally carried over my reply mode from the heated debates
on alt.atheism without warrant. Nobody chewed me out here (yet).
I apologize. -T-
ges...@boundvortex.com
life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s). >>
I agree that it's a reasonable hypothesis, and it was one held for many
thousands of years. However, this hypothesis has now been shown to be
unnecessary, because well-documented natural processes can explain the
complexity of life.
I personally have no problem with ID being taught in science class, as
long as the teacher can make it clear why the hypothesis is false. I
do not think the religious right would allow that to happen; they want
the "theory" to be presented as current, viable "theory". Given that
choice, I favor keeping ID out of the science classroom.
Navillus
Although I disagree with your premise, I think you make a very good
point here. The rigorous rules applied to ID by the scientific
community are somewhat hypocritical. I think it stems from the fact
that so many ID theorists are blatantly biased and attempting to cheat
science with pseudo-science. They also purposefully make bad arguments,
which they know are bad, just to trick an uninformed crowd. This pisses
scientists off. So they come back with the hot iron and see if the ID
theorist is ready to take a quantitative stance that is open to
rebuttal and peer review.
But really, even the term "pseudo-science" is questionable. Truly,
mathematics is the only solid science. Physics and chemistry come next,
but even they are "pseudo" at times. Any mathematician will tell you
exactly what he thinks of the relative scientific reliability of
biology (usually trying to brag, of course). Psychology probably rounds
out as the most pseudo of the sciences. Those guys have a really bad
grasp on cause and effect sometimes. Isolating variables is almost
impossible when you study the human brain.
Reading your article, you seem genuinely scientific in your approach
and intentions, even if it turns out to be wrong. This should be
applauded. I personally learn more about evolution BECAUSE of questions
raised by Intelligent Design than I ever did in school.
APOCALYPSE
If the ID itself was undesigned, then you are contradicting the
principle that living things need a designer.
If the ID was designed, then who designed the ID's designer and so on
until reductio ad absurdum.
If the ID is nonliving, then that contradicts a nonliving thing being
intelligent.
josephus
Actually the heart of your NON-definition is the untestablity. I know
you can't think of a test. I can't think of a test. A lot of people
cant think of a test. MAYBE there is NO TEST. ID fails on NO TEST.
Science requires REAL evidence and Any theory is tested by the evidence.
and ID HAS NO EVIDENCE.
NO TEST, NO EVIDENCE, ergo ID is not a theory.
josephus
Cubist
ruled out. Just because we have not encountered or thought of a good
test *yet* does not rule out the potential of testability." You are
wrong. ID, *as promulgated by the Discovery Institute and its paid
spokesthings*, cannot be tested because *there's* *nothing* *there*
*TO* *test*. The Disco Boys' ID can be boiled down to seven words:
"Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent *did* something."
If you think my summary is erroneous or incomplete, feel free to
explain what, *exactly*, Disco-type ID has to *say* about any of the
"some___"s in my summary.
What does ID have to say about the "somehow" by which acts of Design
are presumed to have occured?
What does ID have to say about the "somewhere" that acts of Design
are presumed to have occured in?
What does ID have to say about the "somewhen", the time-frame in
which acts of Design are presumed to have occured?
What does ID have to say about the "someone intelligent", other than
the bare assertion that It *is* intelligent?
What does ID have to say about the "something" that is presumed to
have implemented one or more presumed acts of Design?
ID, Disco Boys' style, is intrinsically incapable of being tested
because it's Too Bloody Vague. There's no *there* there, scientifically
speaking. Once the likes of Behe and Dembski get around to providing
testable hypotheses, *then* it will be time to think about how to test
ID. Until then? Fuggeddaboutit.
In short: ID isn't testable because ID's proponents haven't *made*
it testable. In truth, ID's proponents go out of their way to *avoid*
making it testable.
Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent Design
(ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of
complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow
humans who engineered and built them." This is wrong. There are cases
on record in which genetic algorithms have created complex machinery
which operates with spendid effeciency *and* whose functioning *is*
*not* *understood* *by* *any* *human* *being*. How, pray tell, does
*that* square with your "intelligent designers" [are the] "only fully
observed source of complex devices" assertion, hmm?
As well, you seem to be tryna slip in an unspoken assumption; to
wit, that "the only FULLY OBSERVED source" (emphasis added) is
synonymous with "the ONLY source, PERIOD". Do you seriously believe
that we humans are omniscient? If not, this assumption would seem to be
rather questionable, at the very least.
Ken Shaw
Nice try at the old handwave argument but that won't cut it here.
Quoting from your web site's "Working Definition of Intelligent
Design":
Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent
designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is
reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were
perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
My argument is not about the competency of the putative designer but
with the comparison you are trying to make in the first place.
Intentional complexity is not and can never be indicative of design by
an intelligence recognizable as such by men.
On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
increase in "complexity". This is both directly factually incorrect and
indicative that you mistakenly view evolution as a sort of progressive
enterprise. Even without a strong metric of biological complexity there
are various evolutionary paths that arguably involve an organism or
system becoming less complex, parasite evolution is the best example of
this fact. On the other issue evolution has no goal and therefore is
not making progress toward any goal.
Further you claim that there isn't a "consensus way to measure
complexity." That implies that one or more methods of measuring
biological complexity exist. If you believe one exists that is directlt
applicable to ID and specified complexity I invite you to present it in
detail. Otherwise the wording of that sentence needs to be changed to
be "There is no way to measure complexity in biological systems."
Ken
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133668236.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Unfortunately you end the page with the important material: the
definition of Intelligent Design. You don't actually define
Intelligent Design, instead you begin to hint at a possible argument
for it. Unfortunately that argument have very little, if any, power.
If life is a "complex machine", then we can observe complex machines
from non-human sources. Of course if life is not a complex machine,
then you have no point to begin with. The process of life making life
is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things. You also
leave out any suggestion for why "intelligent" is the key human
quality that the designers have to have. It is not at all clear that
intelligence is a requirement so you have to argue for this. Your
version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
actually takes you. Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
then they are meaningless.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
topmind
Can you please clarify this? It appears to be answered by item 9.
>
> On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
> complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
> increase in "complexity".
No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
instead of the usual process-based perspective.
> This is both directly factually incorrect and
> indicative that you mistakenly view evolution as a sort of progressive
> enterprise. Even without a strong metric of biological complexity there
> are various evolutionary paths that arguably involve an organism or
> system becoming less complex, parasite evolution is the best example of
> this fact. On the other issue evolution has no goal and therefore is
> not making progress toward any goal.
>
> Further you claim that there isn't a "consensus way to measure
> complexity." That implies that one or more methods of measuring
> biological complexity exist. If you believe one exists that is directlt
> applicable to ID and specified complexity I invite you to present it in
> detail. Otherwise the wording of that sentence needs to be changed to
> be "There is no way to measure complexity in biological systems."
The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
However, I have had this to say about it:
"I am not sure it would be easy to apply such to biological systems.
There may be somewhat random noise in the specimen that does not really
contribute to complexity. For example, if you add a little bit of
randomness to an image (dithering or "graininess"), most compression
systems will use up more space even though we don't "need" the
randomness. Such cannot distinguish between "useful" randomness and
non-useful. In biological systems cell A may deviate from cell B purely
out of randomness. Such may add to its complexity score even though it
may not be necessary for survival or reproduction benefits. Perhaps it
does, but the algorithm cannot tell either way."
>
> Ken
-T-
topmind
Navillus wrote:
> >One of the problems with the evolution-versus-ID debate is the definition of science. I have encountered very "tight" definitions of >science in various debates and fairly loose ones elsewhere. String Theory, worm-holes, reverse time-travel, and multiple universes of >the Anthropic Principle are current ideas that many consider "science", yet so far appear difficult to test. In being difficult to test, ID is >not alone.
>
> Although I disagree with your premise, I think you make a very good
> point here. The rigorous rules applied to ID by the scientific
> community are somewhat hypocritical. I think it stems from the fact
> that so many ID theorists are blatantly biased and attempting to cheat
> science with pseudo-science. They also purposefully make bad arguments,
> which they know are bad, just to trick an uninformed crowd. This pisses
> scientists off. So they come back with the hot iron and see if the ID
> theorist is ready to take a quantitative stance that is open to
> rebuttal and peer review.
I agree that the ID croud tends to be highly biased. However, bias does
not necessarily make an idea more or less "true". I had this to say
(among others):
"...bias by itself does not make an idea invalid or non-scientific. If
relativity were proposed by Adolph Hitler instead of Albert Einstein,
would that make it less scientific or less useful as a theory? If a
Darwin-influenced cult was formed with a stated goal of making sure
evolution was taught in classrooms, would the new existence of such
bias be a reason to label the theory of evolution "religion" and thus
remove it? Science should test ideas, not human motives....
All people are biased to some extent. Is it not possible that a
pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge for
trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his
adolescent church group? The definition of science should not depend on
such human motivations. Linking the definition of science to human
emotions and motivations is asking for trouble. It would turn science
into a soap opera. We don't know how to reverse engineer living
neurons, so measuring motivations is barely more than an art. Again,
science should focus on ideas, not what people are thinking."
>
> But really, even the term "pseudo-science" is questionable. Truly,
> mathematics is the only solid science.
I disagree. Math provides the model, science compares the model to
reality. Math can create models that have no match to reality. Science
is the process of comparing a model to reality to test the reliability
of the model. Something related to models and reality if you are
interested:
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm
(Perhaps I should give my working definition of "science" in the
article. Thanks for reminding me.)
> Physics and chemistry come next,
> but even they are "pseudo" at times. Any mathematician will tell you
> exactly what he thinks of the relative scientific reliability of
> biology (usually trying to brag, of course). Psychology probably rounds
> out as the most pseudo of the sciences. Those guys have a really bad
> grasp on cause and effect sometimes. Isolating variables is almost
> impossible when you study the human brain.
Agreed, but it is necessary that we still try. Decisions made off of
limited, difficult science is better than nothing.
>
> Reading your article, you seem genuinely scientific in your approach
> and intentions, even if it turns out to be wrong.
I fully agree that it may be wrong. But the "common question argument"
is still valid until ID is proven wrong with 100% certainty. (And, even
that may not rule it out since it can be addressed and falsified to
answer the common question.) In other words, being in the textbook and
being the best answer so far are not necessary the same thing.
> This should be
> applauded. I personally learn more about evolution BECAUSE of questions
> raised by Intelligent Design than I ever did in school.
Agreed. Debating people with opposing viewpoints is one of the very
best ways to learn more.
-T-
topmind
> <<Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex
> life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s). >>
>
> I agree that it's a reasonable hypothesis, and it was one held for many
> thousands of years. However, this hypothesis has now been shown to be
> unnecessary, because well-documented natural processes can explain the
> complexity of life.
My "common question argument" does not depend on ID being nearly as
strong as evolution.
>
> I personally have no problem with ID being taught in science class, as
> long as the teacher can make it clear why the hypothesis is false.
Its problem is not that it is "false", but rather that it is difficult
to test. Other than that, perhaps our viewpoint is not really that
different.
> I
> do not think the religious right would allow that to happen; they want
> the "theory" to be presented as current, viable "theory". Given that
> choice, I favor keeping ID out of the science classroom.
I cannot buy the slipperly-slope argument. Textbooks should not be the
place to prevent potential political mayham. It is almost like the
European belief that even talking about racism may trigger another
Hitler, and thus the stupid censorship rules over there.
The religious right has a right to their inch (no pun int.). If they
start to take a mile, THEN it is time to raise a big fuss.
Thus, address ID in the book, debunk it, and move on.
-T-
topmind
We, and perhaps even the creator, many never know the source of the
"original complexity". Perhaps the alleged creator found a way to go
back in time and create him/herself. Reverse time-travel has not been
ruled out. Someday we may learn how to tinker with time and/or create
our life (real or virtual). Refer to The Matrix movies or Star Trek....
Even if evolution can explain life, we don't have an explanation for
the laws of physics and the original matter that makes up our universe.
Good question, though. Maybe one that will never be fully answered.
-T-
topmind
My argument does NOT depend on ID obtaining the level of "theory". See
also item 3 in the article. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
[Q:] "3. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU [Anthropic Principle] and
String Theory are not considered "science" either by some because they
have yet to be tested. Thus, using them to suggest ID should be
included is misleading.
[A:] The definition of "science" appears to not yet have a consensus.
Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition. Even if
evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
science just to win the ID textbook battle.
If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
"scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
religion."
-T-
Deadrat
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1133668236.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As long as you take IDiocy seriously, believe me when I tell you that there's
not a handle you adopt that will "scare" me.
First of all, do yourself (and any arguments that you actually have) a favor by
organizing your web page in a coherent fashion. Your readers have to wade
through a bunch of unsupported statements and replies to objections to IDiocy
before they actually get to a definition of the theory. Your organization should
be
I. A definition of the theory.
II. Arguments marshaled to show that the theory is scientific
III. The current state of scientific research on the theory.
IV. Answers to critics.
You are somewhat at a disadvantage here because
I. You have no defined scientific theory
Here's your "working definition":
Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers:
our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to
suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made
by intelligent being(s).
What is ID? It's something based on an observation? This is not a definition.
The observation isn't even correct. What it essentially says is that we determine
design from complexity, but that's not true. We determine design because we
know the designers: we know that a Ford Taurus is designed, not because of
some complexity innate to the Taurus, but because there's a Ford logo on the
grill. We can go to Detroit, and in principle, talk to the design team.
There's no such logo on a living cell. It may be "reasonable to suspect or inquire"
about intelligent designers, but that's hardly part of a definition of IDiocy. After all,
at one point, the only objects we knew that traveled to the moon were unmanned.
We didn't decide that meant that men couldn't go to the moon. I don't know about
you, but I think it's reasonable that objects in motion tend to stop eventually. That's
my everyday experience, but I know that as reasonable as it seems, it's not true.
Objects in motion want to stay in motion.
You say that your definition, such as it is, "is based almost entirely on the observation
of sources of complexity." If that's true, you're not looking very hard. We know that
very simple nonlinear feedback processes that would hardly take an intelligent designer
can produce extremely complicated systems.
II. You don't have any arguments that show IDiocy to be a science.
I admit that this is a hard task when you don't have a clear definition of your theory.
You spend a lot of space countering negative arguments, but where is the positive
argument? The closest you come is that "an intelligent designer could have left clues
or puzzles in the DNA of animals." Really? Do you know how easy it is to come up
with "messages" in things after the fact? Just look at the arguments that Bacon wrote
what we attribute to Shakespeare.
III. You can't cite any current research in IDiocy.
That's because there isn't any. You ask what would happen if there were a "DNA
Pattern Study Institute." Wouldn't that make IDiocy a science? And if so, isn't it
still a science even if IDiots haven't setup a DNA PSI? (Oh, I do like the acronym!)
After all, you say, we don't grade for effort, do we? Well, actually, we grading here
for doing science. You ask whether science should focus on "evidence, not on effort
being spent to obtain evidence." But if no effort is being spent, there won't be evidence,
and the semester grade is an F.
IV. Your answers to critics takes up most of the space.
That should tell you something. I won't go through all of your answers, but here are a
few things to consider:
1. At one point you say
Some suggest that the newer math can also be tweaked to match about anything new observed.
Our ability to throw equations at the problem has perhaps exceeded our ability to test them.
The eleven or so dimensions of String Theory (ST) are suspicious in this regard.
Nobody suggests that about the "newer" math, and I'm gonna guess your own math chops
aren't up to the task of finding out.
(An aside about your language. You use it carelessly. The dimensions of string theory
aren't suspicious. *You* are suspicious. You mean the dimensionality of string theory
is suspect. I'll complain about only one more sentence:
Regarding not being "testable", such cannot be summarily ruled out.
What kind of talk is that?)
(As long as I'm on an aside what's up with this?
Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge
for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent
church group?
That's just creepy.)
2. "There is no consensus way to measure complexity." (Forgive me. But "consensus way"
is redundant) There are several recognized ways to measure complexity. What excuse could
there be for not using one or developing another?
3. "I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong
evidence.
Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for
tough-to-find
evidence is still part of science."
But IDiots aren't searching for evidence at all. And the way science works is that the better
explanations replace the poorer. IDiocy must explain everything that evolution explains and
more.
Since evolution has so much evidence for it, IDiocy needs strong evidence. Your comments about
math are interesting here. Math may not be a prerequisite, but as long as evolution has the
statistics of
population genetics behind it, IDiocy better be prepared to sling a little math.
4. You miss the point about the objections to the religious motivations of IDiots. It's not
their motivation that's a problem. It's their insertion of religion as dogma into public school
classrooms.
Or haven't you been following the Dover trial? No one objects to teaching about religion in
schools.
The importance of religion our society and history should not be downplayed. But it is illegal
to teach
a particular religion as the truth. And I doubt there are many biology teachers who couldn't
handle
questions about ID simply and accurately with, "We teach science in science class and that's it.
We no more teach ID in biology than we do astrology in astronomy class or numerology in algebra.
Your beliefs are your own and you will be tested on your understanding of science and not your
personal allegiance to it"
In short, your web page needs a little work.
Deadrat
> -T-
>
topmind
See item 3 in the article. Regarding the alleged ill-behavior and bias
of many ID proponents, I addressed that already. I reject the idea
that human bias should change the classification of an idea itself.
>
> Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent Design
> (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of
> complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow
> humans who engineered and built them." This is wrong. There are cases
> on record in which genetic algorithms have created complex machinery
> which operates with spendid effeciency *and* whose functioning *is*
> *not* *understood* *by* *any* *human* *being*. How, pray tell, does
> *that* square with your "intelligent designers" [are the] "only fully
> observed source of complex devices" assertion, hmm?
Those simulations tend to "prime the pump" with help from the designers
(computer programmers). Neural Nets can also do nifty things in the lab
that are often hard to analyze and understand. However, a lab
simulations is still a simulation. Evolution did not have the helping
hand of lab expert or a programmer to provide a clean framework. If it
did, then it would be ID (or a hybrid). Thus, it has still not been
directly observed "in the wild" on a large scale. Don't get me wrong,
the simulations are helpful evidence, but still not the slam-dunk of
full observability and repeatability that science ultimately seeks.
> As well, you seem to be tryna slip in an unspoken assumption; to
> wit, that "the only FULLY OBSERVED source" (emphasis added) is
> synonymous with "the ONLY source, PERIOD". Do you seriously believe
> that we humans are omniscient? If not, this assumption would seem to be
> rather questionable, at the very least.
I am not sure what you mean here. Please clarify.
-T-
Deadrat
Your ideas about Constitutional law are no better than your ideas
about science. The religious right has no right to a millimeter of
religious dogma in public school classes. If they start to take a mile,
THEN it is too late to raise a big fuss.
Deadrat
Mark VandeWettering
It's not promising that it includes this rather vacuous justification:
Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the
only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least
inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
intelligent being(s).
This is really just begging the question. While a painting might reasonably
imply a painter, it's hard to justify the claim that rain implies a "rainer",
or that gravity implies a "gravitator".
That you follow up your definition with this:
The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came
back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers,
etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific
intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not
have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have
limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
If, indeed, ID can't distinguish between these rather disparate possibilities,
doesn't it seem that its predictive power isn't just weak, but is in fact
non-existant?
I'm also interested in why you think you needed this disclaimer:
This version is based almost entirely on the observation of
sources of complexity, not religion.
Why is it based even in part on religion?
Addressing your rebuttal to 10 criticisms of ID:
1. You didn't actually argue that ID is not malleable. You instead merely
tried to divert by talking about something different.
2. You are arguing for more than science teachers ability to answer questions
regarding intelligent design. I doubt the fraction of individuals who
think that a science teacher shouldn't answer questions about intelligent
design from students is very significant.
3. Given that I haven't been able to find a single instance of string theory
or multi-universes in public school science standards, perhaps using it
as examples _is_ disingenous.
4. Science grades on results. It isn't the time that scientists spend which
counts, it is the results that counts. ID simply doesn't have any.
5. Ignoring bias is inherently against the scientific method. Science works
to eliminate bias, it doesn't accept it. We eliminate the bias of
scientists by using tools like falsification.
6. Math is useful as a tool to formulate models and provide for potential
falsification. ID simply doesn't present anything resembling a model.
7. Our bias toward intelligent sources is long, and in the case of most
natural phenomena, _has proven to be wrong_. Weather isn't the work of
the gods. Diseases aren't caused by demons.
8. Complexity isn't a problem for anyone, because it isn't defined in any
meaningful sense.
9. SETI works by concluding intelligent design from signals which are very
SIMPLE, not very complex.
10. ID isn't speculative. It's simply hubris: imagining our ignorance of
the universe must be significant.
Mark
> -T-
Deadrat
>
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
> > You still have no way of going around the logical contradiction of ID:
> >
> > If the ID itself was undesigned, then you are contradicting the
> > principle that living things need a designer.
> >
> > If the ID was designed, then who designed the ID's designer and so on
> > until reductio ad absurdum.
> >
> > If the ID is nonliving, then that contradicts a nonliving thing being
> > intelligent.
>
>
> We, and perhaps even the creator, many never know the source of the
> "original complexity". Perhaps the alleged creator found a way to go
> back in time and create him/herself. Reverse time-travel has not been
> ruled out. Someday we may learn how to tinker with time and/or create
> our life (real or virtual). Refer to The Matrix movies or Star Trek....
I'm only gonna say this once. The Matrix and Star Trek are fiction.
>
> Even if evolution can explain life, we don't have an explanation for
> the laws of physics and the original matter that makes up our universe.
>
Good thing we don't teach anything about that in biology class, eh?
Deadrat
ges...@boundvortex.com
to test. >>
ID, as yet, makes no predictions, so that makes it impossible, not
merely difficult, to test. <g>
Plus, given that we have discovered the processes which DO create life,
it seems to follow that aliens didn't do it. In that sense, ID is
falsified.
<<European belief that even talking about racism>>
Almost no one objects to ID being taught in school, they just object to
it being taught in science class. No censorship there.
<<If they start to take a mile, THEN it is time to raise a big
fuss...Thus, address ID in the book, debunk it, and move on >>
Too late, by then. Public opinion is more like an axe than a scalpel;
fine tuning is simply beyond its ability.
Deadrat
Could you please present some evidence for this statement?
> Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition. Even if
> evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
> the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
> burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
> science just to win the ID textbook battle.
I don't think the definition of science has changed appreciably in a while.
No one's tightening the entry criteria to exclude IDiocy.
>
> If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
> have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
> "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
> an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
> not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
> should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
> religion."
If it's "yet to be tested," then it's not an accepted explanation. If it's
not testable, then it's not science. What test for IDiocy do you have
in mind?
Deadrat
>
> -T-
>
topmind
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2005 19:50:37 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
> <top...@technologist.com> in
> <1133668236.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> >belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> >participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> >alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> >science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> >should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> >biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> >The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> >to test with the scientific process.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> >
> >Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> >you; critique away...
>
> Unfortunately you end the page with the important material: the
> definition of Intelligent Design. You don't actually define
> Intelligent Design, instead you begin to hint at a possible argument
> for it. Unfortunately that argument have very little, if any, power.
I agree it is a "weak" idea, but still a valid idea just like MU, ST,
etc. (If you don't know what these abbreviations are, you didn't read
it all.)
> If life is a "complex machine", then we can observe complex machines
> from non-human sources. Of course if life is not a complex machine,
> then you have no point to begin with.
This is an endless Laynes Law definition issue.
> The process of life making life
> is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things.
Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
(over time). Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
came from anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
> You also
> leave out any suggestion for why "intelligent" is the key human
> quality that the designers have to have.
I did not say "have to". It is hypothesis, not an absolute statement.
Again, it is based on an observation about human technology.
> It is not at all clear that
> intelligence is a requirement so you have to argue for this.
Again, I don't kwow where you got "requirement" from.
> Your
> version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
> source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
> created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
> actually takes you.
I am not following you here. I agree it is an analogous leap
(extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
waste of both your time and mine.
> Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
> if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
> to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
> work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
> were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
> then they are meaningless.
This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
throughout.
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
-T-
Denis Loubet
How do you avoid infinite regress? If complex things HAVE to be
intelligently designed, then you have to have an infinite regress of
designers.
The time required for an infinite number of designers to do their work is
far greater than the age of the universe, thus ID is falsified.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Deadrat
I think you're missing the point here. Simulations and the operations of
genetic algorithms aren't intended to be "slam-dunk" evidence for "repeatability."
They fully counter the argument that local, random changes pruned by a selective
environment cannot obtain particular states that look like goals.
Deadrat
Deadrat
Of course not. IDiots are making the counterclaim, that human beings
created complex things and therefore that complex things require at least
human intelligence.
>
>
> > You also
> > leave out any suggestion for why "intelligent" is the key human
> > quality that the designers have to have.
>
> I did not say "have to". It is hypothesis, not an absolute statement.
> Again, it is based on an observation about human technology.
>
> > It is not at all clear that
> > intelligence is a requirement so you have to argue for this.
>
> Again, I don't kwow where you got "requirement" from.
>
> > Your
> > version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
> > source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
> > created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
> > actually takes you.
>
>
> I am not following you here. I agree it is an analogous leap
> (extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
> making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
> arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
> who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
> argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
> your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
> waste of both your time and mine.
In fact, the claims of IDiocy are vanishingly weak -- that some unknown
designer intervened in some unknown way to change some genome
somehow. Natural selection and common descent is just fine for most
cases, but in some unknown and undefined circumstances, they're not
enough.
>
>
> > Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
> > if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
> > to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
> > work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
> > were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
> > then they are meaningless.
>
> This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
> throughout.
Please present some testable ID DNA patterns and how we might distinguish
them from regular DNA patterns. Be sure to tell us how to avoid the Bacon
wrote Shakespeare hypothesis.
Deadrat
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein
> >
>
> -T-
>
topmind
Deadrat wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1133668236.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > to test with the scientific process.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> >
> > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > you; critique away...
> >
>
> As long as you take IDiocy seriously, believe me when I tell you that there's
> not a handle you adopt that will "scare" me.
I congratulate you for your superior bravery.
>
> First of all, do yourself (and any arguments that you actually have) a favor by
> organizing your web page in a coherent fashion. Your readers have to wade
> through a bunch of unsupported statements and replies to objections to IDiocy
> before they actually get to a definition of the theory. Your organization should
> be
> I. A definition of the theory.
> II. Arguments marshaled to show that the theory is scientific
> III. The current state of scientific research on the theory.
> IV. Answers to critics.
Everybody organizes things different and wants them organized
different. Most knowlege is actually a graph (network) instead of
linear or hierarchical. Thus, there is no "one right" projection into
1-dimensional text. Every approach has a compromise and the optimal
(best compromise) probably depends on the varying psychology of the
readers. If you have OBJECTIVE proof that the above is superior, I
would like to inspect such evidence.
>
> You are somewhat at a disadvantage here because
>
> I. You have no defined scientific theory
Please clarify.
>
> Here's your "working definition":
>
> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
> observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers:
> our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to
> suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made
> by intelligent being(s).
>
> What is ID? It's something based on an observation? This is not a definition.
> The observation isn't even correct. What it essentially says is that we determine
> design from complexity, but that's not true. We determine design because we
> know the designers: we know that a Ford Taurus is designed, not because of
> some complexity innate to the Taurus, but because there's a Ford logo on the
> grill. We can go to Detroit, and in principle, talk to the design team.
But desiging is the ONLY fully observed source of complexity.
>
> There's no such logo on a living cell.
The female baboon has a pretty noticable logo on her ass during mating
season.
> It may be "reasonable to suspect or inquire"
> about intelligent designers, but that's hardly part of a definition of IDiocy. After all,
> at one point, the only objects we knew that traveled to the moon were unmanned.
> We didn't decide that meant that men couldn't go to the moon. I don't know about
> you, but I think it's reasonable that objects in motion tend to stop eventually. That's
> my everyday experience, but I know that as reasonable as it seems, it's not true.
> Objects in motion want to stay in motion.
>
> You say that your definition, such as it is, "is based almost entirely on the observation
> of sources of complexity." If that's true, you're not looking very hard. We know that
> very simple nonlinear feedback processes that would hardly take an intelligent designer
> can produce extremely complicated systems.
Example? Computer simulations don't fully count. Multiple ideas can
produce complexity in simulations under the right conditions.
>
> II. You don't have any arguments that show IDiocy to be a science.
>
> I admit that this is a hard task when you don't have a clear definition of your theory.
> You spend a lot of space countering negative arguments, but where is the positive
> argument?
What exactly is a "positive argument"?
> The closest you come is that "an intelligent designer could have left clues
> or puzzles in the DNA of animals." Really? Do you know how easy it is to come up
> with "messages" in things after the fact? Just look at the arguments that Bacon wrote
> what we attribute to Shakespeare.
This is addressed in item 9. Here it is again for your convenience:
[Q:] "9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI
does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when
they find something.
[A:] Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence,
medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't
see why the definition of science should include the finding of only
strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so
easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science
(although not always the wisest expenditure of effort).
Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never
even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the
first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at
least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent
interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate
with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA)."
[end quote]
Are you suggesting that *no* possible pattern could ever be evidence,
even weak evidence, of a designer? Finding alternating prime and Pi in
a long-exinct DNA would not be a boost whatsoever? I find that position
difficult to defend.
>
> III. You can't cite any current research in IDiocy.
Can we cut it out with the rudeness please? It it not helpful, and
frankly makes you look like an evo zealot (they do exist).
>
> That's because there isn't any. You ask what would happen if there were a "DNA
> Pattern Study Institute." Wouldn't that make IDiocy a science? And if so, isn't it
> still a science even if IDiots haven't setup a DNA PSI? (Oh, I do like the acronym!)
> After all, you say, we don't grade for effort, do we? Well, actually, we grading here
> for doing science. You ask whether science should focus on "evidence, not on effort
> being spent to obtain evidence." But if no effort is being spent, there won't be evidence,
> and the semester grade is an F.
That is addressed in item 3.
Does MU get an F also?
>
> IV. Your answers to critics takes up most of the space.
>
> That should tell you something. I won't go through all of your answers, but here are a
> few things to consider:
>
> 1. At one point you say
>
> Some suggest that the newer math can also be tweaked to match about anything new observed.
> Our ability to throw equations at the problem has perhaps exceeded our ability to test them.
> The eleven or so dimensions of String Theory (ST) are suspicious in this regard.
>
> Nobody suggests that about the "newer" math, and I'm gonna guess your own math chops
> aren't up to the task of finding out.
Huh? There are plenty of critics of ST who are specialists in that
area.
>
> (An aside about your language. You use it carelessly. The dimensions of string theory
> aren't suspicious. *You* are suspicious. You mean the dimensionality of string theory
> is suspect. I'll complain about only one more sentence:
I am not following your grammar complaint, but frankly don't care. I am
not here to talk about grammar.
>
> Regarding not being "testable", such cannot be summarily ruled out.
>
> What kind of talk is that?)
It cannot be ruled out for ID anymore than MU.
>
> (As long as I'm on an aside what's up with this?
>
> Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge
> for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent
> church group?
>
> That's just creepy.)
Humans are sometimes that way. That is why grading ideas based on
motivations of the proponents is a path to a mess and would turn
science into a soap-opera.
>
> 2. "There is no consensus way to measure complexity." (Forgive me. But "consensus way"
> is redundant) There are several recognized ways to measure complexity. What excuse could
> there be for not using one or developing another?
Saying that there are multiple is not the same as saying there is a
consensus. I did not dispute "multiple".
>
> 3. "I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong
> evidence.
> Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for
> tough-to-find
> evidence is still part of science."
>
> But IDiots aren't searching for evidence at all. And the way science works is that the better
> explanations replace the poorer. IDiocy must explain everything that evolution explains and
> more.
NO! My argument does *not* depend on ID being strong. You seem to be
missing the point, going into your habitual creationist bashing mode.
If you are going to be metal-ass about my grammar, then I am going to
be a metal-ass about you reading the original article in full. You
missed the whole point.
ID explains anything evo can, by the way. The issue is the evidence,
not the mere ability to explain. "Because the creator wanted it that
way" can do it, and many complain that open-endedness makes ID
untestable. You cannot have it both ways. If it cannot explain
something, then we have found a way to falsify it, busting your "too
wide open" claim.
> Since evolution has so much evidence for it, IDiocy needs strong evidence. Your comments about
> math are interesting here. Math may not be a prerequisite, but as long as evolution has the
> statistics of
> population genetics behind it, IDiocy better be prepared to sling a little math.
Off topic, but population genetics is not strong proof of the source of
complexity in the wild.
>
> 4. You miss the point about the objections to the religious motivations of IDiots. It's not
> their motivation that's a problem. It's their insertion of religion as dogma into public school
> classrooms.
> Or haven't you been following the Dover trial? No one objects to teaching about religion in
> schools.
To quote the article:
"Regarding religious bias, bias by itself does not make an idea invalid
or non-scientific. If relativity were proposed by Adolph Hitler instead
of Albert Einstein, would that make it less scientific or less useful
as a theory? If a Darwin-influenced cult was formed with a stated goal
of making sure evolution was taught in classrooms, would the new
existence of such bias be a reason to label the theory of evolution
"religion" and thus remove it? Science should test ideas, not human
motives."
[end quote]
Should evo be yanked from the books IF such a cult forms???
> The importance of religion our society and history should not be downplayed. But it is illegal
> to teach
> a particular religion as the truth.
My version of ID is NOT religion. I don't care what other versions are
out there. They are moot to my argument.
> And I doubt there are many biology teachers who couldn't
> handle
> questions about ID simply and accurately with, "We teach science in science class and that's it.
> We no more teach ID in biology than we do astrology in
> astronomy class or numerology in algebra.
See item 10.
> Your beliefs are your own and you will be tested on your understanding of science and not your
> personal allegiance to it"
>
> In short, your web page needs a little work.
Appearently so. You read it all wrong, missing the key point.
>
> Deadrat
>
-T-
Steven J.
complexity cannot be known for sure to be a product of intelligence, but
rather that if we can see that something is more complex than it needs to
be -- that it has steps and components that are just not needed for whatever
it does -- then we have a reason (not a conclusive reason: in the case of,
e.g. a Microsoft program other considerations can override this one) to
conclude that it was *not* the product of intelligent design.
In brief, his point is that some sorts of complexity are arguments *against*
design, since design seeks simplicity.
>
>> On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
>> complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
>> increase in "complexity".
>
>
> No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
> consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
> instead of the usual process-based perspective.
>
Yet your point 8 still seems mistaken. Of course, for a sufficiently broad
definition of "evolution," then all the agents you mention do produce
"evolution." In the case of biological evolution, however, "change in the
ratios of inheritable characteristics in a population over time" seems more
easily quantifiable and observable than "an increase in complexity." It
seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
-- Steven J.
SeppoP
<snip>
>
> Good question, though. Maybe one that will never be fully answered.
>
> -T-
>
Maybe some questions do not even make sense?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-12-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > to test with the scientific process.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> >
> > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > you; critique away...
>
> It's not promising that it includes this rather vacuous justification:
>
> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the
> only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
> from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
> and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least
> inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
> intelligent being(s).
>
> This is really just begging the question. While a painting might reasonably
> imply a painter, it's hard to justify the claim that rain implies a "rainer",
> or that gravity implies a "gravitator".
Your analogy is merely word-play it seems to me. The ID extrapolation
is from machines to machine-like things (biology). Thus, they are far
closer than mere word-play.
>
> That you follow up your definition with this:
>
> The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came
> back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers,
> etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific
> intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not
> have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
> designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have
> limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
>
> If, indeed, ID can't distinguish between these rather disparate possibilities,
> doesn't it seem that its predictive power isn't just weak, but is in fact
> non-existant?
One cannot rule out knowing more about the creators. Go watch The
Matrix for some possible paths.
Is MU non-scientific if we cannot identify the source of multiple
universes?
>
> I'm also interested in why you think you needed this disclaimer:
>
> This version is based almost entirely on the observation of
> sources of complexity, not religion.
>
> Why is it based even in part on religion?
Huh?
>
> Addressing your rebuttal to 10 criticisms of ID:
>
> 1. You didn't actually argue that ID is not malleable. You instead merely
> tried to divert by talking about something different.
I am comparing it to other fields. Other malleable things are called
"scientific" by some experts. You can't change the historical use of
science JUST to bust ID's balls. That will look bad in the courts.
> 2. You are arguing for more than science teachers ability to answer questions
> regarding intelligent design. I doubt the fraction of individuals who
> think that a science teacher shouldn't answer questions about intelligent
> design from students is very significant.
That should be up to the States to decide. The Fed only cares (or
should care) about the seperation-of-church-and-state issue, not
micromanage what is debunked in science books.
> 3. Given that I haven't been able to find a single instance of string theory
> or multi-universes in public school science standards, perhaps using it
> as examples _is_ disingenous.
See item 2. When MU and ST become common questions, then that status
may change.
> 4. Science grades on results. It isn't the time that scientists spend which
> counts, it is the results that counts. ID simply doesn't have any.
Either does MU or ST, yet they get to be called "science".
> 5. Ignoring bias is inherently against the scientific method. Science works
> to eliminate bias, it doesn't accept it. We eliminate the bias of
> scientists by using tools like falsification.
Well ID has not been any more falsified than MU or ST.
> 6. Math is useful as a tool to formulate models and provide for potential
> falsification. ID simply doesn't present anything resembling a model.
Perhaps, but not a disqualifier in itself. At what point did evo
become "a model"? Actually the (approximate) model for ID is human
technology.
> 7. Our bias toward intelligent sources is long, and in the case of most
> natural phenomena, _has proven to be wrong_. Weather isn't the work of
> the gods. Diseases aren't caused by demons.
Depends how you define "demon" :-)
Just because an explanation is wrong for many circumstances does not
mean it is always wrong. Again, my arguments do not depend on ID being
a "strong" idea.
> 8. Complexity isn't a problem for anyone, because it isn't defined in any
> meaningful sense.
Then what does evo do that weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical
reactions, rust, etc cannot? And how can it be measured and tested? The
"interesting" question is not what produces mere change because many
things do that, but is what produces complexity, or at least
intelligent "things". That is the "meat".
> 9. SETI works by concluding intelligent design from signals which are very
> SIMPLE, not very complex.
But being simple alone does not make it for sure intelligence. That is
just how they narrow down what to explore further.
> 10. ID isn't speculative. It's simply hubris: imagining our ignorance of
> the universe must be significant.
I don't find your answer useful. Ideas are just ideas, not evil demons.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
topmind
> > > The process of life making life
> > > is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things.
> >
> >
> > Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
> > (over time). Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
> > came from anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
> > first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
> > most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
> > and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
> > technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
>
> Of course not. IDiots are making the counterclaim, that human beings
> created complex things and therefore that complex things require at least
> human intelligence.
Do you mean human intelligence or human-level of intelligence?
I agree that some, perhaps most, ID proponents make some very silly
arguments. Sometimes evo fans do the same. Let's focus on the best
arguments, not the dumb or biased ones. Darwin or an evo researcher
having made mistakes here and there does not flatten the whole idea.
> > > Your
> > > version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
> > > source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
> > > created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
> > > actually takes you.
> >
> >
> > I am not following you here. I agree it is an analogous leap
> > (extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
> > making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
> > arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
> > who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
> > argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
> > your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
> > waste of both your time and mine.
>
> In fact, the claims of IDiocy are vanishingly weak -- that some unknown
> designer intervened in some unknown way to change some genome
> somehow.
So the characters in The Matrix are being non-scientific for
investigating odd going-ons?
> > > Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
> > > if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
> > > to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
> > > work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
> > > were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
> > > then they are meaningless.
> >
> > This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
> > throughout.
>
> Please present some testable ID DNA patterns and how we might distinguish
> them from regular DNA patterns. Be sure to tell us how to avoid the Bacon
> wrote Shakespeare hypothesis.
My argument does NOT depend on ID having presentable evidence at this
time. It is a hypothesis at about the same stage as MU, which is
considered a scientific idea by at least some professionals in the
field. You are falling into the "ID is strong" debunking trap again,
but that is just spinning your wheels in this topic.
The issue here is "testable", NOT "tested".
>
> Deadrat
>
-T-
topmind
I answered this at the bottom of the article:
"Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or
omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s)
may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc."
It is possble that we are the product of a kid playing around, not
caring about efficiency. Plus, fancy hubcaps and fins (50's style) are
things we build that are wasteful. Don't even get me started about
Hummers :-)
> >
> >> On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
> >> complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
> >> increase in "complexity".
> >
> >
> > No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
> > consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
> > instead of the usual process-based perspective.
> >
> Yet your point 8 still seems mistaken. Of course, for a sufficiently broad
> definition of "evolution," then all the agents you mention do produce
> "evolution." In the case of biological evolution, however, "change in the
> ratios of inheritable characteristics in a population over time" seems more
> easily quantifiable and observable than "an increase in complexity."
Those other mentioned agents may do that also. Nobody has ruled out the
possibility of a meteor splashing and baking a pool of semi-organic goo
and having an eyeball fly out as a result. It can be proven unlikely,
but not impossible. (Add to that some anthropic probability pool.)
Further, changing ratios on a *small* scale may not extrapolate to a
large scale. It looks good on paper, but has never been tested and
observed on a large scale. Thus, that statement stands as true. (This
is similar to the "macroevolution" complaint by some creationists. They
don't dispute minor changes.)
> It
> seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
> claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
> hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
> something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
> Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
But we still have the problem of distinguishing evo from *other* kinds
of change agents. People are really interested in seeing how a process
can make things like brains and eyeballs, not merely changing
something, especially minor things.
[snip]
-T-
topmind
If there is a consensus definition, where is it?
>
> > Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition. Even if
> > evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
> > the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
> > burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
> > science just to win the ID textbook battle.
>
> I don't think the definition of science has changed appreciably in a while.
> No one's tightening the entry criteria to exclude ID [rudeness removed].
Again, if it is in stone, where is a copy of that stone?
> >
> > If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
> > have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
> > "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
> > an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
> > not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
> > should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
> > religion."
>
> If it's "yet to be tested," then it's not an accepted explanation.
So MU and ST are not "science"? See item 3 in the article. The
Supreme Court may ask the very same thing, so you better prepare a good
answer for it.
> If it's
> not testable, then it's not science.
It has not been proven to be inharently "untestable".
> What test for IDiocy do you have
> in mind?
You didn't read it, did you. Who is the "Idiot" now, eh?
>
> Deadrat
>
-T-
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
>
>Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
>(over time). Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
>came from anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
>first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
>most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
>and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
>technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005
josephus
and it has a theoretical underpinning of known other science. It is the
apex of a pyramid of knowledge. ID cannot claim the same rigorous basis.
> [A:] The definition of "science" appears to not yet have a consensus.
> Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition. Even if
> evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
> the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
> burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
> science just to win the ID textbook battle.
properly speaking, science is a WAY of working. It requires certain
frames of reference. Mathematics is VERY important. even paleontology
uses it. The science and the mathematics are validated by other
researchers... ID does not really want any other opinion but ID. for
this kind of reason ID is not reproducible science.
>
> If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
> have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
> "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
> an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
> not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
> should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
> religion."
>
take for instance cosmology and string theory. There is a great deal
of quantum mechanics and very deep mathematics in string theory. While
it may not be readily testable, it is based on a great deal of
supporting and juried information. Any published report will be
VERIFIED. This is stronger than testable. Other researchers will
DUPLICATE any result ans/or method published. Even to the simulation.
Can ID field any such effort? I have seen documents that indicate a
STRONG desire to publish a juried paper. NONE have ever passed muster
and any examples were very very minor in very obscure journals. Not
exactly a sterling effort. You can publish in astronomy , chemistry,
physics, mathematics, geology, paleontology, medicine, biology. Each of
these subjects have dozens of sub texts that can be investigated by
ANYBODY that does the necessary study. ID does not.
josephus
> -T-
>
Ron Young
other scientists that his theory or hypothesis is tenable. It doesn't matter
what a non-scientist thinks. Scientists are not obligated to convince others
that they are "right". The suggestion that Adolph Hitler would have come up
with the general or special theory of relativity is ridiculous. The science
community, especially biology, should be the ones to decide if ID is science
or not. The scientific community should be the ones to determine what a
science education is and not politicians or philosophers. Your example of
scientific bias with the pro-evolutionist that may have a bias against
religion (What that has to do with evoulution is beyond me) because he got
caught having sex with the ministers daughter during Sunday school assumes
that this one individual has an uncanny influence over the thousands of
other scientists working in biology, physics and astronomy.news:1133680060.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker
> I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> to test with the scientific process.
Produce a single, specific, quantiative prediction that can be test in a
laboratory or by careful measurement and observation. Just a single one.
Are ALL the singualar quantiative predictions of ID testable? Yes or No.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> to test with the scientific process.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
Lest you wrap the mantle of M-Brane Theory or String Theory around ID
notice that the difficultyh of Brane Theory or String Theory is not
instrinsic untestability, but a lack of technology to test some of its
singular predictions.
Any theory that explain every possible outcome is untestable. Produce
prediction P ( a singular prediction) AND a singular instance of -P
under the same conditions, then it is not science. It cannot be
falsified in principle.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>>One of the problems with the evolution-versus-ID debate is the definition of science. I have encountered very "tight" definitions of >science in various debates and fairly loose ones elsewhere. String Theory, worm-holes, reverse time-travel, and multiple universes of >the Anthropic Principle are current ideas that many consider "science", yet so far appear difficult to test. In being difficult to test, ID is >not alone.
>
>
> Although I disagree with your premise, I think you make a very good
> point here. The rigorous rules applied to ID by the scientific
> community are somewhat hypocritical. I think it stems from the fact
> that so many ID theorists are blatantly biased and attempting to cheat
> science with pseudo-science. They also purposefully make bad arguments,
> which they know are bad, just to trick an uninformed crowd. This pisses
> scientists off. So they come back with the hot iron and see if the ID
> theorist is ready to take a quantitative stance that is open to
> rebuttal and peer review.
>
> But really, even the term "pseudo-science" is questionable. Truly,
> mathematics is the only solid science.
Mathematics is NOT a science. It has no empirical content whatsoever.
Have you seen a physical instance of the integer 1 anywhere in the 'verse?
Physics and chemistry come next,
> but even they are "pseudo" at times. Any mathematician will tell you
> exactly what he thinks of the relative scientific reliability of
> biology (usually trying to brag, of course).
Biology differs from physics in that not all of its singular
quantitative outputs are predictions (what will be measured under a
specificied set of conditions). Biology is also concerned with
reconstructing the past, in some cases the long gone past. In that
respect biology is more like detective work than physics.
Psychology probably rounds
> out as the most pseudo of the sciences. Those guys have a really bad
> grasp on cause and effect sometimes. Isolating variables is almost
> impossible when you study the human brain.
Psychology is NOT science.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> You still have no way of going around the logical contradiction of ID:
>
> If the ID itself was undesigned, then you are contradicting the
> principle that living things need a designer.
>
> If the ID was designed, then who designed the ID's designer and so on
> until reductio ad absurdum.
>
> If the ID is nonliving, then that contradicts a nonliving thing being
> intelligent.
>
No fair. A scientific theory, in general, does not apply to itself.
Neither does a non-scientific theory. Self reference is a no no.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> It's not promising that it includes this rather vacuous justification:
>
> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the
> only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
> from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
> and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least
> inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
> intelligent being(s).
We know from the Meuller experiments that complex amino acides can be
generated by a an electric discharge in a reducing atomospher under
certain conditions. THis is an instance of physical self organization.
Your criticism therefore fails.
Once can make complex organic molecules from simple chemical compounds
by a purely natural process. So some degree of physical self
organization (given energy input) is possible.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The time required for an infinite number of designers to do their work is
> far greater than the age of the universe, thus ID is falsified.
is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... far greater than 1/2?
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> A scientist is someone who uses scientific methodology and can convince
> other scientists that his theory or hypothesis is tenable. It doesn't matter
> what a non-scientist thinks.
Yes it does. Non-scientist (i.e. either amateurs or people who do other
things for a living) are perfectly capable of learning enough science on
their own to judge the validity of experiments. Physics is not a closed
secret arcan practice. It is teachable. It is learnable. And interested
spectators can gather enough knowledge to make valid judgements.
You don't have to be in a laboratory to judge a laboratory report.
Bob Kolker
Ron Young
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3vg7vbF...@individual.net...
to become scientists. I can understand mathematics to a certain point, but
where does that qualify me to set math standards and decide what the
fundamentals are to be taught and at what point in the educational system.
The same can be said about physics, geology, astronomy and so on. Now other
people can go even farther beyond my understanding but unless you are a
scientist or trying to develope scientific understanding then it falls into
an interesting hobby. This is why politicians are getting involved, because
of people who think they know something that they really don't.
Ken Shaw
topmind wrote:
> Ken Shaw wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > > > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > > > to test with the scientific process.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > you; critique away...
> > > > >
> > > > > -T-
> > > >
> > > > human objects are no more complex than necessary. Biological systems
> > > > are almost universally more complex than is necessary. Claiming that
> > > > the "intelligent designer" behind all life does not also follow the
> > > > KISS principle means you can't compare complex human creations to
> > > > biological systems in your working definition of ID which pretty much
> > > > ends the whole issue.
> > >
> > > This is answered at the bottom of the link:
> > >
> > > "The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
> > > time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
> > > here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
> > > this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
> > > or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
> > > designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
> > > trial-and-error, etc."
> > >
> > > Been there done that. You are not using the same definition of ID that
> > > I am. Next...
> > >
> >
> > Nice try at the old handwave argument but that won't cut it here.
> > Quoting from your web site's "Working Definition of Intelligent
> > Design":
> >
> > observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent
> > designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is
> > reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were
> > perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
> >
> > with the comparison you are trying to make in the first place.
>
> > Intentional complexity is not and can never be indicative of design by
> > an intelligence recognizable as such by men.
>
> Can you please clarify this? It appears to be answered by item 9.
>
As Steven J. has already stated quite succintly design seeks
simplicity. We do not see such evidence ofdesign in biology.
> >
> > On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
> > complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
> > increase in "complexity".
>
>
> No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
> consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
> instead of the usual process-based perspective.
>
Evolution is change in allele frequency over time which is most
certainly an observational perspective. The rest of evolutionary theory
is the result of this simple concept.
With such a deep lack of knowledge about the ToE you might want to
learn more about it before attempting to write on the subject.
>
> > This is both directly factually incorrect and
> > indicative that you mistakenly view evolution as a sort of progressive
> > enterprise. Even without a strong metric of biological complexity there
> > are various evolutionary paths that arguably involve an organism or
> > system becoming less complex, parasite evolution is the best example of
> > this fact. On the other issue evolution has no goal and therefore is
> > not making progress toward any goal.
> >
> > Further you claim that there isn't a "consensus way to measure
> > complexity." That implies that one or more methods of measuring
> > biological complexity exist. If you believe one exists that is directlt
> > applicable to ID and specified complexity I invite you to present it in
> > detail. Otherwise the wording of that sentence needs to be changed to
> > be "There is no way to measure complexity in biological systems."
>
>
> The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
I'll have to assume you intend to apply this to DNA sequences. I doubt
very seriously you and the other ID supporters will be happy with the
outcome of such as it would, for instance, indicate that the Fugu is
significantly more complex than humans.
Ken
CreateThis
>>>>>"The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
>>>>>time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
>>>>>here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
>>>>>this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
>>>>>or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
>>>>>designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
>>>>>trial-and-error, etc."
Are you saying you'll settle for Unintelligent Design now? When we get
to Apparently Sourceless Design can we just call it evolution?
It's a sacrifice play: give up Intelligent to save Design.
ID is all angles.
CT
CreateThis
> The religious right has a right to their inch (no pun int.). If they
> start to take a mile, THEN it is time to raise a big fuss.
"Their" inch? LOL. The time to raise a big fuss is every time *they*
try to take that first inch. Count on it.
Mark VandeWettering
The word play is entirely yours. We do observe complex devices and machines
for which we cannot reasonably include intelligent design: they are called
"biological organisms".
>> That you follow up your definition with this:
>>
>> The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came
>> back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers,
>> etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific
>> intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not
>> have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
>> designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have
>> limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
>>
>> If, indeed, ID can't distinguish between these rather disparate possibilities,
>> doesn't it seem that its predictive power isn't just weak, but is in fact
>> non-existant?
>
> One cannot rule out knowing more about the creators. Go watch The
> Matrix for some possible paths.
As someone mentioned, you do realize that the Matrix is fictional, do you
not?
> Is MU non-scientific if we cannot identify the source of multiple
> universes?
Since we don't teach MU in public schools either, whatever the resolution
of this question would seem to be irrelevent, don't you think?
>> I'm also interested in why you think you needed this disclaimer:
>>
>> This version is based almost entirely on the observation of
>> sources of complexity, not religion.
>>
>> Why is it based even in part on religion?
>
> Huh?
I think it's rather clear. Why is your idea based in part on religion?
>> Addressing your rebuttal to 10 criticisms of ID:
>>
>> 1. You didn't actually argue that ID is not malleable. You instead merely
>> tried to divert by talking about something different.
>
>
> I am comparing it to other fields. Other malleable things are called
> "scientific" by some experts. You can't change the historical use of
> science JUST to bust ID's balls. That will look bad in the courts.
None of which addresses the charge that ID is malleable. Perhaps that
criticism could be logged against other fields of human endeavor, but it
does not reduce the claim against ID.
>> 2. You are arguing for more than science teachers ability to answer
>> questions regarding intelligent design. I doubt the fraction of
>> individuals who think that a science teacher shouldn't answer
>> questions about intelligent design from students is very significant.
>
> That should be up to the States to decide. The Fed only cares (or
> should care) about the seperation-of-church-and-state issue, not
> micromanage what is debunked in science books.
You are changing your argument in midstream. Your argument in #2 seemed
to be that teachers should be allowed to answer student questions regarding
intelligent design. They can, of course do precisely that. What you are
really asking for overall is for teachers to be able to teach intelligent
design as science. The Supreme Court will likely be forced to address
this issue, but precedent and evidence will seem to weigh heavily against
intelligent design because, as the court case in Dover clearly showed, ID
is merely the puppet of Christian fundamentalism.
>> 3. Given that I haven't been able to find a single instance of string theory
>> or multi-universes in public school science standards, perhaps using it
>> as examples _is_ disingenous.
>
> See item 2. When MU and ST become common questions, then that status
> may change.
I see no one lobbying to make sure that MU and ST be taught in public schools.
Your argument is based entirely on a hypothetical, and I believe to be
disingenuous.
>> 4. Science grades on results. It isn't the time that scientists spend which
>> counts, it is the results that counts. ID simply doesn't have any.
>
> Either does MU or ST, yet they get to be called "science".
Again, we are talking about teaching ID in schools. This is simply irrelevent.
>> 5. Ignoring bias is inherently against the scientific method. Science works
>> to eliminate bias, it doesn't accept it. We eliminate the bias of
>> scientists by using tools like falsification.
>
> Well ID has not been any more falsified than MU or ST.
ID is unfalsifiable. That is why it has not been falsified.
>> 6. Math is useful as a tool to formulate models and provide for potential
>> falsification. ID simply doesn't present anything resembling a model.
>
> Perhaps, but not a disqualifier in itself. At what point did evo
> become "a model"? Actually the (approximate) model for ID is human
> technology.
As proposed in Origin of Species, evolution presented a falsifiable model.
>> 7. Our bias toward intelligent sources is long, and in the case of most
>> natural phenomena, _has proven to be wrong_. Weather isn't the work of
>> the gods. Diseases aren't caused by demons.
>
> Depends how you define "demon" :-)
If words have so little meaning to you, I suspect that your topmind should
not be crafting educational standards.
> Just because an explanation is wrong for many circumstances does not
> mean it is always wrong. Again, my arguments do not depend on ID being
> a "strong" idea.
Are you suggesting that diseases are sometimes caused by demons?
I'm also unsure why you want to teach kids weak ideas.
>> 8. Complexity isn't a problem for anyone, because it isn't defined in any
>> meaningful sense.
>
> Then what does evo do that weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical
> reactions, rust, etc cannot?
Nothing. Evolution is driven entirely by physical reactions.
> And how can it be measured and tested? The "interesting" question is
> not what produces mere change because many things do that, but is what
> produces complexity, or at least intelligent "things". That is the
> "meat".
There are chemical reactions which produce things which we might label
"more complex" and "less complex". Since both are possible, there simply
isn't a problem.
>> 9. SETI works by concluding intelligent design from signals which are very
>> SIMPLE, not very complex.
>
> But being simple alone does not make it for sure intelligence. That is
> just how they narrow down what to explore further.
Well, again, given that it hasn't actually worked, it's a bit speculative
to pretend that it has.
>> 10. ID isn't speculative. It's simply hubris: imagining our ignorance of
>> the universe must be significant.
>
> I don't find your answer useful. Ideas are just ideas, not evil demons.
Ideas can be useful or counterproductive. In the past, assuming intelligent
agents behind natural phenomena has been less than useful. There were no
thunder gods on the top of mounts. There weren't homonculi inside of embryos.
There are no demons causing the black plague.
I don't feel it is useful to keep an open mind that such things are still
possible. I especially don't think its a good idea to teach kids that
such things are still possible.
Mark
Deadrat
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3vg7baF...@individual.net...
> Navillus wrote:
>
> >>One of the problems with the evolution-versus-ID debate is the definition of science. I have
encountered very "tight" definitions of >science in various debates and fairly loose ones
elsewhere. String Theory, worm-holes, reverse time-travel, and multiple universes of >the
Anthropic Principle are current ideas that many consider "science", yet so far appear difficult
to test. In being difficult to test, ID is >not alone.
> >
> >
> > Although I disagree with your premise, I think you make a very good
> > point here. The rigorous rules applied to ID by the scientific
> > community are somewhat hypocritical. I think it stems from the fact
> > that so many ID theorists are blatantly biased and attempting to cheat
> > science with pseudo-science. They also purposefully make bad arguments,
> > which they know are bad, just to trick an uninformed crowd. This pisses
> > scientists off. So they come back with the hot iron and see if the ID
> > theorist is ready to take a quantitative stance that is open to
> > rebuttal and peer review.
> >
> > But really, even the term "pseudo-science" is questionable. Truly,
> > mathematics is the only solid science.
>
> Mathematics is NOT a science. It has no empirical content whatsoever.
> Have you seen a physical instance of the integer 1 anywhere in the 'verse?
Certainly. My catalog of Taliban Christmas catalogs.
Deadrat
>
<snip>
> Bob Kolker
>
Deadrat
This is a variation on the tornado-in-the-junkyard argument that creationists
think is so clever. We also know there's a non-zero probability of all the
air in a room rushing spontaneously to one corner. But I think we can pretty
much rule out both scenarios.
>
> Further, changing ratios on a *small* scale may not extrapolate to a
> large scale. It looks good on paper, but has never been tested and
> observed on a large scale. Thus, that statement stands as true. (This
> is similar to the "macroevolution" complaint by some creationists. They
> don't dispute minor changes.)
And no one's every observed an electron directly either. None of this
helps arguments *for* IDiocy.
>
>
> > It
> > seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
> > claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
> > hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
> > something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
> > Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
>
> But we still have the problem of distinguishing evo from *other* kinds
> of change agents.
What *other* kinds of change agents? Evolution cites an imperfect genetic
copying mechanism pruned by the environment. Tell us what other mechanism
you have in mind.
> People are really interested in seeing how a process
> can make things like brains and eyeballs, not merely changing
> something, especially minor things.
And people in hell are really interested in ice water. What people want really
want in a scientific theory (or find wanting in one) doesn't really help the case
for IDiocy.
Deadrat
>
> [snip]
>
> -T-
>
Deadrat
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3vg7e1F...@individual.net...
I don't think the example is as self-referential as say. Apoc wants to
apply the rules of science to the mechanics of IDiocy. Quantum mechanics
is concerned with the devices used to measure quantum mechanical events.
Deadrat
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133683526.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2005 19:50:37 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> <top...@technologist.com> in
>> <1133668236.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
>> >belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
>> >participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
>> >alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
>> >science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
>> >should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
>> >biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
>> >The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
>> >to test with the scientific process.
>> >
>> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
>> >
>> >Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
>> >you; critique away...
>>
>> Unfortunately you end the page with the important material: the
>> definition of Intelligent Design. You don't actually define
>> Intelligent Design, instead you begin to hint at a possible argument
>> for it. Unfortunately that argument have very little, if any, power.
>
>I agree it is a "weak" idea, but still a valid idea just like MU, ST,
>etc. (If you don't know what these abbreviations are, you didn't read
>it all.)
We have gone over this before. I have shown you that the scientists
behind MU and ST are attempting to find tests. They all agree that it
is not testable then it is irrelevant and not science. If the ID
people attempted to do the same they might have some claim. Right now
you are stuck with claiming that ID is potentially potentially
science. SFW?
>> If life is a "complex machine", then we can observe complex machines
>> from non-human sources. Of course if life is not a complex machine,
>> then you have no point to begin with.
>
>This is an endless Laynes Law definition issue.
No, you have missed my point. We *observe* these supposed complex
machines (organisms) coming from a non-designer (other organism). You
are factually incorrect in your claim. You have asserted that the only
source of these complex machines is designers and that is not correct.
>> The process of life making life
>> is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things.
>
>Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
>(over time).
Cats producing cats different than other cats is functionally the same
as fish and cats coming from a common ancestor over a very long time.
>Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
>came from
No, but imperfect reproduction does a very good job of it. You do
realize that you are actually trying to argue for design by saying
evolution is not a sufficient explanation. At that point you have to
abandon you "ID is weak, but" argument and show it is better than
current science.
> anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
>first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
>most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
>and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
>technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
And that process is an evolutionary one. That is, human design
consists of making changes to existing working systems and seeing if
they work.
>
>> You also
>> leave out any suggestion for why "intelligent" is the key human
>> quality that the designers have to have.
>
>I did not say "have to". It is hypothesis, not an absolute statement.
No, it is a bare assertion. A hypothesis is a testable statement. How
would you test if the designers were intelligent?
>Again, it is based on an observation about human technology.
A partial biased observation combined with some arrogance.
>> It is not at all clear that
>> intelligence is a requirement so you have to argue for this.
>
>Again, I don't kwow where you got "requirement" from.
It is an key part of your claim. If you don't require it then don't
call it "Intelligent" design. So now we have "Design". Now please tell
me what "Design" means. You are making a claim here, you should at
least explain that.
>> Your
>> version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
>> source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
>> created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
>> actually takes you.
>
>I am not following you here.
You wrote: "Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that
the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from
intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built
them." Let's replace the term "intelligent designers" with the
explanatory clause: "Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the
observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or
machines is from our fellow humans who engineered and built them."
You claim that humans are the only "fully observed" source of complex
machines. Well, either humans made life or you need to re-work your
claim.
>I agree it is an analogous leap
>(extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
>making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
>arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
>who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
>argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
>your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
>waste of both your time and mine.
Then you should explain to us why this weak case, this possible
hypothesis, has any place in a biology course.
>> Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
>> if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
>> to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
>> work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
>> were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
>> then they are meaningless.
>
>This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
>throughout.
And I have disagreed with you several times on this and showed you
that you are wrong. ST is scientific because the people doing it are
making attempts at developing tests. There is no change in definition
at all, if ST turns out to be untestable then it is not science. The
ID proponents have to do the same. That some testable ID notion could
exist is not sufficient, we can only teach existent science, not
non-existent stuff.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133679200.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
>consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
>instead of the usual process-based perspective.
I am not sure what this means. We define evolution in terms of the
process: change in inherited characteristic in populations of living
organisms over time. With that definition we can observe the world to
see if the process occurs and, if so, what are the results of that
process. You don't define from an observational perspective AFAICT.
Perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean from some other
domain.
[snip]
>The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
How would you apply that to populations of organisms?
>However, I have had this to say about it:
>
>"I am not sure it would be easy to apply such to biological systems.
>There may be somewhat random noise in the specimen that does not really
>contribute to complexity.
And there is the question of what you plan on measuring.
>For example, if you add a little bit of
>randomness to an image (dithering or "graininess"), most compression
>systems will use up more space even though we don't "need" the
>randomness. Such cannot distinguish between "useful" randomness and
>non-useful. In biological systems cell A may deviate from cell B purely
>out of randomness. Such may add to its complexity score even though it
>may not be necessary for survival or reproduction benefits. Perhaps it
>does, but the algorithm cannot tell either way."
Can you show us that complexity has any relevance then? This is your
claim, you need to show from a start that there is any biological
relevance to the issue.
Deadrat
This one isn't really very difficult, and I think I'll leave it as an exercise
for the reader. But I'll note that I asked for some evidence for your
statement, and look what I got.
> > > Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition.
Here's a claim. What's the "tight" definition? Who are the tightists?
Who are the loosists?
> Even if
> > > evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
> > > the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
> > > burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
> > > science just to win the ID textbook battle.
> >
> > I don't think the definition of science has changed appreciably in a while.
> > No one's tightening the entry criteria to exclude ID [rudeness removed].
>
> Again, if it is in stone, where is a copy of that stone?
Again, you are making the charge that scientists have disingenuously changed
the definition of science to exclude IDiocy. I don't have to provide evidence
to disprove that. After all, what am I going to do? Check every scientific
endeavor to make sure that no shifty shifting has occurred? You've made a
claim. It's up to you to back it up. In fact, Behe at Dover is the one who
wanted to change the definition of science to include IDiocy he admitted that
such a definition would include astrology.
>
> > >
> > > If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
> > > have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
> > > "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
> > > an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
> > > not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
> > > should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
> > > religion."
> >
> > If it's "yet to be tested," then it's not an accepted explanation.
>
>
> So MU and ST are not "science"? See item 3 in the article. The
> Supreme Court may ask the very same thing, so you better prepare a good
> answer for it.
As far as I know, the multiverse hypothesis is speculation that's not really testable
and isn't claimed as part of quantum mechanics. String theory is an incomplete
mathematical model for which tests are beyond our current capability. It is an
area of investigation. What distinguishes string theory from IDiocy is that the former
could be invalidated. Its mathematics may lead to erroneous conclusions or it
may predict results that don't obtain. In any case, right or wrong, the future foundation
of particle physics or the future candidate for the junk heap, it isn't religion. And thus
the Supreme Court won't have the slightest interest in it. Especially as no one teaches
the theory as confirmed science in public high schools (or anywhere else).
What do you think the legal case against IDiocy is all about?
> > If it's
> > not testable, then it's not science.
>
> It has not been proven to be inharently "untestable".
I'm not sure what "proven" means in this case. Are you asking for proof of a
negative? That aside, whatever results you come up with are consistent with
an Intelligent Designer. No matter what genetic configurations you look at,
there's no way to determine which ones were set up by the Designer and
which ones weren't.
> > What test for IDiocy do you have in mind?
>
> You didn't read it, did you. Who is the "Idiot" now, eh?
I read every word and commented extensively on it. Do you mean the PSI?
Please tell us the mathematics you'll use to distinguish the Designer's patterns
from natural ones.
I may be an idiot now and forever, but at least I'm not an IDiot.
Deadrat
> -T-
>
Deadrat
>
> > > > The process of life making life
> > > > is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
> > > (over time). Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
> > > came from anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
> > > first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
> > > most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
> > > and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
> > > technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
> >
> > Of course not. IDiots are making the counterclaim, that human beings
> > created complex things and therefore that complex things require at least
> > human intelligence.
>
>
> Do you mean human intelligence or human-level of intelligence?
>
> I agree that some, perhaps most, ID proponents make some very silly
> arguments. Sometimes evo fans do the same. Let's focus on the best
> arguments, not the dumb or biased ones. Darwin or an evo researcher
> having made mistakes here and there does not flatten the whole idea.
>
Evo fans? Darwin had some erroneous ideas and evolutionary biologists
come to erroneous conclusions. I suppose most mistakes look somewhat
silly in hindsight. But IDiocy doesn't have any good arguments.
>
> > > > Your
> > > > version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
> > > > source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
> > > > created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
> > > > actually takes you.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am not following you here. I agree it is an analogous leap
> > > (extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
> > > making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
> > > arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
> > > who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
> > > argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
> > > your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
> > > waste of both your time and mine.
> >
> > In fact, the claims of IDiocy are vanishingly weak -- that some unknown
> > designer intervened in some unknown way to change some genome
> > somehow.
>
>
> So the characters in The Matrix are being non-scientific for
> investigating odd going-ons?
OK. I lied again. Somewhere on this thread I said that I was only going to
say once that "The Matrix" is fiction.
> > > > Finally, despite your claims earlier in the essay,
> > > > if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
> > > > to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
> > > > work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
> > > > were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
> > > > then they are meaningless.
> > >
> > > This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
> > > throughout.
> >
> > Please present some testable ID DNA patterns and how we might distinguish
> > them from regular DNA patterns. Be sure to tell us how to avoid the Bacon
> > wrote Shakespeare hypothesis.
>
> My argument does NOT depend on ID having presentable evidence at this
> time.
It has presented no evidence and has no program for obtaining any. I'd settle
for negative results: "Well, we set up the following experiment and didn't find
the Designer, so we're modifying the experiment in the follow way."
> It is a hypothesis at about the same stage as MU, which is
> considered a scientific idea by at least some professionals in the
> field.
Who? How does the multiverse enter into quantum mechanical theory or
application?
> You are falling into the "ID is strong" debunking trap again,
> but that is just spinning your wheels in this topic.
Did you read the words " In fact, the claims of IDiocy are vanishingly weak...."
Those are mine.
>
> The issue here is "testable", NOT "tested".
You have NO proposed tests and NO program to find any. That's close enough
to untestable as it gets.
Deadrat
> -T-
Denis Loubet
These are fractions of what?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Bobby D. Bryant
> Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent
> Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed
> source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers:
> our fellow humans who engineered and built them." This is
> wrong. There are cases on record in which genetic algorithms have
> created complex machinery which operates with spendid effeciency
> *and* whose functioning *is* *not* *understood* *by* *any* *human*
> *being*. How, pray tell, does *that* square with your "intelligent
> designers" [are the] "only fully observed source of complex devices"
> assertion, hmm?
> As well, you seem to be tryna slip in an unspoken assumption; to
> wit, that "the only FULLY OBSERVED source" (emphasis added) is
> synonymous with "the ONLY source, PERIOD". Do you seriously believe
> that we humans are omniscient? If not, this assumption would seem to
> be rather questionable, at the very least.
The statement conveniently excludes evolution, and then serves as the
basis for an anti-evolution argument.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Cubist wrote:
>> Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent Design
>> (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of
>> complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow
>> humans who engineered and built them." This is wrong. There are cases
>> on record in which genetic algorithms have created complex machinery
>> which operates with spendid effeciency *and* whose functioning *is*
>> *not* *understood* *by* *any* *human* *being*. How, pray tell, does
>> *that* square with your "intelligent designers" [are the] "only fully
>> observed source of complex devices" assertion, hmm?
>
> Those simulations tend to "prime the pump" with help from the designers
> (computer programmers).
How so? I happen to be writing a dissertation in the field, and I'm
not aware of any pump-priming. (And BTW, what does "tend to" mean?)
Are you saying that if I decide to apply neuroevolution to a different
problem than the one I'm working on, I'll have to re-write my library
modules that implement it?
Methinks you're just offering a handwavy dismissal of something that
you know little about and which does not conform to your beliefs.
Please reply in detail.
topmind
But you know they will tweak it if new findings are finally gathered.
Nobody can say for sure how far it can bend from such tweaking. You
cannot predict the bounds or limitations of creativity (of humans)
before it actually happens. Otherwise, we would have an equation that
generates all future patents. The ST approach is complex enough
according to some critics that it may be bendable in almost every way
(within reason) for new discoveries.
Thus, mathematicians may be "cheating" by using "God equations" that
are almost Turing Complete such that they can bend to explain any new
observations. They are starting to share the "too malleable" problem
with ID. (And, being malleable does not necessarily mean it is wrong.)
Plus, ID is not inharently un-testable, as described in the article. A
comparison to MU is probably closer than a comparision to ST anyhow.
If you can prove that ID is inharently untestable, you might have a
point. Until then....
>
> Bob Kolker
-T-
topmind
Ron Young wrote:
> A scientist is someone who uses scientific methodology and can convince
> other scientists that his theory or hypothesis is tenable. It doesn't matter
> what a non-scientist thinks. Scientists are not obligated to convince others
> that they are "right".
Your 3rd sentence appears to contradict your first sentence. Perhaps
you mean "the public".
> The suggestion that Adolph Hitler would have come up
> with the general or special theory of relativity is ridiculous.
It is a hypothetical situation to test your working definition of
"science". It is possible for mad-men to come up with good ideas.
Shockley of transistor fame was a racist, for example. Should we burn
his technical work because of that?
> The science
> community, especially biology, should be the ones to decide if ID is science
> or not.
Well, if "science" is decided by vote, then the answers will differ in
a blue state than a red state.
> The scientific community should be the ones to determine what a
> science education is and not politicians or philosophers.
Why is that? They are practicioners. Are you saying that Karl Popper
should be ignored?
> Your example of
> scientific bias with the pro-evolutionist that may have a bias against
> religion (What that has to do with evoulution is beyond me) because he got
> caught having sex with the ministers daughter during Sunday school assumes
> that this one individual has an uncanny influence over the thousands of
> other scientists working in biology, physics and astronomy.
Perhaps, but you risk turning the court battle into a soap opera about
which side is more biased. Many Creationists feel that Evo fans don't
want there to be a God because they wish to sin without guilt. How the
hell is this going to be proven either way in court?
-T-
Mark Stahl
> ges...@boundvortex.com wrote:
>> <<Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex
>> life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s). >>
>>
>> thousands of years. However, this hypothesis has now been shown to be
>> unnecessary, because well-documented natural processes can explain the
>> complexity of life.
>
> My "common question argument" does not depend on ID being nearly as
> strong as evolution.
>
>>
>> I personally have no problem with ID being taught in science class, as
>> long as the teacher can make it clear why the hypothesis is false.
>
> Its problem is not that it is "false", but rather that it is difficult
> to test.
Not true. Because it depends, ultimately, on the whim of an intelligent
agent, ID or anything like it is literally *impossible* to test. Any
observation whatsoever can be accounted for by claiming it was "designed"
given enough skill on the part of a designer-- especially one that was
intentionally trying to mimic natural processes.
> Other than that, perhaps our viewpoint is not really that
> different.
>
>> I
>> do not think the religious right would allow that to happen; they want
>> the "theory" to be presented as current, viable "theory". Given that
>> choice, I favor keeping ID out of the science classroom.
>
> I cannot buy the slipperly-slope argument. Textbooks should not be the
> place to prevent potential political mayham.
That's not at all the point. The point he made is that ID proponents do not
want ID presented as the weak, impotent, conjecture that it ultimately is.
They want it presented as an actual scientific possibility, which it is not.
If the choice is between presenting the material dishonestly (as promoted by
local school boards) or not at all, the preference is just to not address
it. It's not science anyway, even if it's a reasonable question (a premise I
question anyway).
> It is almost like the
> European belief that even talking about racism may trigger another
> Hitler, and thus the stupid censorship rules over there.
It's really not like that at all.
>
> The religious right has a right to their inch (no pun int.).
Frankly, they don't.
> If they
> start to take a mile, THEN it is time to raise a big fuss.
>
> Thus, address ID in the book, debunk it, and move on.
The previous poster was suggesting that it wouldn't go over like that,
although I suspect that might be OK. You could imagine a chapter that
described how biological organisms were once thought to have required a
designer but because of [insert science here] that is no longer the case.
Bobby D. Bryant
> I agree that some, perhaps most, ID proponents make some very silly
> arguments. Sometimes evo fans do the same. Let's focus on the best
> arguments, not the dumb or biased ones.
OK, what are the best arguments for ID? A concise list that merely
names them will answer my question; we can discuss them in detail
later.
Bobby D. Bryant
> In fact, the claims of IDiocy are vanishingly weak -- that some
> unknown designer intervened in some unknown way to change some
> genome somehow. Natural selection and common descent is just fine
> for most cases, but in some unknown and undefined circumstances,
> they're not enough.
And they only make _that_ lame claim in a handful of very localized
cases, e.g. the E.coli flagellum and a couple of biochemical
processes.
Mark Stahl
>> >
>> > josephus wrote:
>> > > topmind wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
>> > > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
>> > > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
>> > > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
>> > > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
>> > > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen
>> > > > in
>> > > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school
>> > > > days.
>> > > > difficult
>> > > > to test with the scientific process.
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > scare
>> > > > you; critique away...
>> > > >
>> > > > -T-
>> > > >
>> > > Actually the heart of your NON-definition is the untestablity. I know
>> > > you can't think of a test. I can't think of a test. A lot of people
>> > > cant think of a test. MAYBE there is NO TEST. ID fails on NO TEST.
>> > > Science requires REAL evidence and Any theory is tested by the
>> > > evidence.
>> > > and ID HAS NO EVIDENCE.
>> > >
>> > > NO TEST, NO EVIDENCE, ergo ID is not a theory.
>> > > josephus
>> >
>> >
>> > My argument does NOT depend on ID obtaining the level of "theory". See
>> > also item 3 in the article. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
>> >
>> >
>> > [Q:] "3. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU [Anthropic Principle] and
>> > String Theory are not considered "science" either by some because they
>> > have yet to be tested. Thus, using them to suggest ID should be
>> > included is misleading.
>> >
>> > [A:] The definition of "science" appears to not yet have a consensus.
>>
>> Could you please present some evidence for this statement?
>
> If there is a consensus definition, where is it?
>
>>
>> > evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID,
>> > the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries
>> > burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of
>> > science just to win the ID textbook battle.
>>
>> I don't think the definition of science has changed appreciably in a
>> while.
>> No one's tightening the entry criteria to exclude ID [rudeness removed].
>
> Again, if it is in stone, where is a copy of that stone?
>
>> >
>> > have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
>> > "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
>> > an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
>> > not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
>> > should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
>> > religion."
>>
>> If it's "yet to be tested," then it's not an accepted explanation.
>
>
> So MU and ST are not "science"?
Do you not understand the difference between "an accepted explanation" and
"scientific"? ST is, at least in principle if not in practical terms yet,
testable. ID, no matter what, is not testable even in principle. Thus, ST is
scientific, if not yet accepted, and ID is neither scientific nor accepted.
> See item 3 in the article. The
> Supreme Court may ask the very same thing, so you better prepare a good
> answer for it.
>
>
>> If it's
>> not testable, then it's not science.
>
> It has not been proven to be inharently "untestable".
ID is inherently untestable by definition.
>
>> What test for IDiocy do you have
>> in mind?
>
> You didn't read it, did you. Who is the "Idiot" now, eh?
Maybe you could post it again.
topmind
CreateThis wrote:
> topmind wrote:
>
> >>>>>"The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
> >>>>>time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
> >>>>>here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
> >>>>>this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
> >>>>>or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
> >>>>>designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
> >>>>>trial-and-error, etc."
>
> Are you saying you'll settle for Unintelligent Design now? When we get
> to Apparently Sourceless Design can we just call it evolution?
It is a fairly big leap from a nitwit designer to evolution. Then
again, the "universe as a big brain" viewpoint might fit.
>
> It's a sacrifice play: give up Intelligent to save Design.
Hey, ND: "Nitwit Design" :-)
That would be cool in the textbooks. It may piss off the preachers,
however.
>
> ID is all angles.
Kind of like the Anthropic Principle. One uses bulk complexity, the
other bulk material, and neither may be testable in the end (although
we don't know this yet).
>
> CT
-T-
Mark Stahl
>
>> > > The process of life making life
>> > > is as "fully observe" as the process of human making things.
>> >
>> >
>> > Cats producing more cats is not the same as fish turning into cats
>> > (over time). Mere reproduction does not explain where the first cat
>> > came from anymore than robots making more robots explains where the
>> > first robot came from. We know the history of our technology for the
>> > most part. We have patent records, etc. to document it. Human observers
>> > and writers were *there* during the formation of the complexity of
>> > technology. Evo cannot make that claim.
>>
>> Of course not. IDiots are making the counterclaim, that human beings
>> created complex things and therefore that complex things require at least
>> human intelligence.
>
>
> Do you mean human intelligence or human-level of intelligence?
>
> arguments. Sometimes evo fans do the same. Let's focus on the best
> having made mistakes here and there does not flatten the whole idea.
>
>
>> > > version of ID, however, more clearly identifies humans as a known
>> > > source of these machines. It is patently false to assert that humans
>> > > created the diversity of life, so I am not sure where that argument
>> > > actually takes you.
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not following you here. I agree it is an analogous leap
>> > (extrapolation) from machines to biology. There is indeed a risk in
>> > making such leaps. That is why it is ONLY a hypothesis. I am not
>> > arguing that ID has a strong case. Some of you have been battling those
>> > who do claim ID is strong, and thus forget to stop when encountering my
>> > argument which is not based on strength. Please tie a string around
>> > your finger to remind you. I don't want to go there again. It is a
>> > waste of both your time and mine.
>>
>> designer intervened in some unknown way to change some genome
>> somehow.
>
>
> investigating odd going-ons?
>
>
>> > > if you are going to propose something in science you do need to look
>> > > to how to test it. Testability really is the hallmark of scientific
>> > > work. If your claims do not distinguish between a possible Universe
>> > > were they are correct and a possible Universe where they are wrong,
>> > > then they are meaningless.
>> >
>> > This was addressed in item 3 and the "DNA pattern lab" example used
>> > throughout.
>>
>> Please present some testable ID DNA patterns and how we might distinguish
>> them from regular DNA patterns. Be sure to tell us how to avoid the
>> Bacon
>> wrote Shakespeare hypothesis.
>
> My argument does NOT depend on ID having presentable evidence at this
> considered a scientific idea by at least some professionals in the
> but that is just spinning your wheels in this topic.
>
Precisely. ID is untestable, by definition. An intelligent agent can act in
unpredictable ways. Any observation can be accounted for by invoking the
will of a clever designer who "wanted it that way". It is not possible to
separate this from natural processes even in principle. ID is therefore
untestable.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Certainly. My catalog of Taliban Christmas catalogs.
That is a set of songs, not a cardinal number. Classes and sets exist in
your head, not in the world.
Bob Kolker
topmind
> > Further, changing ratios on a *small* scale may not extrapolate to a
> > large scale. It looks good on paper, but has never been tested and
> > observed on a large scale. Thus, that statement stands as true. (This
> > is similar to the "macroevolution" complaint by some creationists. They
> > don't dispute minor changes.)
>
> And no one's every observed an electron directly either. None of this
> helps arguments *for* IDiocy.
And the nature of "electron" is under dispute. Is it a particle, a
wave, both, neither? That is why direct observation is a good thing.
Evolution has not been observed directly on a large scale. I am just
the messenger.
> > > It
> > > seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
> > > claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
> > > hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
> > > something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
> > > Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
> >
> > But we still have the problem of distinguishing evo from *other* kinds
> > of change agents.
>
> What *other* kinds of change agents? Evolution cites an imperfect genetic
> copying mechanism pruned by the environment. Tell us what other mechanism
> you have in mind.
I am just pointing out limits in current observability of evo.
>
> > People are really interested in seeing how a process
> > can make things like brains and eyeballs, not merely changing
> > something, especially minor things.
>
> And people in hell are really interested in ice water. What people want really
> want in a scientific theory (or find wanting in one) doesn't really help the case
> for IDiocy.
What I mean is that mere change is not the real issue. Nobody disputes
that evo can change stuff (on a small scale). But it is not alone in
this feature.
Current observation that evo can "change things" is not the same as
showing the evo alone is responsible for the variety and complexity of
life. Sometimes things that work on a small scale don't scale to a
larger scale. We won't know whether evo has this kind of scale blockage
or not until it is fully observed. Just because we cannot think of a
barrier or limit right now does not mean that one does not exist.
When we sent humans into space, nobody knew for sure what would happen
even though we had no knowledge of a specific limit or problem.
Actually, they tested first on dogs and chimps, which was smart even
though there was no known threat to mammals at the time.
I am not criticising evo here in general, only the limits of
observations on it so far.
There is no substitute for direct observation.
-T-
Bobby D. Bryant
> Deadrat wrote:
>> You are somewhat at a disadvantage here because
>>
>> I. You have no defined scientific theory
>
> Please clarify.
You suggest (quoted below) investigating the possibility that life forms
are made by intelligent beings. Is that a theory? No, it's a suggestion
that a conjecture might be worth following up on.
>> Here's your "working definition":
>>
>> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the
>> only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
>> from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
>> and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least
>> inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
>> intelligent being(s).
That's a very confused definition. If you mean "ID is the suspicion that
complex life forms were perhaps made by intelligent beings", then say so
in plain terms, without couching it as an argument. And leave out the
weasel words.
> But desiging is the ONLY fully observed source of complexity.
I don't think that's correct. What definition of complexity are you
using?
8<
> This is addressed in item 9. Here it is again for your convenience:
>
> [Q:] "9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI
> does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when
> they find something.
>
> [A:] Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence,
> medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't
> see why the definition of science should include the finding of only
> strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so
> easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science
> (although not always the wisest expenditure of effort).
>
> Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never
> even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the
> first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at
> least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent
> interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate
> with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA)."
Why are you talking about MU when the question was about SETI?
> Are you suggesting that *no* possible pattern could ever be evidence,
> even weak evidence, of a designer?
I'm not. But I do claim that the ID movement hasn't provided any
way of distinguishing such patterns from undesigned patterns.
> Finding alternating prime and Pi in a long-exinct DNA would not be a
> boost whatsoever? I find that position difficult to defend.
I suspect that there exists some mapping between codons and numbers that
would result in finding any numeric pattern you care to specify. The
suggestion of looking for numbers in DNA has no more merit than _The
Bible Codes_ does.
8<
> Does MU get an F also?
What's MU?
> Huh? There are plenty of critics of ST who are specialists in that
> area.
There are plenty of scientific critics of ST who reject it because
it's untestable. You seem to be claiming that ID should be accepted
uncritically because ST is, but your underlying assumption is wrong.
> ID explains anything evo can, by the way.
Unless you generalize "ID" to mean "creationism", ID doesn't even _try_
to explain most of what evolution explains. It merely attempts to
prove that a few things could not have evolved (and jump from there
to the notion that "someone" must have helped things along, "somehow").
CSI, IC, the NFLT, etc. have been offered as proof that various things
could not have evolved, but not as explanations for, say, the origin of
species, the twin nested hierarchy, vestigal skeletal features, etc.
That's why you need to actually define ID and state what the theory of
ID is. In the absence of that you are resorting to whatever slippery
claim you think supports your side of the ill-defined argument.
> The issue is the evidence, not the mere ability to explain. "Because
> the creator wanted it that way" can do it, and many complain that
> open-endedness makes ID untestable. You cannot have it both ways. If
> it cannot explain something, then we have found a way to falsify it,
> busting your "too wide open" claim.
The "* dididit" claim can 'explain' anything, but means nothing. How
are we supposed to falsify that?
>> 4. You miss the point about the objections to the religious
>> motivations of IDiots. It's not their motivation that's a problem.
>> It's their insertion of religion as dogma into public school
>> classrooms. Or haven't you been following the Dover trial? No one
>> objects to teaching about religion in schools.
>
> To quote the article:
>
> "Regarding religious bias, bias by itself does not make an idea invalid
> or non-scientific. If relativity were proposed by Adolph Hitler instead
> of Albert Einstein, would that make it less scientific or less useful
> as a theory? If a Darwin-influenced cult was formed with a stated goal
> of making sure evolution was taught in classrooms, would the new
> existence of such bias be a reason to label the theory of evolution
> "religion" and thus remove it? Science should test ideas, not human
> motives."
>
> [end quote]
>
> Should evo be yanked from the books IF such a cult forms???
You're still missing his poiunt.
> My version of ID is NOT religion. I don't care what other versions are
> out there. They are moot to my argument.
We still need you to clearly define what your version of ID is.
>> In short, your web page needs a little work.
>
> Appearently so. You read it all wrong, missing the key point.
I suppose "skeptically" and "critically" fall into the "all wrong"
category?
Bobby D. Bryant
> "The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
> time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as
> defined here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific
> intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have
> to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
> designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited
> skills, use trial-and-error, etc."
So, where do intelligent designers come from? Was the first generation
of intelligent designers devoid of all those characteristics which you
think can only come about by intelligent design?
topmind
>
> How would you apply that to populations of organisms?
>
> >However, I have had this to say about it:
> >
> >"I am not sure it would be easy to apply such to biological systems.
> >There may be somewhat random noise in the specimen that does not really
> >contribute to complexity.
>
> And there is the question of what you plan on measuring.
>
> >For example, if you add a little bit of
> >randomness to an image (dithering or "graininess"), most compression
> >systems will use up more space even though we don't "need" the
> >randomness. Such cannot distinguish between "useful" randomness and
> >non-useful. In biological systems cell A may deviate from cell B purely
> >out of randomness. Such may add to its complexity score even though it
> >may not be necessary for survival or reproduction benefits. Perhaps it
> >does, but the algorithm cannot tell either way."
>
> Can you show us that complexity has any relevance then? This is your
> claim, you need to show from a start that there is any biological
> relevance to the issue.
Perhaps I should re-word it to not depend on "complexity". I am tired
of getting stuck in the complexity issue. Perhaps I should say
"machine-like", instead of complexity, but this will then turn into a
definition battle over "machine-like".
But evo seems to have similar problems. Proving it can "change things"
does not mean much because the other factors I mention also change
things. Just because something can change things does not necessarily
mean it can or was the source of things like eyeballs and brains.
Observing that evo can change stuff alone does not mean that it made
eyeballs and brains; otherwise, it would mean that the other factors
could also be the source of eyeballs and brains.
See what I am getting at? Evo seems to be in the same boat. I don't see
a solid definition for either side.
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
-T-
Bobby D. Bryant
> Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Further you claim that there isn't a "consensus way to measure
>> complexity." That implies that one or more methods of measuring
>> biological complexity exist. If you believe one exists that is
>> directlt applicable to ID and specified complexity I invite you to
>> present it in detail. Otherwise the wording of that sentence needs
>> to be changed to be "There is no way to measure complexity in
>> biological systems."
>
> The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
So, are you defining complexity = Kolmogorov's definition of randomness?
If so, you should use the original term rather than a substitute.
I think you'll find that rigor isn't kind to your arguments, but you're
welcome to give it a try. You won't be the first person here to find
that your complexity argument falls apart once you put a firm definition
on it.
Ernest Major
<st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> writes
constrains the possible actions of the designer (and not in such fashion
as to mimic evolution or other designerless model). It's the ID
Movement's dedicated refusal to place any limits on the nature of the
designer that makes it clear that ID, as currently constituted, is not
science. (ID could have been a research programme, if the ID movement
was sincere about wanting to do science, but it has turned out to be a
religio-political movement.)
topmind should also note that it's not appropriate to incorporate
speculative research programmes into high-school curricula.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
>
>And the nature of "electron" is under dispute. Is it a particle, a
>wave, both, neither? That is why direct observation is a good thing.
>Evolution has not been observed directly on a large scale. I am just
>the messenger.
>
So you're an epistemological nihilist? You don't believe Pluto orbits
the sun? (That hasn't been observed directly either.) Common descent may
be an inference, but it is an inference supported by billions of
observations, from several different and mutually supporting lines of
evidence.
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > > > > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > > > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > > > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > > > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > > > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > > > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > > > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > > > > to test with the scientific process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > > > > > you; critique away...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -T-
> > > > >
> > > > > human objects are no more complex than necessary. Biological systems
> > > > > are almost universally more complex than is necessary. Claiming that
> > > > > the "intelligent designer" behind all life does not also follow the
> > > > > KISS principle means you can't compare complex human creations to
> > > > > biological systems in your working definition of ID which pretty much
> > > > > ends the whole issue.
> > > >
> > > > This is answered at the bottom of the link:
> > > >
> > > > time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
> > > > here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
> > > > this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
> > > > or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
> > > > designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
> > > > trial-and-error, etc."
> > > >
> > > > I am. Next...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nice try at the old handwave argument but that won't cut it here.
> > > Quoting from your web site's "Working Definition of Intelligent
> > > Design":
> > >
> > > observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent
> > > designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is
> > > reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were
> > > perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
> > >
> > > with the comparison you are trying to make in the first place.
> >
> > > Intentional complexity is not and can never be indicative of design by
> > > an intelligence recognizable as such by men.
> >
> > Can you please clarify this? It appears to be answered by item 9.
> >
>
> simplicity. We do not see such evidence ofdesign in biology.
How the hell is Steven J. going to know the motivations of a creator?
Again, we put tailfins on our cars and drive big fat Hummers. This is
hardly "efficiency" or simplicity.
It has been suggested I should call my variation "Nitwit Design"
instead of Intelligent Design to seperate it from those who beleive the
creator to be perfect, or at least highly rational.
In that sense, Steven J. is pounding a strawman.
> > >
> > > On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
> > > complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
> > > increase in "complexity".
> >
> >
> > No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
> > consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
> > instead of the usual process-based perspective.
> >
>
> Evolution is change in allele frequency over time which is most
> certainly an observational perspective. The rest of evolutionary theory
> is the result of this simple concept.
>
> With such a deep lack of knowledge about the ToE you might want to
> learn more about it before attempting to write on the subject.
The issue here is observation, not about the process of the theory.
Nobody disputes that evo can "change stuff". It is the limits or ranges
in the kinds of changes that are the issue because multiple things can
change stuff, as I mentioned in a sister reply.
> > > This is both directly factually incorrect and
> > > indicative that you mistakenly view evolution as a sort of progressive
> > > enterprise. Even without a strong metric of biological complexity there
> > > are various evolutionary paths that arguably involve an organism or
> > > system becoming less complex, parasite evolution is the best example of
> > > this fact. On the other issue evolution has no goal and therefore is
> > > not making progress toward any goal.
> > >
> > > Further you claim that there isn't a "consensus way to measure
> > > complexity." That implies that one or more methods of measuring
> > > biological complexity exist. If you believe one exists that is directlt
> > > applicable to ID and specified complexity I invite you to present it in
> > > detail. Otherwise the wording of that sentence needs to be changed to
> > > be "There is no way to measure complexity in biological systems."
> >
> >
> > The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
>
> I'll have to assume you intend to apply this to DNA sequences. I doubt
> very seriously you and the other ID supporters will be happy with the
> outcome of such as it would, for instance, indicate that the Fugu is
> significantly more complex than humans.
Perhaps, but that is irrelavant to my argument. I am only demonstrating
here that it is "testable". That's all it needs to be to fit my
argument. I take a different approach from most of the ID'ers you are
used to battling.
And, if we don't readily find any pattern, that does not make it false
anymore than searching for MU's but not finding any at the time does
not falsify MU, only substracts from its net score.
>
> Ken
-T-
Ernest Major
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> writes
>
>> But desiging is the ONLY fully observed source of complexity.
>
>I don't think that's correct. What definition of complexity are you
>using?
>
fractals (e.g. the Mandelbrot Set) can be remarkably complex, and are
not designed, so his assertion would seem to be falsified.
(Come to think of it, one could try to implement a GA to discover
(approximations to) self-similar fractal tiles, though offhand I don't
know what the risk of getting stuck in local optima would be a problem.)
Mark VandeWettering
>> >The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
>>
>> How would you apply that to populations of organisms?
>>
>> >However, I have had this to say about it:
>> >
>> >"I am not sure it would be easy to apply such to biological systems.
>> >There may be somewhat random noise in the specimen that does not really
>> >contribute to complexity.
>>
>> And there is the question of what you plan on measuring.
>>
>> >For example, if you add a little bit of
>> >randomness to an image (dithering or "graininess"), most compression
>> >systems will use up more space even though we don't "need" the
>> >randomness. Such cannot distinguish between "useful" randomness and
>> >non-useful. In biological systems cell A may deviate from cell B purely
>> >out of randomness. Such may add to its complexity score even though it
>> >may not be necessary for survival or reproduction benefits. Perhaps it
>> >does, but the algorithm cannot tell either way."
>>
>> Can you show us that complexity has any relevance then? This is your
>> claim, you need to show from a start that there is any biological
>> relevance to the issue.
>
> Perhaps I should re-word it to not depend on "complexity". I am tired
> of getting stuck in the complexity issue. Perhaps I should say
> "machine-like", instead of complexity, but this will then turn into a
> definition battle over "machine-like".
I'm not sure how you hope to extricate yourself from wooly thinking by
merely changing the word you are using without describing what you really
mean.
> But evo seems to have similar problems.
No. It doesn't. Because the "problem" that you describe is completely
illusory, and doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary theory.
> Proving it can "change things"
> does not mean much because the other factors I mention also change
> things. Just because something can change things does not necessarily
> mean it can or was the source of things like eyeballs and brains.
> Observing that evo can change stuff alone does not mean that it made
> eyeballs and brains; otherwise, it would mean that the other factors
> could also be the source of eyeballs and brains.
Other factors _could_ be responsible: they simply do not pan out when
one examines available evidence.
> See what I am getting at? Evo seems to be in the same boat. I don't see
> a solid definition for either side.
Since evolution doesn't depend on any such definition, it simply is irrelevent.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Silberstein
>>
>
> -T-
>
Bobby D. Bryant
> I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> to test with the scientific process.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
>
> Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> you; critique away...
Your replies in the thread so far suggest that "bottomfeeder" would be
a more apt cybernym.
As for your web page:
"Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only
fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from
intelligent designers"
I strongly suspect that if we can ever get you to define "complex"
you'll fall into the Pittman Fallacy, wherein your argument for ID
depends on "more complexity" in some cases and "less complexity" in
others.
Sean made the mistake of trying to commit to a definition, and now he
prefers to talk about neutral gaps rather than complexity.
Mark VandeWettering
>> topmind wrote:
>> > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
>> > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
>> > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
>> > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
>> > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
>> > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
>> > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
>> > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
>> > to test with the scientific process.
>> >
>> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
>> >
>> > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
>> > you; critique away...
>> ruled out. Just because we have not encountered or thought of a good
>> test *yet* does not rule out the potential of testability." You are
>> wrong. ID, *as promulgated by the Discovery Institute and its paid
>> spokesthings*, cannot be tested because *there's* *nothing* *there*
>> *TO* *test*. The Disco Boys' ID can be boiled down to seven words:
>> "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent *did* something."
>> If you think my summary is erroneous or incomplete, feel free to
>> explain what, *exactly*, Disco-type ID has to *say* about any of the
>> "some___"s in my summary.
>> What does ID have to say about the "somehow" by which acts of Design
>> are presumed to have occured?
>> What does ID have to say about the "somewhere" that acts of Design
>> are presumed to have occured in?
>> What does ID have to say about the "somewhen", the time-frame in
>> which acts of Design are presumed to have occured?
>> What does ID have to say about the "someone intelligent", other than
>> the bare assertion that It *is* intelligent?
>> What does ID have to say about the "something" that is presumed to
>> have implemented one or more presumed acts of Design?
>> ID, Disco Boys' style, is intrinsically incapable of being tested
>> because it's Too Bloody Vague. There's no *there* there, scientifically
>> speaking. Once the likes of Behe and Dembski get around to providing
>> testable hypotheses, *then* it will be time to think about how to test
>> ID. Until then? Fuggeddaboutit.
>> In short: ID isn't testable because ID's proponents haven't *made*
>> it testable. In truth, ID's proponents go out of their way to *avoid*
>> making it testable.
>
> See item 3 in the article. Regarding the alleged ill-behavior and bias
> of many ID proponents, I addressed that already. I reject the idea
> that human bias should change the classification of an idea itself.
>
>>
>> Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent Design
>> (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of
>> humans who engineered and built them." This is wrong. There are cases
>> on record in which genetic algorithms have created complex machinery
>> which operates with spendid effeciency *and* whose functioning *is*
>> *not* *understood* *by* *any* *human* *being*. How, pray tell, does
>> *that* square with your "intelligent designers" [are the] "only fully
>> observed source of complex devices" assertion, hmm?
>
> Those simulations tend to "prime the pump" with help from the designers
> (computer programmers).
This comment is often raised, but is (in my experience) never supported
with any actual specific criticism.
> Neural Nets can also do nifty things in the lab
> that are often hard to analyze and understand. However, a lab
> simulations is still a simulation.
You are sliding away from the goalposts. Of course simulations are
simulations. That's hardly surprising, but is wholly irrelevent to
the point being made.
> Evolution did not have the helping
> hand of lab expert or a programmer to provide a clean framework. If it
> did, then it would be ID (or a hybrid). Thus, it has still not been
> directly observed "in the wild" on a large scale. Don't get me wrong,
> the simulations are helpful evidence, but still not the slam-dunk of
> full observability and repeatability that science ultimately seeks.
I'll expect to see your followup posting claiming that since we actually
haven't fully observed Pluto orbit the sun, it would be rash and premature
to conclude that it is actually orbitting the sun.
>> As well, you seem to be tryna slip in an unspoken assumption; to
>> wit, that "the only FULLY OBSERVED source" (emphasis added) is
>> synonymous with "the ONLY source, PERIOD". Do you seriously believe
>> that we humans are omniscient? If not, this assumption would seem to be
>> rather questionable, at the very least.
>
> I am not sure what you mean here. Please clarify.
Mark
>
> -T-
topmind
> >> On 2005-12-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> >> > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> >> > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> >> > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> >> > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> >> > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> >> > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> >> > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> >> > to test with the scientific process.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> >> >
> >> > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> >> > you; critique away...
> >>
> >>
> >> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the
> >> only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
> >> from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
> >> inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
> >> intelligent being(s).
> >>
> >> imply a painter, it's hard to justify the claim that rain implies a "rainer",
> >> or that gravity implies a "gravitator".
> >
> > Your analogy is merely word-play it seems to me. The ID extrapolation
> > is from machines to machine-like things (biology). Thus, they are far
> > closer than mere word-play.
>
> The word play is entirely yours. We do observe complex devices and machines
> for which we cannot reasonably include intelligent design: they are called
> "biological organisms".
Reproduction does not explain the original source of complexity.
Robots making robots does not tell us anything about how the original
cycle started. The issue is how the thing obtained the ability to
reproduce in the first place. Nobody disputes that life or even robots
can reproduce.
>
> >> That you follow up your definition with this:
> >>
> >> The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came
> >> back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers,
> >> etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific
> >> intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not
> >> have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
> >> designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have
> >> limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
> >>
> >> If, indeed, ID can't distinguish between these rather disparate possibilities,
> >> doesn't it seem that its predictive power isn't just weak, but is in fact
> >> non-existant?
> >
> > One cannot rule out knowing more about the creators. Go watch The
> > Matrix for some possible paths.
>
> As someone mentioned, you do realize that the Matrix is fictional, do you
> not?
It is a hypothetical situation to test your definition of "science". If
you cannot handle hypothetical situations, then perhaps you should not
be here.
>
> > Is MU non-scientific if we cannot identify the source of multiple
> > universes?
>
> Since we don't teach MU in public schools either, whatever the resolution
> of this question would seem to be irrelevent, don't you think?
See item 2.
>
> >> I'm also interested in why you think you needed this disclaimer:
> >>
> >> This version is based almost entirely on the observation of
> >> sources of complexity, not religion.
> >>
> >> Why is it based even in part on religion?
> >
> > Huh?
>
> I think it's rather clear. Why is your idea based in part on religion?
It is not.
>
> >> Addressing your rebuttal to 10 criticisms of ID:
> >>
> >> 1. You didn't actually argue that ID is not malleable. You instead merely
> >> tried to divert by talking about something different.
> >
> >
> > I am comparing it to other fields. Other malleable things are called
> > "scientific" by some experts. You can't change the historical use of
> > science JUST to bust ID's balls. That will look bad in the courts.
>
> None of which addresses the charge that ID is malleable. Perhaps that
> criticism could be logged against other fields of human endeavor, but it
> does not reduce the claim against ID.
Being malleable BY ITSELF does not make something non-science or even
wrong, and we have ST and MU to testify of its usage outside of ID.
If you want to argue that putting ST and MU in science books of any
type was a big mistake to the supreme court, go ahead. I'll give you
free lead for your balloon.
>
> >> 2. You are arguing for more than science teachers ability to answer
> >> questions regarding intelligent design. I doubt the fraction of
> >> individuals who think that a science teacher shouldn't answer
> >> questions about intelligent design from students is very significant.
> >
> > That should be up to the States to decide. The Fed only cares (or
> > should care) about the seperation-of-church-and-state issue, not
> > micromanage what is debunked in science books.
>
> You are changing your argument in midstream. Your argument in #2 seemed
> to be that teachers should be allowed to answer student questions regarding
> intelligent design. They can, of course do precisely that. What you are
> really asking for overall is for teachers to be able to teach intelligent
> design as science. The Supreme Court will likely be forced to address
> this issue, but precedent and evidence will seem to weigh heavily against
> intelligent design because, as the court case in Dover clearly showed, ID
> is merely the puppet of Christian fundamentalism.
I think the lawyers were not very good. They should have suggested that
if bias of supporters is allowed in, then present evolutionist bias as
evidence also. In other words, either disallow the bias card, or play
it also just a strong. Bias is such a messy metric that it would gum up
the courts for years.
The sep-church-state issue is about *limits* of what can be in the
books and class. If that limit does not apply to my version of ID, then
it would be up to the states.
>
> >> 3. Given that I haven't been able to find a single instance of string theory
> >> or multi-universes in public school science standards, perhaps using it
> >> as examples _is_ disingenous.
> >
> > See item 2. When MU and ST become common questions, then that status
> > may change.
>
> I see no one lobbying to make sure that MU and ST be taught in public schools.
> Your argument is based entirely on a hypothetical, and I believe to be
> disingenuous.
If it is hypothetical, then it is moot anyhow. Nobody will complain
either way. For reference, here is 2 again:
"[Q:] 2. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU and String Theory are not
currently in textbooks, so why should ID be?
[A:] As stated above, commonly raised questions should be anticipated
and addressed in textbooks. ID or ID-like questions are common in the
classroom. I have seen it myself.... "
>
> >> 4. Science grades on results. It isn't the time that scientists spend which
> >> counts, it is the results that counts. ID simply doesn't have any.
> >
> > Either does MU or ST, yet they get to be called "science".
>
> Again, we are talking about teaching ID in schools. This is simply irrelevent.
Are you saying that the "common question" (CQ) argument for including
it is bad? Why should textbooks ignore common questions? It was
earlier suggested that CQ is bogus because ID is "not science".
However, I have showed that it is (or can be).
Thus, specifically what is your objection to CQ?
>
> >> 5. Ignoring bias is inherently against the scientific method. Science works
> >> to eliminate bias, it doesn't accept it. We eliminate the bias of
> >> scientists by using tools like falsification.
> >
> > Well ID has not been any more falsified than MU or ST.
>
> ID is unfalsifiable. That is why it has not been falsified.
Prove it is "unfalsifiable".
>
> >> 6. Math is useful as a tool to formulate models and provide for potential
> >> falsification. ID simply doesn't present anything resembling a model.
> >
> > Perhaps, but not a disqualifier in itself. At what point did evo
> > become "a model"? Actually the (approximate) model for ID is human
> > technology.
>
> As proposed in Origin of Species, evolution presented a falsifiable model.
See above.
>
> >> 7. Our bias toward intelligent sources is long, and in the case of most
> >> natural phenomena, _has proven to be wrong_. Weather isn't the work of
> >> the gods. Diseases aren't caused by demons.
> >
> > Depends how you define "demon" :-)
>
> If words have so little meaning to you, I suspect that your topmind should
> not be crafting educational standards.
I am only suggesting that the standard of "science" appear to be fuzzy
and non-consensus. I am just the messenger.
>
> > Just because an explanation is wrong for many circumstances does not
> > mean it is always wrong. Again, my arguments do not depend on ID being
> > a "strong" idea.
>
> Are you suggesting that diseases are sometimes caused by demons?
We already know the cause (of most). Note that ID does not assume a
supernatural being. We may create life ourselves someday. Your stance
seems to suggest that such will never be possible.
>
> I'm also unsure why you want to teach kids weak ideas.
CQ
>
> >> 8. Complexity isn't a problem for anyone, because it isn't defined in any
> >> meaningful sense.
> >
> > Then what does evo do that weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical
> > reactions, rust, etc cannot?
>
> Nothing. Evolution is driven entirely by physical reactions.
Then if change alone is the observational evidence for evo working,
then perhaps rust or lava or meteors etc created the life we see. I
know it sounds ridiculous, but that is what your argument seems to
point towards.
Proving change alone is useless!
>
> > And how can it be measured and tested? The "interesting" question is
> > not what produces mere change because many things do that, but is what
> > produces complexity, or at least intelligent "things". That is the
> > "meat".
>
> There are chemical reactions which produce things which we might label
> "more complex" and "less complex". Since both are possible, there simply
> isn't a problem.
>
> >> 9. SETI works by concluding intelligent design from signals which are very
> >> SIMPLE, not very complex.
> >
> > But being simple alone does not make it for sure intelligence. That is
> > just how they narrow down what to explore further.
>
> Well, again, given that it hasn't actually worked, it's a bit speculative
> to pretend that it has.
Note the title of this topic. SETI is "speculative science".
>
> >> 10. ID isn't speculative. It's simply hubris: imagining our ignorance of
> >> the universe must be significant.
> >
> > I don't find your answer useful. Ideas are just ideas, not evil demons.
>
> Ideas can be useful or counterproductive. In the past, assuming intelligent
> agents behind natural phenomena has been less than useful. There were no
> thunder gods on the top of mounts. There weren't homonculi inside of embryos.
> There are no demons causing the black plague.
Again, ID does not depend on a supernatural creator.
>
> I don't feel it is useful to keep an open mind that such things are still
> possible.
You are starting to scare me. Your bias is sticking out, or at least
what looks like bias.
> I especially don't think its a good idea to teach kids that
> such things are still possible.
Perhaps we should ban Santa and Easter Bunny cartoons also.
Besides, I am NOT against debunking ID in textbooks. Describe it,
describe how it is hard to test and so far has very little supporting
evidence beyond the human technology extrapolation, and then be done
with it.
Your slippery slope paranioa is not justified. Even if it was, the ends
don't justify the means. Like I said in another message, it reminds me
of Europe's paranoid ban on the mention of Hitler for fear it would
spark a new Hitler movement.
>
> Mark
-T-
topmind
It does if we are looking at *observational* evidence. Evo is great on
paper, I already agreed.
>
> > Proving it can "change things"
> > does not mean much because the other factors I mention also change
> > things. Just because something can change things does not necessarily
> > mean it can or was the source of things like eyeballs and brains.
> > Observing that evo can change stuff alone does not mean that it made
> > eyeballs and brains; otherwise, it would mean that the other factors
> > could also be the source of eyeballs and brains.
>
> Other factors _could_ be responsible: they simply do not pan out when
> one examines available evidence.
Yes, but it is indirect. It is not based on direct observation.
>
> > See what I am getting at? Evo seems to be in the same boat. I don't see
> > a solid definition for either side.
>
> Since evolution doesn't depend on any such definition, it simply is irrelevent.
Well, the existing definition does not appear to be tied to actual
observation. The observational evidence for evo is somewhat weak. Yes,
much stronger than ID, but still weak. And, that is why ID should still
be in the contest. ID is based on observation of sources of complexity
(or machine-like things), evo is not. Changing the size of a bird beak
is not in the same league as creating eyeballs and brains. I am just
the messenger WRT observation. Evo is a great theory, but has some
observational gaps and the contest should not end until those gaps are
filled.
-T-
rossum
wrote:
>I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
>belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
>participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
>alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
>science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
>should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
>biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
>The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
>to test with the scientific process.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
>
>Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
>you; critique away...
>
>-T-
You might find this article of interest:
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.doc
rossum
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth
topmind
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1133731319.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
> >
> >And the nature of "electron" is under dispute. Is it a particle, a
> >wave, both, neither? That is why direct observation is a good thing.
> >Evolution has not been observed directly on a large scale. I am just
> >the messenger.
> >
>
> So you're an epistemological nihilist? You don't believe Pluto orbits
> the sun? (That hasn't been observed directly either.) Common descent may
> be an inference, but it is an inference supported by billions of
> observations, from several different and mutually supporting lines of
> evidence.
I don't beleive you are correctly understanding the nature of my
argument.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133731319.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> > Further, changing ratios on a *small* scale may not extrapolate to a
>> > large scale. It looks good on paper, but has never been tested and
>> > observed on a large scale. Thus, that statement stands as true. (This
>> > is similar to the "macroevolution" complaint by some creationists. They
>> > don't dispute minor changes.)
>>
>> And no one's every observed an electron directly either. None of this
>> helps arguments *for* IDiocy.
>
>
>And the nature of "electron" is under dispute. Is it a particle, a
>wave, both, neither?
Sometimes you seem to look for leading edge science of the 18th
century. You have just jumped to the early 20th, well done.
> That is why direct observation is a good thing.
>Evolution has not been observed directly on a large scale. I am just
>the messenger.
Where "large" is defined as "larger than we have observed" and is a
continually moving definition.
>
>> > > It
>> > > seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
>> > > claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
>> > > hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
>> > > something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
>> > > Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
>> >
>> > But we still have the problem of distinguishing evo from *other* kinds
>> > of change agents.
>>
>> What *other* kinds of change agents? Evolution cites an imperfect genetic
>> copying mechanism pruned by the environment. Tell us what other mechanism
>> you have in mind.
>
>I am just pointing out limits in current observability of evo.
Why, yes, evolution is limited to biology. At least biological
evolution is. What is your point?
>> > People are really interested in seeing how a process
>> > can make things like brains and eyeballs, not merely changing
>> > something, especially minor things.
>>
>> And people in hell are really interested in ice water. What people want really
>> want in a scientific theory (or find wanting in one) doesn't really help the case
>> for IDiocy.
>
>What I mean is that mere change is not the real issue. Nobody disputes
>that evo can change stuff (on a small scale). But it is not alone in
>this feature.
What else causes changes in inherited characteristics of populations
of biological organisms over time?
>Current observation that evo can "change things" is not the same as
>showing the evo alone is responsible for the variety and complexity of
>life.
True, you would have to do some more reading to see the support for
that. Read up on comparative morphology and comparative genetics and
biogeographic distribution for a start. We have lots and lots of
evidence to connect those bits.
>Sometimes things that work on a small scale don't scale to a
>larger scale. We won't know whether evo has this kind of scale blockage
>or not until it is fully observed.
And "fully observed" means watching from the origin of life to now,
right? Again you have slipped from defending ID to criticizing
evolution. And since we do not have a 4.5 billion year long video of
all life on Earth you think we should consider something for which we
have no evidence.
>Just because we cannot think of a
>barrier or limit right now does not mean that one does not exist.
And just because we have no evidence for a barrier does not mean one
does exist, but it is a reasonable position to take.
>When we sent humans into space, nobody knew for sure what would happen
>even though we had no knowledge of a specific limit or problem.
>Actually, they tested first on dogs and chimps, which was smart even
>though there was no known threat to mammals at the time.
>
>I am not criticising evo here in general, only the limits of
>observations on it so far.
>
>There is no substitute for direct observation.
And the observation of non-human designers consists of what?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> in <dFM8Ldor...@meden.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <a5WdnaIAh6A...@giganews.com>, Mark Stahl
><st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> writes
[snip]
>>Precisely. ID is untestable, by definition. An intelligent agent can act in
>>unpredictable ways. Any observation can be accounted for by invoking the
>>will of a clever designer who "wanted it that way". It is not possible to
>>separate this from natural processes even in principle. ID is therefore
>>untestable.
>>
>>
>To be fair, I think that ID (as a hypothesis) is testable, *if* one
>constrains the possible actions of the designer (and not in such fashion
>as to mimic evolution or other designerless model). It's the ID
>Movement's dedicated refusal to place any limits on the nature of the
>designer that makes it clear that ID, as currently constituted, is not
>science. (ID could have been a research programme, if the ID movement
>was sincere about wanting to do science, but it has turned out to be a
>religio-political movement.)
>
>topmind should also note that it's not appropriate to incorporate
>speculative research programmes into high-school curricula.
There are plenty of testable ID notions. "George Foreman created all
life in 1512", for example. Falsified in a variety of ways. "Humans
created all life", also falsified. The problem is that "ID" per se is
not falsified. We can always propose some set of designers that
created any set of evidence.
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133731984.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
BTW, folks, he makes lots of unmarked snips.
>> >The Kolmogorov method, nicknamed the "compression metric" sometimes.
>>
>> How would you apply that to populations of organisms?
>>
>> >However, I have had this to say about it:
>> >
>> >"I am not sure it would be easy to apply such to biological systems.
>> >There may be somewhat random noise in the specimen that does not really
>> >contribute to complexity.
>>
>> And there is the question of what you plan on measuring.
>>
>> >For example, if you add a little bit of
>> >randomness to an image (dithering or "graininess"), most compression
>> >systems will use up more space even though we don't "need" the
>> >randomness. Such cannot distinguish between "useful" randomness and
>> >non-useful. In biological systems cell A may deviate from cell B purely
>> >out of randomness. Such may add to its complexity score even though it
>> >may not be necessary for survival or reproduction benefits. Perhaps it
>> >does, but the algorithm cannot tell either way."
>>
>> Can you show us that complexity has any relevance then? This is your
>> claim, you need to show from a start that there is any biological
>> relevance to the issue.
>
>Perhaps I should re-word it to not depend on "complexity". I am tired
>of getting stuck in the complexity issue. Perhaps I should say
>"machine-like", instead of complexity, but this will then turn into a
>definition battle over "machine-like".
Funny thing, people like to know what you are talking about. And if
you are going to make claims about change, they like you to be able to
measure that change.
>But evo seems to have similar problems. Proving it can "change things"
Not change "things", evolution is the change in inherited
characteristics of populations of living organisms over time. Not
"things" in general.
>does not mean much because the other factors I mention also change
>things.
What other factors change the inherited characteristics of populations
of living organisms over time?
>Just because something can change things does not necessarily
>mean it can or was the source of things like eyeballs and brains.
True. But you are skipping over the millions of pieces of evidence
that do lead to that conclusion.
>Observing that evo can change stuff alone does not mean that it made
>eyeballs and brains; otherwise, it would mean that the other factors
>could also be the source of eyeballs and brains.
>See what I am getting at? Evo seems to be in the same boat. I don't see
>a solid definition for either side.
Because you keep ignoring the definition. And you ignore that we don't
just go from definition to conclusion, we have thousands of
experiments and millions of pieces of evidence to connect the steps.
topmind
ges...@boundvortex.com wrote:
> <<ts problem is not that it is "false", but rather that it is difficult
> to test. >>
>
> ID, as yet, makes no predictions, so that makes it impossible, not
> merely difficult, to test. <g>
So you are saying that an idea must make predictions *up front* to be
called "science"? MU makes no solid predictions up front, yet it has
been called "science", or at least treated as science. Were those who
allegedly mislabled MU merely stupid? Can you show they were stupid in
a court of law?
>
> Plus, given that we have discovered the processes which DO create life,
> it seems to follow that aliens didn't do it. In that sense, ID is
> falsified.
Evo is not a slum-dunk theory (just yet). We have not observed it
making non-trivial changes; and other natural agents of change can make
trivial changes. Thus, it still has an observational gap despite being
a good idea. We have not observed it making complex life from scratch
(or at least from simple cells). That is a fact.
>
> <<European belief that even talking about racism>>
>
> Almost no one objects to ID being taught in school, they just object to
> it being taught in science class. No censorship there.
I have shown that ID can be considered "science" using the same
criteria that others use for the likes of MU and ST.
>
> <<If they start to take a mile, THEN it is time to raise a big
> fuss...Thus, address ID in the book, debunk it, and move on >>
>
> Too late, by then. Public opinion is more like an axe than a scalpel;
> fine tuning is simply beyond its ability.
Perhaps, but if you better come up with some better justification for
excluding ID outside of alleged bias of its supporters if you want a
snowball's chance in hell of keeping it out of the books. They will
probably bring up the likes of MU and ST in the courts, and you guys
are so busy bashing the behavior of creationists that you are poorly
armed when it comes to the edge of science and science definitions.
That is what happens when you spend your time hating instead of
thinking; and on focusing on what people do instead of on ideas.
You made your bed, so you will have to lay in it now.
-T-
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
>
>Reproduction does not explain the original source of complexity. Robots
>making robots does not tell us anything about how the original cycle
>started. The issue is how the thing obtained the ability to reproduce
>in the first place. Nobody disputes that life or even robots can
>reproduce.
>
the vertebrate clotting system are not relevant to the issue? (The
latter long postdates the ability to reproduce; I assume the same holds
for the former, but I don't have the details to hand.)
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
>
>Evo is not a slum-dunk theory (just yet). We have not observed it
>making non-trivial changes; and other natural agents of change can make
>trivial changes. Thus, it still has an observational gap despite being
>a good idea. We have not observed it making complex life from scratch
>(or at least from simple cells). That is a fact.
>
And you were claiming I had misunderstood your argument when I asked if
you were an epistemological nihilist!
It is usual to distinguish between the origin of life (abiogenesis) and
the origin of the diversity of life (evolution).
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1133736053....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Evo is not a slum-dunk theory (just yet). We have not observed it
>making non-trivial changes;
What is the smallest example of a non-trivial change? How long did
that take according to standard evolution theory? IOW would we have
expected to see any such "non-trivial" change in the last 150 years?
>and other natural agents of change can make
>trivial changes.
Not to the inherited characteristics of a population of living
organisms. That a meteor can change the orbit of an asteroid is
irrelevant wrt biological diversity.
>Thus, it still has an observational gap despite being
>a good idea. We have not observed it making complex life from scratch
>(or at least from simple cells). That is a fact.
Since that likely took scores of millions of years and millions of
cubic miles and since life is already here occupying the space, I am
not sure why you find this significant. I will point out that we have
not seen a single act by any non-human design doing anything to
something biological. It is a ratio of a gazillion to zero.
[snip]
>
>I have shown that ID can be considered "science" using the same
>criteria that others use for the likes of MU and ST.
No, you have stated that. And stated it in the face of contradictory
evidence.
[snip]
Cubist
> Cubist wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > to test with the scientific process.
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > > you; critique away...
for the proposition that "ID should be included in grade-school
textbooks" -- but your item 3 argues that ID is okay for grade-school
textbooks on the grounds that multiple-universes and striing theory are
hard to test. The last time *I* checked, *neither* MU *nor* ST is being
taught in grade-school textbooks -- and the difficulty of testing those
concepts is part of the reason *why* neither MU not ST is being taught
in grade-school textbooks. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it would
seem that the mere fact that other not-taught-in-grade-school-textbooks
theories *exist*... just doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive
reason *for* including ID in grade-school textbooks.
Seriously: *Is* that your argument? "We should include this one
untestable theory in grade-school textbooks because *other* untestable
theories... um... aren't included in grade-school textbooks...
either..."?
> Regarding the alleged ill-behavior and bias
> of many ID proponents, I addressed that already. I reject the idea
> that human bias should change the classification of an idea itself.
Fine. How about the idea's content -- or, in the case of ID, *lack*
of content? I note that your response to my seven-word summary of ID is
conspicuous by its absence. Here it is again, just to give you another
change to demonstrate that ID *has* any substantive content:
"Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent *did*
something."
*That* is what ID says. You say you disagree -- you say ID does,
*too* have more content than that? Fine. Here, again, are my questions
about the "some___"s of my seven-word summary of ID (questions to which
your answers are, again, conspicuously absent):
What does ID have to say about the "somehow" by which acts of
Design are presumed to have occured?
What does ID have to say about the "somewhere" that acts of Design
are presumed to have occured in?
What does ID have to say about the "somewhen", the time-frame in
which acts of Design are presumed to have occured?
What does ID have to say about the "someone intelligent", other
than the bare assertion that It *is* intelligent?
What does ID have to say about the "something" that is presumed to
have implemented one or more presumed acts of Design?
> > Your proposed definition of ID states, in part, "Intelligent Design
> > (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of
> > complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow
> > humans who engineered and built them." This is wrong. There are cases
> > on record in which genetic algorithms have created complex machinery
> > which operates with spendid effeciency *and* whose functioning *is*
> > *not* *understood* *by* *any* *human* *being*. How, pray tell, does
> > *that* square with your "intelligent designers" [are the] "only fully
> > observed source of complex devices" assertion, hmm?
> Those simulations tend to "prime the pump" with help from the designers
> (computer programmers).
Pray tell: How, *exactly*, does one go about "priming the pump" to
yield a result which *NO* *HUMAN* *BEING* *UNDERSTANDS*???
> Neural Nets can also do nifty things in the lab
> that are often hard to analyze and understand. However, a lab
> simulations is still a simulation. Evolution did not have the helping
> hand of lab expert or a programmer to provide a clean framework.
So what? A lab is a place where a specific set of conditions can be
set up, and people can watch what happens under that set of conditions.
Is there any reason to believe that a specific set of conditions will
yield *different* results when it occurs in a lab, as opposed to when
it occurs 'in the wild'? Or, in other words, does the Universe behave
any differently in a lab than it does 'in the wild'?
As you yourself point out, "The laws of the universe don't activate
or deactivate based on what humans think." Are you perhaps willing to
argue that the laws of the universe *do* activate or deactivate based
on whether you're in a lab or not?
> > As well, you seem to be tryna slip in an unspoken assumption; to
> > wit, that "the only FULLY OBSERVED source" (emphasis added) is
> > synonymous with "the ONLY source, PERIOD". Do you seriously believe
> > that we humans are omniscient? If not, this assumption would seem to be
> > rather questionable, at the very least.
> I am not sure what you mean here. Please clarify.
Let us assume that you're right about "the only fully observed
source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers:
our fellow humans who engineered and built them". Does this mean there
are *no other* "source[s] of complex devices" than "intelligent
designers"? If your answer is "yep, that's right, no other 'source[s]
of complex devices'," you are assuming your conclusion. That's a
fallacy, by the by, and if you are indeed committing that fallacy, your
argument self-destructs.
Presuming you are *not* assuming your conclusion, the next question
is: How does one go about distinguishing "complex devices" which *are*
produced by "intelligent designers", from "complex devices" which are
*not* produced by "intelligent designers"? Thus far, ID has not
provided any way of doing so.
ges...@boundvortex.com
called "science"? MU makes no solid predictions up front, yet it has
been called "science", or at least treated as science. >>
I haven't said that ID wasn't "science", because the definition
of science is fuzzy. What I'm suggesting is that ID is irrelevant
and insignificant, because it has no real world consequences that can
be identified, perhaps just like MU.
ID predicts nothing and explains nothing that isn't already explained
by evolution, which is the reason arguments for ID usually reduce to
trying to undermine evolution.
<<We have not observed it making non-trivial changes; and other natural
agents of change can make trivial changes.>>
And we never will directly observe this, because our life spans are too
small. The case for evolution is made by inference from a wide variety
of data, which is all self-consistent. The case is compelling and
conclusive for those who honestly approach the data, which is why
it's supported by almost all scientists in all countries from all
cultures and religions (except fundamentalist Christians.)
<<I have shown that ID can be considered "science" using the same
criteria that others use for the likes of MU and ST. >>
You have not "shown" this, you have postulated this. I don't
have enough knowledge of MU or ST to debate the point.
<<Perhaps, but if you better come up with some better justification for
excluding ID outside of alleged bias of its supporters if you want a
snowball's chance in hell of keeping it out of the books. >>
I agree that the bias of its supporters is insufficient reason to keep
it out of schools. It should not be taught in schools because
1) It explains nothing not already explained by evolution, which is
well supported scientifically,
2) It predicts nothing,
3) There's no reason to think it any truer than an infinite number of
other hypotheses that explain nothing and predict nothing.
<<That is what happens when you spend your time hating instead of
thinking; and on focusing on what people do instead of on ideas. >>
Curious that you associate evolution with hating and not thinking.
Evolution is the subject of extensive experimentation and research
around the world and has been for 150 years; IDists do nothing but
print the same tired old arguments over and over again. Which group
isn't thinking?
topmind
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > to test with the scientific process.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> >
> > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > you; critique away...
>
> Your replies in the thread so far suggest that "bottomfeeder" would be
> a more apt cybernym.
Nah, too long.
>
> As for your web page:
>
> "Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only
> fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from
> intelligent designers"
>
> I strongly suspect that if we can ever get you to define "complex"
> you'll fall into the Pittman Fallacy, wherein your argument for ID
> depends on "more complexity" in some cases and "less complexity" in
> others.
>
> Sean made the mistake of trying to commit to a definition, and now he
> prefers to talk about neutral gaps rather than complexity.
I have argued in a sister reply that evo has the same problem if it
wants to distinguish itself from other natural agents of change. No
need to reinvent that debate here.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
-T-
Steven J.
> Ken Shaw wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>> > Ken Shaw wrote:
>
>
>> As Steven J. has already stated quite succintly design seeks
>> simplicity. We do not see such evidence ofdesign in biology.
>
> How the hell is Steven J. going to know the motivations of a creator?
> Again, we put tailfins on our cars and drive big fat Hummers. This is
> hardly "efficiency" or simplicity.
>
"Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent
designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is
reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were
perhaps also made by intelligent being(s)."
As I read that, you are inferring "design" in biology because of the
similarity between things known to be designed by humans, and structures and
systems in living organisms. Surely, therefore, dissimilarities ought to
count *against* the design inference, I would think.
There are two main arguments for ID (or ND). First, certain sorts of
complexity are beyond explanation in terms of currently known nondirected
mechanisms, and therefore need to be explained in terms of design. Second,
some aspects of living organisms resemble known human designs. Now, the
first argument has several problems. The main evidence that certain
aspects of biology are inexplicable in "Darwinian" terms is simply that they
have not yet been so explained, as though someone had proved that any
problem that had not been "naturalistically" solved by 2005 never would or
could be. And, of course, demonstrating that known nonteleological
mechanisms cannot explain some feature, even if such a demonstration could
be made, would not tell us whether the actual explanation involved "design"
or unknown nonteleological mechanisms. And, as noted, the second argument
cuts both ways.
Now, as far as "efficiency" goes, of course, it can only be measured
relative to some known function. Fuel efficiency is an obvious measure of
automotive design, but people also desire cargo and passenger space (and
passenger comfort -- small, fuel-efficient cars are rarely fun to ride in
when you're six feet tall), and stylish looks. The thing is, we *know* that
car buyers (and therefore car designers and manufacturers) desire these
features; we don't need to posit some freakish unevidenced motive on the
part of car companies or drivers to explain these inefficient features of
cars.
Now, we can explain, I suppose, any feature of biological "design" by
positing suitably exotic motives of the Designer on an ad hoc basis.
However, this can quickly end up at the point where you spend more time
putting arbitrary patches on the theory to explain away the data, than you
do explaining the data by the theory. Of course, one might posit some
testable hypothesis about the Designer's anti-efficient motives, and show
how it applies to a wide range of features in a wide range of organisms, and
thereby make progress on an actual testable ID theory. But at the moment it
seems to me that what you are arguing is that scientists cannot show that
there was *not* a Designer. But there are a near-infinity of vaguely
conceived causes that science cannot absolutely rule out, and no reason to
take seriously any of them that cannot muster actual explanatory power (i.e.
showing why things are the way they are rather than some other conceivable
way).
>
> It has been suggested I should call my variation "Nitwit Design"
> instead of Intelligent Design to seperate it from those who beleive the
> creator to be perfect, or at least highly rational.
>
A couple of years back, someone posted about a Microsoft program that was
chockablock with code that didn't do anything, lookup tables that were never
consulted, and other things that wasted space on one's hard drive. There
was a reason for that, of course: programmers who revised a program over and
over, and didn't clean up after themselves. They left in code and data that
had been used in earlier versions, but were useless in the current version.
In biology, such features are called "vestigial structures." Where they are
shared between different species, they are evidence of shared ancestors
(separate revisions of a single original version). Perhaps, if you're
willing to incorporate common descent, "lazy and iterative design" would be
better than "nitwit design" (slogan: "Put a LID on Darwinism!"), but there
would still be a need to show that a designer actually added something to an
explanation, rather than being a resort to "here a miracle occurs" whenever
imagination or understanding fails us for the moment.
>
> In that sense, Steven J. is pounding a strawman.
>
Again, if you're arguing from similarity to the products of known
intelligent designers, arguments from dissimilarity to those products are
surely admissible.
>
>> > >
>> > > On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
>> > > complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
>> > > increase in "complexity".
>> >
>> >
>> > No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
>> > consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
>> > instead of the usual process-based perspective.
>> >
>>
>> Evolution is change in allele frequency over time which is most
>> certainly an observational perspective. The rest of evolutionary theory
>> is the result of this simple concept.
>>
>> With such a deep lack of knowledge about the ToE you might want to
>> learn more about it before attempting to write on the subject.
>
>
> The issue here is observation, not about the process of the theory.
> Nobody disputes that evo can "change stuff". It is the limits or ranges
> in the kinds of changes that are the issue because multiple things can
> change stuff, as I mentioned in a sister reply.
>
Okay, note the sort of biological design humans have done to date. Mostly
it involves placing copies of genes from one organism into another (whether
a gene for human insulin in a bacterium, or for glowing pigment in a monkey,
or whatnot). Now, we've never directly observed any nonhuman "designers" at
all (unless you count, e.g. chimps peeling sticks to make them better
termite-fishing tools), so on your own argument we would seem to have
profound grounds for doubting "macro-design" by nonhuman agents of IC/SCI
structures. Or, conversely, our own example leads us to expect that where
the Designer(s) intervened in biological history, we should see identical
interventions (identical genetic modifications) in widely divergent species.
This would be testable, I think, but does not seem to be what actually
exists in nature.
-- Steven J.
Deadrat
> > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > to test with the scientific process.
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > > you; critique away...
> > >
> >
> > not a handle you adopt that will "scare" me.
>
> I congratulate you for your superior bravery.
Whew! I thought you were going to hit me.
>
> >
> > First of all, do yourself (and any arguments that you actually have) a favor by
> > organizing your web page in a coherent fashion. Your readers have to wade
> > through a bunch of unsupported statements and replies to objections to IDiocy
> > before they actually get to a definition of the theory. Your organization should
> > be
> > I. A definition of the theory.
> > II. Arguments marshaled to show that the theory is scientific
> > III. The current state of scientific research on the theory.
> > IV. Answers to critics.
>
> Everybody organizes things different and wants them organized
> different. Most knowlege is actually a graph (network) instead of
> linear or hierarchical. Thus, there is no "one right" projection into
> 1-dimensional text. Every approach has a compromise and the optimal
> (best compromise) probably depends on the varying psychology of the
> readers. If you have OBJECTIVE proof that the above is superior, I
> would like to inspect such evidence.
It wasn't proof. It was good advice. If you want to advance a convincing
argument *for* something, make it easy on your audience. Make your claim
clear and make it up front. Follow with your best arguments. Marshal the
evidence close by to support those arguments. This doesn't make sense
to you?
>
> >
> > You are somewhat at a disadvantage here because
> >
> > I. You have no defined scientific theory
>
> Please clarify.
Really? The paragraph below wasn't good enough? A theory is some
set of claims. State them. It isn't' a "based on" observation.
>
> >
> > Here's your "working definition":
> >
> > Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
> > observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers:
> > our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to
> > suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made
> > by intelligent being(s).
> >
> > What is ID? It's something based on an observation? This is not a definition.
> > The observation isn't even correct. What it essentially says is that we determine
> > design from complexity, but that's not true. We determine design because we
> > know the designers: we know that a Ford Taurus is designed, not because of
> > some complexity innate to the Taurus, but because there's a Ford logo on the
> > grill. We can go to Detroit, and in principle, talk to the design team.
>
> But desiging is the ONLY fully observed source of complexity.
This is wrong. For the right parameters a damped pendulum's path is complex.
> > There's no such logo on a living cell.
>
> The female baboon has a pretty noticable logo on her ass during mating
> season.
Yeah? Who does it say manufactured her ass? (Hint: it's not a logo.)
>
> > It may be "reasonable to suspect or inquire"
> > about intelligent designers, but that's hardly part of a definition of IDiocy. After all,
> > at one point, the only objects we knew that traveled to the moon were unmanned.
> > We didn't decide that meant that men couldn't go to the moon. I don't know about
> > you, but I think it's reasonable that objects in motion tend to stop eventually. That's
> > my everyday experience, but I know that as reasonable as it seems, it's not true.
> > Objects in motion want to stay in motion.
> >
> > You say that your definition, such as it is, "is based almost entirely on the observation
> > of sources of complexity." If that's true, you're not looking very hard. We know that
> > very simple nonlinear feedback processes that would hardly take an intelligent designer
> > can produce extremely complicated systems.
>
> Example?
The three-body problem. The damped pendulum. Population statistics. Weather.
Genetic algorithms for circuit design. Even very simply stated nonlinear systems can produce
arbitrarily complex results.
> Computer simulations don't fully count. Multiple ideas can
> produce complexity in simulations under the right conditions.
>
> >
> > II. You don't have any arguments that show IDiocy to be a science.
> >
> > I admit that this is a hard task when you don't have a clear definition of your theory.
> > You spend a lot of space countering negative arguments, but where is the positive
> > argument?
>
> What exactly is a "positive argument"?
The evidence that X obtains is strong. As opposed to the evidence that shows not-X is
weak.
>
> > The closest you come is that "an intelligent designer could have left clues
> > or puzzles in the DNA of animals." Really? Do you know how easy it is to come up
> > with "messages" in things after the fact? Just look at the arguments that Bacon wrote
> > what we attribute to Shakespeare.
>
> This is addressed in item 9. Here it is again for your convenience:
>
> [Q:] "9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI
> does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when
> they find something.
>
> [A:] Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence,
> medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't
> see why the definition of science should include the finding of only
> strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so
> easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science
> (although not always the wisest expenditure of effort).
>
> Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never
> even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the
> first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at
> least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent
> interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate
> with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA)."
>
> [end quote]
>
> Are you suggesting that *no* possible pattern could ever be evidence,
> even weak evidence, of a designer? Finding alternating prime and Pi in
> a long-exinct DNA would not be a boost whatsoever? I find that position
> difficult to defend.
Do we have any "long-extinct DNA"? If not, then this really isn't a possible
test. Secondly, it is extremely easy to find pattern artifacts in complex data.
Especially if you're not constrained by what patterns you're looking for and
what methods you're using to assign the symbols. Let's have some idea of
what you're looking for and how you would identify it.
> > III. You can't cite any current research in IDiocy.
>
> Can we cut it out with the rudeness please? It it not helpful, and
> frankly makes you look like an evo zealot (they do exist).
I'm sorry that you find this description rude. It's accurate, though.
If you don't believe me, read the Dover transcripts. What would an
"evo zealot" be? There's plenty of things that would convince me
evolution is on the wrong track, including results in genetics and
geology that we don't happen to see. I'm actually more of a First
Amendment zealot.
But since you asked (and even politely), my further responses to
your posts will not call Intelligent Design "IDiocy" or supporters
of Intelligent Design "IDiots."
> > That's because there isn't any. You ask what would happen if there were a "DNA
> > Pattern Study Institute." Wouldn't that make IDiocy a science? And if so, isn't it
> > still a science even if IDiots haven't setup a DNA PSI? (Oh, I do like the acronym!)
> > After all, you say, we don't grade for effort, do we? Well, actually, we grading here
> > for doing science. You ask whether science should focus on "evidence, not on effort
> > being spent to obtain evidence." But if no effort is being spent, there won't be evidence,
> > and the semester grade is an F.
>
>
> That is addressed in item 3.
If that's the multiverse-isn't-science-either, then you haven't addressed the question.
No matter how little investigation goes into the multiverse hypothesis, it won't make ID
into a science.
>
> Does MU get an F also?
Pretty much. Who claims this as anything more than interesting speculation?
> > IV. Your answers to critics takes up most of the space.
> >
> > That should tell you something. I won't go through all of your answers, but here are a
> > few things to consider:
> >
> > 1. At one point you say
> >
> > Some suggest that the newer math can also be tweaked to match about anything new
observed.
> > Our ability to throw equations at the problem has perhaps exceeded our ability to test
them.
> > The eleven or so dimensions of String Theory (ST) are suspicious in this regard.
> >
> > Nobody suggests that about the "newer" math, and I'm gonna guess your own math chops
> > aren't up to the task of finding out.
>
>
> Huh? There are plenty of critics of ST who are specialists in that
> area.
But I haven't read that any of them said that the math can be "tweaked"
to match anything. The major complaint about string theory is that even
were it complete, it doesn't predict anything that we can actually test.
> > (An aside about your language. You use it carelessly. The dimensions of string theory
> > aren't suspicious. *You* are suspicious. You mean the dimensionality of string theory
> > is suspect. I'll complain about only one more sentence:
>
> I am not following your grammar complaint, but frankly don't care. I am
> not here to talk about grammar.
Look it up. Correct usage is a politeness to your readers.
> > Regarding not being "testable", such cannot be summarily ruled out.
> >
> > What kind of talk is that?)
>
> It cannot be ruled out for ID anymore than MU.
>
> >
> > (As long as I'm on an aside what's up with this?
> >
> > Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as
revenge
> > for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent
> > church group?
> >
> > That's just creepy.)
>
> Humans are sometimes that way. That is why grading ideas based on
> motivations of the proponents is a path to a mess and would turn
> science into a soap-opera.
Could we please have an example of someone in your adolescent sex scenario, then?
No one is "grading ideas" based on motivations. ID isn't science because IDists are
fundamentalists. It isn't science because it doesn't meet scientific criteria. Religious
motivation is a factor in the legal case for keeping ID out of public schools. But that's
different from the argument about science.
> > 2. "There is no consensus way to measure complexity." (Forgive me. But "consensus way"
> > is redundant) There are several recognized ways to measure complexity. What excuse could
> > there be for not using one or developing another?
>
> Saying that there are multiple is not the same as saying there is a
> consensus. I did not dispute "multiple".
This is hardly the point. Choose one of the recognized mathematical definitions
or propose another and use it.
> > 3. "I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong
> > evidence.
> > Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for
> > tough-to-find
> > evidence is still part of science."
> >
> > But IDiots aren't searching for evidence at all. And the way science works is that the
better
> > explanations replace the poorer. IDiocy must explain everything that evolution explains and
> > more.
>
>
> NO! My argument does *not* depend on ID being strong. You seem to be
> missing the point, going into your habitual creationist bashing mode.
>
> If you are going to be metal-ass about my grammar, then I am going to
> be a metal-ass about you reading the original article in full. You
> missed the whole point.
Look, your web page is poorly organized, badly written, mistakenly argued, and
ungraced by any evidence. (Beyond that, I thought it was an excellent essay, by the
way.) If you don't want to give the page an easy-to-parse structure because of
the supposed non-hierarchical network nature of knowledge, or if you don't want
to adhere to proper grammar and usage because that's just "metal-ass" quibbling,
then fine. But you don't get to redefine how science works. And one of those ways
is that explanations must have explanatory power. That's different from having
strong evidence. String theory is an extremely strong theory that encompasses
our current quantum theories and general relativity, but it has no evidence. It might
some day. ID has little if any explanatory power and no evidence whatsoever.
The latter is inherent in the "theory," and the former -- it is what it is.
> ID explains anything evo can, by the way.
How does ID explain the genetic/morphological nested hierarchy of life?
> The issue is the evidence, not the mere ability to explain.
It's both.
"Because the creator wanted it that way" can do it,
Can do what? That's not a scientific explanation because it can explain
anything you come across.
> and many complain that open-endedness makes ID
> untestable. You cannot have it both ways. If it cannot explain
> something, then we have found a way to falsify it, busting your "too
> wide open" claim.
A scientific theory must be able to distinguish between what it can
explain and what it can't. That's what falsifiability means. If God can
do anything, then God isn't a scientific explanation. Whatever evidence
we have, X or not X, God can explain it.
>
>
> > Since evolution has so much evidence for it, IDiocy needs strong evidence. Your comments
about
> > math are interesting here. Math may not be a prerequisite, but as long as evolution has the
> > statistics of
> > population genetics behind it, IDiocy better be prepared to sling a little math.
>
> Off topic, but population genetics is not strong proof of the source of
> complexity in the wild.
You seem confused about complexity and evolution. Evolution is about change that benefits
populations. That could entail more complexity or like some parasites, less.
>
> >
> > 4. You miss the point about the objections to the religious motivations of IDiots. It's
not
> > their motivation that's a problem. It's their insertion of religion as dogma into public
school
> > classrooms.
> > Or haven't you been following the Dover trial? No one objects to teaching about religion in
> > schools.
>
> To quote the article:
>
> "Regarding religious bias, bias by itself does not make an idea invalid
> or non-scientific. If relativity were proposed by Adolph Hitler instead
> of Albert Einstein, would that make it less scientific or less useful
> as a theory? If a Darwin-influenced cult was formed with a stated goal
> of making sure evolution was taught in classrooms, would the new
> existence of such bias be a reason to label the theory of evolution
> "religion" and thus remove it? Science should test ideas, not human
> motives."
>
> [end quote]
>
> Should evo be yanked from the books IF such a cult forms???
I have no idea where you're going with this. Only religious dogma is banned from
science classrooms. I've posted here that the personal religious motivation of the
Dover board members would be irrelevant if their policies weren't religiously motivated.
They could claim that teaching evolution was the path to a greater understanding of the
glory of God. That wouldn't make evolution illegal to teach. No matter what the
motivation of the pressure group, teaching science is not illegal.
> > The importance of religion our society and history should not be downplayed. But it is
illegal
> > to teach
> > a particular religion as the truth.
>
> My version of ID is NOT religion. I don't care what other versions are
> out there. They are moot to my argument.
>
All versions of ID are religion. Some of them are just a little more gussied up than others.
Don't believe me? Ask Dembski and Behe. This isn't a secret.
> > And I doubt there are many biology teachers who couldn't
> > handle
> > questions about ID simply and accurately with, "We teach science in science class and that's
it.
> > We no more teach ID in biology than we do astrology in
> > astronomy class or numerology in algebra.
>
>
> See item 10.
No one is banning questions about ID from science class. Teachers may take these questions
and dismiss them as off-topic and explain why. If you're talking about teaching ID as science,
then I don't think your assurances comport with current law. But will see when the judge rules.
> > Your beliefs are your own and you will be tested on your understanding of science and not
your
> > personal allegiance to it"
> >
> > In short, your web page needs a little work.
>
> Appearently so. You read it all wrong, missing the key point.
Oh, I don't think so. You want to make a special pleading for ID, excusing its inability to
come
up with tests or mathematical description by comparing ID with other nonscience (like the
multiverse hypothesis) and including discussion of irrelevant legal issues.
> > Deadrat
> >
>
> -T-
>
topmind
Interesting. Thanks for the link. It may take me a while to get to it,
or at least to digest it.
There is something I wish to point out, however. Here is a quote:
"The majority of modern arguments for Intelligent Design fall into one
of two categories:
First: That biological complexity (that is, the development of first
life, plus some subsequent increases in complexity during biological
history) cannot be explained via natural evolutionary mechanisms alone,
and is best explained in terms of the actions of some intelligent
agent. Sometimes, attempts are made to formalize this claim via
probability arguments.
The second common argument for ID is that the fundamental laws of
nature appear to be finely tuned for life. This argument is typically
left as an intuitive appeal, without attempting any formal probability
calculations.
[end quote]
My version does not subscribe to either of those. I don't claim "cannot
be explained via natural....". I accept evo as the better theory.
And, I don't accept the "finely tuned" viewpoint. My version of ID is
perfectly at home with Halfwit Design.
(Further, some religions believe that this life is a "heaven" test, and
part of the test is dealing with diseases and death. Thus, the
machinery of life may be purposely imperfect in that view.)
> rossum
>
>
> The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
Even if true, so what? I suspect that you accept all sorts of other
discoveries as being reasonable even though they aren't based upon
direct observation. You've never seen an electron. You've never seen
Pluto complete an orbit of the sun. You've never directly observed a
polio virus. Yet, you probably would admit that all these things are
real, and that discounting their reality is madness. Why are you
adopting a different standard of evidence for evolution?
>> > See what I am getting at? Evo seems to be in the same boat. I don't see
>> > a solid definition for either side.
>>
>> Since evolution doesn't depend on any such definition, it simply is irrelevent.
>
> Well, the existing definition does not appear to be tied to actual
> observation. The observational evidence for evo is somewhat weak.
This is simply an absurd assertion, and false.
> Yes, much stronger than ID, but still weak. And, that is why ID
> should still be in the contest. ID is based on observation of sources
> of complexity (or machine-like things), evo is not. Changing the
> size of a bird beak is not in the same league as creating eyeballs
> and brains. I am just the messenger WRT observation. Evo is a great
> theory, but has some observational gaps and the contest should not end
> until those gaps are filled.
Your reasoning relies on a false dichotomy: if not evolution, then design.
It actually isn't an argument for intelligent design at all. In fact,
you don't even know that the design that you speak of can reasonably be
called "intelligent". A strange sort of explanation that you advocate,
that predicts nothing, nor tells us anything useful.
Mark
>
> -T-
>
topmind
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1133734567.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
> >
> >Reproduction does not explain the original source of complexity. Robots
> >making robots does not tell us anything about how the original cycle
> >started. The issue is how the thing obtained the ability to reproduce
> >in the first place. Nobody disputes that life or even robots can
> >reproduce.
> >
> So you're telling us that Behe's examples of the bacterial flagellum and
> the vertebrate clotting system are not relevant to the issue?
I am not sure how those relate to this. I would note that I don't claim
that evo "cannot explain" such. It is just that it has not performed
"complex" changes while being observed. Nobody has seen flagellum form
in the lab tank when there were none before under observation. Until
such happens, the contest is still open (despite evo being the
front-runner).
> (The
> latter long postdates the ability to reproduce; I assume the same holds
> for the former, but I don't have the details to hand.)
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
-T-
Deadrat
> > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > to test with the scientific process.
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > > you; critique away...
> >
> >
> > only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is
> > from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered
> > and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least
> > inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by
> > intelligent being(s).
> >
> > imply a painter, it's hard to justify the claim that rain implies a "rainer",
> > or that gravity implies a "gravitator".
>
> Your analogy is merely word-play it seems to me. The ID extrapolation
> is from machines to machine-like things (biology). Thus, they are far
> closer than mere word-play.
In fact, biological things don't look much like human-built machines.
They don't use wheels or metal structural support or enclosures. They
incorporate obvious "drawbacks" that seem to be there only because
the precursors were at hand. Your argument is that things are designed
because they look designed to you. But looks can be deceiving.
>
> >
> > That you follow up your definition with this:
> >
> > The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came
> > back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers,
> > etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific
> > intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not
> > have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential
> > designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have
> > limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
> >
> > If, indeed, ID can't distinguish between these rather disparate possibilities,
> > doesn't it seem that its predictive power isn't just weak, but is in fact
> > non-existant?
>
>
> One cannot rule out knowing more about the creators. Go watch The
> Matrix for some possible paths.
Oh, I'm just gonna give up on my original promise to mention this only once.
* "The * Matrix" * is * fiction *
>
> Is MU non-scientific if we cannot identify the source of multiple
> universes?
The multiverse is non-scientific if it doesn't offer up a testable hypothesis.
> > I'm also interested in why you think you needed this disclaimer:
> >
> > This version is based almost entirely on the observation of
> > sources of complexity, not religion.
> >
> > Why is it based even in part on religion?
>
> Huh?
>
> >
> > Addressing your rebuttal to 10 criticisms of ID:
> >
> > 1. You didn't actually argue that ID is not malleable. You instead merely
> > tried to divert by talking about something different.
>
>
> I am comparing it to other fields. Other malleable things are called
> "scientific" by some experts. You can't change the historical use of
> science JUST to bust ID's balls. That will look bad in the courts.
Please give an example of the change in the definition of science.
And if we're back to the courts, no one had to work hard to make ID
look bad. The ID side did it to themselves.
>
>
> > 2. You are arguing for more than science teachers ability to answer questions
> > regarding intelligent design. I doubt the fraction of individuals who
> > think that a science teacher shouldn't answer questions about intelligent
> > design from students is very significant.
>
>
> That should be up to the States to decide. The Fed only cares (or
> should care) about the seperation-of-church-and-state issue, not
> micromanage what is debunked in science books.
>
>
> > 3. Given that I haven't been able to find a single instance of string theory
> > or multi-universes in public school science standards, perhaps using it
> > as examples _is_ disingenous.
>
> See item 2. When MU and ST become common questions, then that status
> may change.
Nope. Both the multiverse and string theory are common topics of discussion.
Discussion won't change their status; only evidence will.
>
> > 4. Science grades on results. It isn't the time that scientists spend which
> > counts, it is the results that counts. ID simply doesn't have any.
>
> Either does MU or ST, yet they get to be called "science".
Whenever I've read about the multiverse, it's always labeled as an interesting
speculation. String theorists fall all over themselves pointing out how far they
have to go to make their theory part of the canon. Scientists work on lots of
things that don't pan out. But the things they work have a chance to be shown
to be inconsistent or wrong. That's why the work is still science.
>
> > 5. Ignoring bias is inherently against the scientific method. Science works
> > to eliminate bias, it doesn't accept it. We eliminate the bias of
> > scientists by using tools like falsification.
>
> Well ID has not been any more falsified than MU or ST.
And that's your strongest argument for why ID should be considered science?
Do you understand the difference between not falsified and unfalsifiable?
>
> > 6. Math is useful as a tool to formulate models and provide for potential
> > falsification. ID simply doesn't present anything resembling a model.
>
>
> Perhaps, but not a disqualifier in itself. At what point did evo
> become "a model"? Actually the (approximate) model for ID is human
> technology.
Not even close. We can talk about who the human designers are and how
they did their design. Questions banished from ID.
>
>
> > 7. Our bias toward intelligent sources is long, and in the case of most
> > natural phenomena, _has proven to be wrong_. Weather isn't the work of
> > the gods. Diseases aren't caused by demons.
>
> Depends how you define "demon" :-)
>
> Just because an explanation is wrong for many circumstances does not
> mean it is always wrong. Again, my arguments do not depend on ID being
> a "strong" idea.
>
>
> > 8. Complexity isn't a problem for anyone, because it isn't defined in any
> > meaningful sense.
>
>
> Then what does evo do that weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical
> reactions, rust, etc cannot? And how can it be measured and tested? The
> "interesting" question is not what produces mere change because many
> things do that, but is what produces complexity, or at least
> intelligent "things". That is the "meat".
But not many things produce changes that allow them to adapt to their
environment. And complexity is not necessary for that.
> > 9. SETI works by concluding intelligent design from signals which are very
> > SIMPLE, not very complex.
>
> But being simple alone does not make it for sure intelligence. That is
> just how they narrow down what to explore further.
>
> > 10. ID isn't speculative. It's simply hubris: imagining our ignorance of
> > the universe must be significant.
>
> I don't find your answer useful. Ideas are just ideas, not evil demons.
He's not saying ID is evil. Just ridiculous.
Deadrat
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> -T-
>