Can ID be Tested?
Otto Bean
would be the best way of going about it?
Inez
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
see if it holds up.
So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
explanations for your observation?
Otto Bean
I could begin with the hundred or so major anthropic coincidences. How
would I distinguish between the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not clear on what differences I
should expect to see.
Christopher Denney
> would be the best way of going about it?
You're going about it all wrong.
Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
it.
Roughly:
1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
2. You collect more data
3. You formulate an hypothesis
4. You check it against the data
5. You check it against yet more data
6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1
At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
School, or wants to.
As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
demonstrated to be false.
e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
That is a statement of fact that can be tested.
My thought is that in order to make a testable statement about ID you
need a test that shows designedness, of some kind. Good luck with
that.
(hint: nobody has come up with one yet)
Otto Bean
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
>> would be the best way of going about it?
>
>You're going about it all wrong.
>Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
>it.
>Roughly:
>1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
>2. You collect more data
>3. You formulate an hypothesis
>4. You check it against the data
>5. You check it against yet more data
>6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1
>
>At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
>sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
>Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
>points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
>School, or wants to.
I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.
>As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
>demonstrated to be false.
>e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
>name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
>further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
>show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
hypotheses?
Greg G.
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
The anthropic coincidences mentioned by IDers often sound like mud
puddle coincidences. The puddle thinks the hole was designed
specifically to hold the shape of the puddle.
There is the Goldilocks hypothesis that the earth is not too cold or
too hot for liquid water to exist in some regions. If the sun were a
bit cooler, both Earth and Venus might be in the Goldilocks zone or if
Mars was a bit larger, it would still retain liquid water. It seems
that as soon as technology is able to detect a certain type of planet,
they detect those types of planets in nearby star systems. Just last
month, there was this story about a planet found in the Goldilocks
zone around another star:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/11/08/2003386821
--
Greg G.
I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it.
--Douglas Adams
.
Homer Sapiens
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Well nows that the problem isn't it? There are two inherent components
to the concept; 1) the presence of an intelligent designer and 2) the
subsequent presence of design. In order to test for ID one would need
to test independently for each of the components. One cannot simply
infer design (i.e., the 2nd component) and then presume an intelligent
designer (part 1). ID proponents make extraordinary claims and thus
need extraordinary evidence providing proof and support in multiple
ways. The first challenge is as old as religion, i.e., how do you
prove the existence of god (I suppose one could also go about trying
to prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials). If an when
the first part is satisfied then one can test for design based on what
is learned about the attributes of the designer. For example, artists
of paintings can be determined by the quirks and skills. One could
search for a "Made in Japan" label under the cushion. There is no way
to test for an entity that one expects to defy natural laws and
predictions. One can only get to the God of the Gaps this way. It is
always the God of the Gaps arguments that ID proponents claim as their
logic.
Greg G.
The "godidit" explanation is invulnerable. A proposed omnipotent (or
sufficiently potent) being could, by definition, do anything to
confound your experiment. Perhaps you could work on an experiment to
show that the designer was limited in power.
>
> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >demonstrated to be false.
> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> hypotheses?
How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
multiverse to all experiments?
--
Greg G.
Money may not buy happiness but it can sure buy the presidency.
.
Inez
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
So your not talking about an ID theory of life, but rather of the
whole darn universe.
I'm not a scientist, but my impulse would be to hypothesize that there
is an intelligent entity capable of universe creation or at least
changin your anthropic constants, and go looking for said entity.
Otto Bean
wrote:
This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars,
one would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone. However,
none, other than the earth, appears to be inhabited. Uninhabitable
extra-solar planets are part of our data set. If I hypothesize that an
intelligent entity or entities designed the universe to contain one
life supporting planet, the evidence of dead planets would support
this, rather than an alternate hypothesis that any planet in a star's
habitable zone can support life.
Otto Bean
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 5:46 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
If you regard the anthropic coincidences as data, this would seem to
put a very high bound on the designer's power. So it would be
unrealistic to propose a limited designer. Does this, in your opinion,
mean that the anthropic coincidences are not to be considered as data?
>> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
>> >demonstrated to be false.
>> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
>> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
>> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
>> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>>
>> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
>> hypotheses?
>
>How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
>multiverse to all experiments?
What experiments favor the multiverse hypothesis?
Otto Bean
If so, it would appear that we have two alternate hypotheses, neither
of which can be presently tested. On the one hand we have the elusive
designer or designers; on the other we have the elusive alternate
universes. Thus, unless you can test for these alternate universes, it
would seem that intelligent design and contemporary physics share the
same problem. Since the apparently fine-tuned physical constants are
built into the very structure of the physical universe, do you
acknowledge that modern science has reached a basic impasse? Or do you
think that this is only a temporary state of affairs and that,for the
time being, conventional science should, on the basis of its track
record, be given a free pass on this one?
noctiluca
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Well, the first thing you need to do is figure out what kind of design
you're testing for. If your definition of design includes some element
of intelligent input (in other words you wish to exclude kinds of
purposeful activity, such as that of beavers, bower birds and spiders,
that do not normally come into consideration when we talk of design)
then there is only one type of intelligent design for which you can
test - that of humans.
There is, at this juncture in our understanding, no other intelligent
designer. Therefore your test will have to rely substantially on
methods developed in those fields of inquiry: archeology, forensic
criminology etc., which actually test for human design.
If you wish to test for another form of intelligent design your task
is much more daunting.
Since human experience is replete with examples of phenomena initially
attributed to the work of some non-human intelligent agency which were
eventually found to be hoaxes or the result of natural processes,
science has very reasonably developed to include provisions to prevent
such digressions. These include various sorts of methodological
guides, such as the notion that the phenomenon under investigation
must be observable and testable in some way. What this means for your
endeavor is that the standard for what qualifies as an "explanation"
for a particular phenomenon is much more demanding than simple
inference by analogy.
An analogical explanation may work in the case of, say, spear points,
because we have ample evidence of the existence of the designing
agency in question - humans. As well, we have plenty of evidence that
humans are capable of creating such artifacts and have in the past
been responsible for doing so.
None of this a priori documentation exists in the case of non-human
intelligent agency. Thus analogy becomes far less powerful an
argument. In this case the most it can do is offer a point of
departure for a hypothesis to be tested. That's what happens in the
case of SETI, and this is a legitimate hypothesis because the concept
of a natural intelligent agency other than humans is something that
is, at least in principle, testable.
The point I'm building to here is that this is why the "designer" of
ID - which is *not* constrained in such a way that science could test
for it (i.e., a natural part of this universe) - is, as it is
currently conceived, utterly irrelevant to scientific inquiry.
ID proponents have two logical choices then,
1) repudiate any inference to non-natural agency - in which process
they might be able to be considered part of the scientific community,
or
2) be up front about the nature of their designer, admit the theology
inherent in their argument, and get the hell out of the way of real
science education
Either path takes them a step toward intellectual integrity beyond
where they now stand.
RLC
Otto Bean
How would I do so? You would probably agree that it's not an easy
problem. But astrophysics doesn't appear to have an easier time in
testing alternate explanations. Mainstream science and ID would appear
to be more or less on an equal footing when it comes to answering this
very basic question.
James Goetz
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
I think that it goes something like this. ID theorists examine
purported evolutionary events. And if a particular evolutionary event
has a probability less than the threshold in Dembski's The Design
Inference, then the event resulted from ID. I apologize that I forgot
that threshold probability. Does anybody else remember that
probability? Did I leave out any details in ID hypothesis testing?
Otto Bean
How would your approach allow you to test whether the numerous
fine-tuned physical constants were designed or just happened? Would
you even attempt to explain them in terms of natural agencies? If not;
are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
>
>RLC
Ernest Major
<Glem...@sonic.net> writes
There are other alternatives. For example
3) That fine-tuning is an illusion formed by drawing a mark round the
arrow, rather than hitting the mark with an arrow.
4) That the "finely-tuned" parameters aren't free to vary.
--
alias Ernest Major
Otto Bean
Can any of these alternates be empirically tested to determine which
is most likely to be true?
noctiluca
Well, assuming you're not proposing that humans designed these so-
called "fine-tuned" constants (you might want to read some Victor
Stenger for more information on this), you need to,
1) develop evidence for the existence of the non-human intelligent
designer in question,
2) evidence for the designer's ability to accomplish the activity in
question, and
3) evidence that your putative designer is in fact responsible for the
attributed activity.
I can't see how anything less than this would be acceptable for a
claim of scientific support for the creation of the universe by a
designing agency. If this seems extremely demanding, it should.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is
nothing at all ordinary about testing the proposition that an omni-
magical entity created all that we know.
> Would
> you even attempt to explain them in terms of natural agencies?
I wouldn't. I'd leave it to physicists. But although I would presume
natural processes will eventually offer sufficient explanation, I can
live with the idea of unanswered, even unanswerable, questions if it
comes to that. The universe never promised us a rose garden.
> If not;
> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
Though, as I implied above, I think it prudent for us to be willing to
accept the idea in principle, I will be prepared to admit that such an
impasse exists only when it has been encountered. It would be the
height of hubris for any generation to believe either that their (our)
level of understanding will not be surpassed by subsequent
generations, or that the universe is meant to offer up all of its
secrets to them (us).
RLC
> >RLC
Craig T
When did you observe enough other extra-solar planets to decide that
none of them hold life? If life is found on Mars or Europa, does that
disprove ID?
Otto Bean
But, if physicists are unable to make such tests, this puts you in the
position of maintaining a double standard. On the basis of its past
record of success, you are willing to accept that modern astrophysics
will eventually come up with verifiable answers, but you want
immediate testable theories from ID proponents.
>> If not;
>> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
>> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
>> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
>> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
>
>Though, as I implied above, I think it prudent for us to be willing to
>accept the idea in principle, I will be prepared to admit that such an
>impasse exists only when it has been encountered. It would be the
>height of hubris for any generation to believe either that their (our)
>level of understanding will not be surpassed by subsequent
>generations, or that the universe is meant to offer up all of its
>secrets to them (us).
Then how do you determine whether you or ID proponents are on the
track that future generations will regard as the right one?
>> >RLC
Otto Bean
We have plentiful evidence of planets that could not support life as
we know it - "hot Jupiters" etc., but no data that could be
interpreted as signs of life. Primitive life on other planets wouldn't
disprove ID. It would simply mean that some, but not all, the
conditions exist there that allowed intelligent life to arise on
earth. If the designer wanted intelligent life to develop and to
eventually seed the universe; he, she or it could have been planed for
intelligence to begin on one planet and then spread to the universe at
large.
Otto Bean
>Otto Bean wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars, one
>> would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone. However, none,
>> other than the earth, appears to be inhabited.
>
>We don't really know that yet.
Apparently there exists one planet that could harbor life as we know
it. It's twice the mass of earth and apparently has a deep world-wide
ocean, but it's in its stars inhabitable zone. There's no positive
evidence that it harbors life, but we can't rule out life could exist
there.
>> Uninhabitable extra-solar planets are part of our data set. If I
>> hypothesize that an intelligent entity or entities designed the
>> universe to contain one life supporting planet, the evidence of dead
>> planets would support this, rather than an alternate hypothesis that
>> any planet in a star's habitable zone can support life.
>
>Life as we know it is probably, almost certainly, a rare occurence in the
>universe. But until we can actually go exploring the universe, we will
>never really know. And that (exploring) may never happen, as well.
>
>We're stuck on this spaceship called Earth, by the looks of it.
A fact that makes it difficult or impossible to chose scientifically
between some aspects of ID theory and mainstream science.
noctiluca
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:33:33 -0800 (PST), noctiluca
>
>
>
Only in the case that they make immediate claims. Physicists don't sit
around claiming some unnamed un-evidenced agency used some unexplained
process to create the universe. Physicists are willing to live with
the ambiguity that is often inherent in the process of scientific
discovery - "we don't know" works quite well as a placeholder for this
situation until future advances produce new possibililites for
investigation.
ID proponents, on the other hand, are unsatisfied with "we don't
know," opting instead to fill in this blank with a lazy inference to
indeterminate design. As such, the burden is upon them, when they
suggest this is a scientific theory, to provide the particulars.
There is no double standard here. There is only science, and not
science.
> >> If not;
> >> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
> >> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
> >> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
> >> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
>
> >Though, as I implied above, I think it prudent for us to be willing to
> >accept the idea in principle, I will be prepared to admit that such an
> >impasse exists only when it has been encountered. It would be the
> >height of hubris for any generation to believe either that their (our)
> >level of understanding will not be surpassed by subsequent
> >generations, or that the universe is meant to offer up all of its
> >secrets to them (us).
>
> Then how do you determine whether you or ID proponents are on the
> track that future generations will regard as the right one?
That's a question that presumes ID proponents are on some kind of
track in the first place. If they are it is not one that employs the
methodology of science. As of this point in time all ID's leaders are
interested in is the propagation of talking points and manipulation of
public perception. There is no ID research program. Presumably, then,
future generations will recognize that ID and science are entirely
separate endeavors.
Determining here and now what particular track is the appropriate one
is for those who believe they already know the "right" answer. As far
as science is concerned, it's the methodology that counts, and future
generations can make of its products what they will.
RLC
> >> >RLC
Shearwater
"noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aee659e-8521-4062...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Christopher Denney
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:27:38 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >You're going about it all wrong.
> >Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
> >it.
> >Roughly:
> >1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
> >2. You collect more data
> >3. You formulate an hypothesis
> >4. You check it against the data
> >5. You check it against yet more data
> >6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1
>
> >At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
> >sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
> >Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
> >points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
> >School, or wants to.
>
> I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
You could elaborate on the way in which you think I am being
inconsistent.
> possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
> anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
> I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
> many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
> one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
> concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.
I see you missed my point.
Does the data suggest one of your two hypotheses?
If so the test should be self evident, otherwise you are assuming your
conclusion and hunting for proof.
Make sure you are talking about data too, not illusions. (e.g. image
of Elvis in a basket of fries)
> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >demonstrated to be false.
> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> hypotheses?
I don't think either one is needed, or have anything to do with one
another, necessarily.
> >That is a statement of fact that can be tested.
>
> >My thought is that in order to make a testable statement about ID you
> >need a test that shows designedness, of some kind. Good luck with
> >that.
> >(hint: nobody has come up with one yet)
If by anthropic coincidences you are talking about why the world/
universe seems so perfectly suited to having us in it, is there really
any need to think that it's possible for the world to be different
than it is. What does it say about things if the world/law of physics
etc are the way they are because that's the only way they CAN be? Even
if there can be other basic rules of existence is there a need for a
designer to assemble them. By need I mean "no other way for the set of
rules we have to be arranged as they are"
I know of no way to test for alternate realities or alternate sets of
physical laws so there really isn't any testing to be done on such
topics, just philosophizing.
A topic which I have interest in, to be sure, just isn't something we
can test.
So one postulate, if the laws cannot be anything but what they are,
there is no need for a designer (of the laws at least) there could
still be multiple alternate realities, just with the same laws.
Another two postulates: (mulit-verse would be the set of all
universes, in my usage)
There can be different sets of laws, finite multi-verse.
There can be different sets of laws, infinite multi-verse.
The second one is the easy one, in an infinite multi-verse all
possible combinations of physical laws would be available as
universes.
So, again, no need for a designer.
The first one can be further broken down to a finite and infinite set
of values for the physical laws, and I'm pretty much sticking to first
order infinities here, if anyone is keeping track.
I would expect some meta laws about what combinations of laws are
compatible etc would follow from sufficient study, but I digress...
We can certainly postulate a set of circumstances that would have room
for a designer, but there is not really any way to even vaguely test
that our universe fits that mold.
Christopher Denney
You are, of course, assuming that the physical laws/constants could be
other than they are.
That's the only way they could be "apparently fine-tuned" in your
statement above.
So the first thing to do seems to be showing they could be other than
they are.
Otto Bean
Do you see a self evident test here? If so, you should be able to help
me decide between the two hypotheses. If the data don't suggest a self
evident test, should we abandon the question as unanswerable? Do the
anthropic coincidences constitute a class of data that are the product
of observation and measurement but remain, nevertheless, useless in
the conduction of scientific investigations?
>> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
>> >demonstrated to be false.
>> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
>> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
>> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
>> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>>
>> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
>> hypotheses?
>
>I don't think either one is needed, or have anything to do with one
>another, necessarily.
Then do you think that physics encountered an impasse when we became
aware of the many anthropic coincidences? Do you think such questions
are unimportant? Does there now exist a class of data that science
can't handle and that we should, therefore, ignore?
>> >That is a statement of fact that can be tested.
>>
>> >My thought is that in order to make a testable statement about ID you
>> >need a test that shows designedness, of some kind. Good luck with
>> >that.
>> >(hint: nobody has come up with one yet)
>
>If by anthropic coincidences you are talking about why the world/
>universe seems so perfectly suited to having us in it, is there really
>any need to think that it's possible for the world to be different
>than it is. What does it say about things if the world/law of physics
>etc are the way they are because that's the only way they CAN be? Even
Is there any way to test your supposition that the physical constants
could not have varied from their observed values? If you can't test
this conjecture, is it nonetheless more scientific than the idea that
these values are the product of intelligent design? Does there now
exist a class of observations that are beyond the realm of science?
>if there can be other basic rules of existence is there a need for a
>designer to assemble them. By need I mean "no other way for the set of
>rules we have to be arranged as they are"
>I know of no way to test for alternate realities or alternate sets of
>physical laws so there really isn't any testing to be done on such
>topics, just philosophizing.
In which case science has hit an impasse with regard to a class of
observations that would appear to have great relevance to our
understanding of the fundamental nature of the physical universe.
Mainstream theorists and ID theorists apparently are in the same boat.
Neither can produce experiments to test why these constants have their
observed values.
>A topic which I have interest in, to be sure, just isn't something we
>can test.
>So one postulate, if the laws cannot be anything but what they are,
>there is no need for a designer (of the laws at least) there could
>still be multiple alternate realities, just with the same laws.
>Another two postulates: (mulit-verse would be the set of all
>universes, in my usage)
>There can be different sets of laws, finite multi-verse.
>There can be different sets of laws, infinite multi-verse.
>The second one is the easy one, in an infinite multi-verse all
>possible combinations of physical laws would be available as
>universes.
>So, again, no need for a designer.
Not if you are content to acknowledge that science has reached a point
where it can go no farther and that it has to give way to
philosophical speculation or even religious faith.
>The first one can be further broken down to a finite and infinite set
>of values for the physical laws, and I'm pretty much sticking to first
>order infinities here, if anyone is keeping track.
>I would expect some meta laws about what combinations of laws are
>compatible etc would follow from sufficient study, but I digress...
>We can certainly postulate a set of circumstances that would have room
>for a designer, but there is not really any way to even vaguely test
>that our universe fits that mold.
But you have *hope* that your philosophical speculations will
eventually be testable. How does this differ from ID proponents claims
that they are pioneering a new field of science that will eventually
yield solid results?
Otto Bean
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
It isn't science, though, if you lack means to test your theories.
Your 'I don't know' placeholder is just a statement that you believe
some means of testing will eventually be available. At least the ID
proponents have a proposition that they claim is subject to test. They
even claim to be conducting research into the matter. Their research
could bear fruit any time now. If they turn up strong evidence that
the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would reinforce the claim
that the universal constants are also designed. You, on the other
hand, are just lounging around hoping that some form of test will turn
up to demonstrate how fine-tuning could have occurred. You can
discover all sorts of evidence supporting evolution, but it won't help
you in explaining universal fine-tuning. The designers apparently
aren't too proud to use evolution as a tool.
>> >> If not;
>> >> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
>> >> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
>> >> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
>> >> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
>>
>> >Though, as I implied above, I think it prudent for us to be willing to
>> >accept the idea in principle, I will be prepared to admit that such an
>> >impasse exists only when it has been encountered. It would be the
>> >height of hubris for any generation to believe either that their (our)
>> >level of understanding will not be surpassed by subsequent
>> >generations, or that the universe is meant to offer up all of its
>> >secrets to them (us).
>>
>> Then how do you determine whether you or ID proponents are on the
>> track that future generations will regard as the right one?
>
>That's a question that presumes ID proponents are on some kind of
>track in the first place. If they are it is not one that employs the
>methodology of science. As of this point in time all ID's leaders are
>interested in is the propagation of talking points and manipulation of
>public perception. There is no ID research program. Presumably, then,
>future generations will recognize that ID and science are entirely
>separate endeavors.
There appears to be no mainstream scientific research program to test
whether the universal constants could have taken other values, or
whether we live in one member of an infinite ensemble of universes.
>Determining here and now what particular track is the appropriate one
>is for those who believe they already know the "right" answer. As far
>as science is concerned, it's the methodology that counts, and future
>generations can make of its products what they will.
What methodology would you employ to differentiate among the various
speculations? If you have none, you're merely assuming that adequate
means will turn up sometime in the future.
>> >> >RLC
Greg G.
Life-as-we-know-it depends on on the laws of physics being what they
are. If things were different, nobody would be asking the question
"Why are we not here?" This makes the "Why are we here?" question less
meaningful.
LAWKI is not possible in the universe we know except for a thin film
around one small planet where it has maintained a tenuous existance
between hits and misses of asteroids, comets and meteors.
I have considered the coincidences but I don't see anything that
indicates an intelligent design.
OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
>
> >> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >> >demonstrated to be false.
> >> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> >> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> >> hypotheses?
>
> >How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
> >multiverse to all experiments?
>
> What experiments favor the multiverse hypothesis?
I wouldn't know. Human understanding of physics breaks down at a
certain threshhold of energy density where we cannot experiment. This
is not to say that physics itself breaks down, just our
understanding.
It is trivially easy for the human mind to conceive of imaginary
beings, like the invisble, pink unicorn behind you. The creator/
designer that was conceived of before science could investigate cells,
gravity, and germs had to be changed in the imagination of believers
as our understanding grew. Should we change our concept of the
designer everytime we peel back a layer of ignorance? Of course, as
long as the designer is based on ignorance.
Theology has refined the concept of their gods as humans have achieved
the capability to test theological claims. Today, gods have been
defined as untestable.
--
Greg G.
Don't you wish people would just shut up about the First Amendment?
.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Lie and say you already got one.
Then refuse to tell anyone what it is -- except that it's not about
religion, no sirree Bob.
And if anyone questions you about it, call them a dirty god-hater.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Inez
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:14:46 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 7, 2:15 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
> >> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >> >I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
> >> >theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> >> >see if it holds up.
>
> >> >So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
> >> >things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
> >> >explanations for your observation?
>
> >> I could begin with the hundred or so major anthropic coincidences. How
> >> would I distinguish between the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
> >> and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not clear on what differences I
> >> should expect to see.
>
> >So your not talking about an ID theory of life, but rather of the
> >whole darn universe.
>
> >I'm not a scientist, but my impulse would be to hypothesize that there
> >is an intelligent entity capable of universe creation or at least
> >changin your anthropic constants, and go looking for said entity.
>
> How would I do so? You would probably agree that it's not an easy
> problem.
I suppose, although one might think that if there were such a critter
it would be easy to spot, unless it wanted to hide for some reason.
Still, if you can't actually produce your entity or at least guess as
to how it did it's work, you don't really have a theory of ID, do
you?
If you're going to stick to science and not magic, you will have to
have some sort of idea about how universes can be designed if you are
going to have a theory.
> But astrophysics doesn't appear to have an easier time in
> testing alternate explanations. Mainstream science and ID would appear
> to be more or less on an equal footing when it comes to answering this
> very basic question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
noctiluca
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:18:47 -0800 (PST), noctiluca
>
No, that's not correct. Lagging technology may delay the process of
investigation, but a theoretical approach can be scientific, as can be
speculation. The keys are to remain within the limits of scientific
methodology, and make no specific claims that go beyond that which
can, even if only in principle, be evidentially demonstrated. ID fails
on both counts.
> Your 'I don't know' placeholder is just a statement that you believe
> some means of testing will eventually be available.
Of course. And it is the only statement available to one of a
scientific disposition.
> At least the ID
> proponents have a proposition that they claim is subject to test.
If you believe this is true then feel free to take issue with the
arguments I laid out in my first post. And don't you think it's about
time you started saying "us" rather than "they" when you refer to ID
proponents?
> They even claim to be conducting research into the matter.
The evidence so far strongly suggests otherwise.
>Their research could bear fruit any time now.
It is not conceivable, however, that their "research" will bear any
*scientific* fruit. The reason being that the inquiry they conduct is
not scientific. (Again I will refer you to my first post in this
thread. If you disagree with those arguments, offer some counterpoint.
Don't, as you do here, present an assertion that pretends they don't
exist.)
In any case, ID proponents have claimed this achievement (peer-
reviewed research) in the past and have invariably been soundly
refuted. Usually those papers they cite as supporting ID have nothing
to do with it, instead merely presenting an opportunity for
misinterpretation of results by those with religious pre-commitments.
If you have new data to present go ahead and do so.
> If they turn up strong evidence that
> the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would reinforce the claim
> that the universal constants are also designed.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
> You, on the other
> hand, are just lounging around hoping that some form of test will turn
> up to demonstrate how fine-tuning could have occurred.
Aren't you a little embarrassed at the turn your rhetoric has taken
here? You began with very reasonable questions and responses (if a bit
deceptive) and now you're crafting silly strawmen.
It's not at all clear, in fact it is widely disputed, that your
conception of "fine-tuning" is accurate. This is a perception born of
wishful hindsight, and you really need to read more people like
Stenger and fewer ID proponents like Jay Richards who, frankly, can't
argue physics without tripping over their theology.
Regardless, your plaint above bespeaks little but frustration with an
inability to reconcile science with personal philosophy. I'm sorry for
your difficulty, but I think, at least I hope, you will agree that
science is better for not bowing to such trivial influences.
Lastly, I am definitely *not* lounging around at the moment...I'm
currently organizing my music library. But I suppose whether that's
lounging is a matter of interpretation.
> You can
> discover all sorts of evidence supporting evolution, but it won't help
> you in explaining universal fine-tuning.
I don't need help, nor do physicists. There is no deadline for
discovering the facts of universal development. And if there were, ID
would certainly not be a competitor.
> The designers apparently
> aren't too proud to use evolution as a tool.
Entirely possible. Also entirely irrelevant to science. If you don't
agree, all you have to do is offer a putative data point that might
falsify that hypothesis. Upon failing to do so you will recognize that
this is nothing more than the ubiquitious "Explains everything
therefore explains nothing" assertion.
> >> >> If not;
> >> >> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
> >> >> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
> >> >> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
> >> >> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
>
> >> >Though, as I implied above, I think it prudent for us to be willing to
> >> >accept the idea in principle, I will be prepared to admit that such an
> >> >impasse exists only when it has been encountered. It would be the
> >> >height of hubris for any generation to believe either that their (our)
> >> >level of understanding will not be surpassed by subsequent
> >> >generations, or that the universe is meant to offer up all of its
> >> >secrets to them (us).
>
> >> Then how do you determine whether you or ID proponents are on the
> >> track that future generations will regard as the right one?
>
> >That's a question that presumes ID proponents are on some kind of
> >track in the first place. If they are it is not one that employs the
> >methodology of science. As of this point in time all ID's leaders are
> >interested in is the propagation of talking points and manipulation of
> >public perception. There is no ID research program. Presumably, then,
> >future generations will recognize that ID and science are entirely
> >separate endeavors.
>
> There appears to be no mainstream scientific research program to test
> whether the universal constants could have taken other values, or
> whether we live in one member of an infinite ensemble of universes.
Okay. I don't think that's true but neither does it address the issues
at hand.
> >Determining here and now what particular track is the appropriate one
> >is for those who believe they already know the "right" answer. As far
> >as science is concerned, it's the methodology that counts, and future
> >generations can make of its products what they will.
>
> What methodology would you employ to differentiate among the various
> speculations?
Here's one way of putting it,
"...the essential characteristics of science are:
· It is guided by natural law;
· It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
· It is testable against the empirical world;
· Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final
word; and
· It is falsifiable." (Overton, 1982)
> If you have none, you're merely assuming that adequate
> means will turn up sometime in the future.
And are you really suggesting that if I don't presently have the means
to derive empirical answers to certain questions I am justified in
filling in those blanks with my preferred theology...?
...and callling it science...?
...and forcing schools to teach it?
Really?
RLC
Desertphile
> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> > would be the best way of going about it?
>
> I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
> theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> see if it holds up.
Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
not aware of any Creationist who does that.
no el
researched work is totally ignored by Academia, probably because they
would have to re-write their history books. Not to mention their
religious histories..
Sitchin reads cuneiform and Sumerian, literally from the stones and
ancient clay tablets.
Re. human evolution, his research refers to intelligent ETs (called
"angels" and "gods" in the Bible and in Hindu religious texts) who
genetically engineered homo sapiens for their own purposes. The book of
Genesis is, according to him, a re-write of earlier Sumerian texts,
There is much evidence to support his theories.
You may want to look into Sitchin's books-most are in paperback and
readily available.
HolyDay blessings, all- N..
Christopher Denney
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:07:02 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
>
>
If the data do not suggest a test, then the question likely arises
from another source.
If the question arises from another source, the data is likely to be
of reduced value in answering/testing it.
Of course, in order to for a decent hypothesis, you need a clearly
stated question.
I don't see your two hypotheses as the only answers to any question.
> >> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >> >demonstrated to be false.
> >> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> >> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> >> hypotheses?
>
> >I don't think either one is needed, or have anything to do with one
> >another, necessarily.
>
> Then do you think that physics encountered an impasse when we became
> aware of the many anthropic coincidences? Do you think such questions
> are unimportant? Does there now exist a class of data that science
> can't handle and that we should, therefore, ignore?
There is certainly data that we cannot get, but that we can conceive
of.
I can't think of any data that "science can't handle"
I don't think that what you call anthropic coincidences are relevant
to physics at this time.
> >> >That is a statement of fact that can be tested.
>
> >> >My thought is that in order to make a testable statement about ID you
> >> >need a test that shows designedness, of some kind. Good luck with
> >> >that.
> >> >(hint: nobody has come up with one yet)
>
> >If by anthropic coincidences you are talking about why the world/
> >universe seems so perfectly suited to having us in it, is there really
> >any need to think that it's possible for the world to be different
> >than it is. What does it say about things if the world/law of physics
> >etc are the way they are because that's the only way they CAN be? Even
>
> Is there any way to test your supposition that the physical constants
> could not have varied from their observed values? If you can't test
Easy to test, show me an example of the physical constants changing,
or evidence of them having changed, and I will concede them variable,
otherwise I assert they are constant.
> this conjecture, is it nonetheless more scientific than the idea that
> these values are the product of intelligent design? Does there now
> exist a class of observations that are beyond the realm of science?
Define 'class of observations'.
There are plenty of actual, individual, observations that are beyond
anything we can do.
> >if there can be other basic rules of existence is there a need for a
> >designer to assemble them. By need I mean "no other way for the set of
> >rules we have to be arranged as they are"
> >I know of no way to test for alternate realities or alternate sets of
> >physical laws so there really isn't any testing to be done on such
> >topics, just philosophizing.
>
> In which case science has hit an impasse with regard to a class of
> observations that would appear to have great relevance to our
> understanding of the fundamental nature of the physical universe.
It isn't science unless we can experiment with it, or test it somehow,
if all we do is think about it, it's more like philosophy.
> Mainstream theorists and ID theorists apparently are in the same boat.
> Neither can produce experiments to test why these constants have their
> observed values.
There are ID theorists?
> >A topic which I have interest in, to be sure, just isn't something we
> >can test.
> >So one postulate, if the laws cannot be anything but what they are,
> >there is no need for a designer (of the laws at least) there could
> >still be multiple alternate realities, just with the same laws.
> >Another two postulates: (mulit-verse would be the set of all
> >universes, in my usage)
> >There can be different sets of laws, finite multi-verse.
> >There can be different sets of laws, infinite multi-verse.
> >The second one is the easy one, in an infinite multi-verse all
> >possible combinations of physical laws would be available as
> >universes.
> >So, again, no need for a designer.
>
> Not if you are content to acknowledge that science has reached a point
> where it can go no farther and that it has to give way to
> philosophical speculation or even religious faith.
Just because I cannot do something today, doesn't mean I won't be able
to do it later.
Religious types are generally quitters of the "oh noes, that question
is too hard, goddidit" type.
Science has been answering questions the religious have claimed was
only answerable by god(s), since people started thinking for
themselves.
> >The first one can be further broken down to a finite and infinite set
> >of values for the physical laws, and I'm pretty much sticking to first
> >order infinities here, if anyone is keeping track.
> >I would expect some meta laws about what combinations of laws are
> >compatible etc would follow from sufficient study, but I digress...
> >We can certainly postulate a set of circumstances that would have room
> >for a designer, but there is not really any way to even vaguely test
> >that our universe fits that mold.
>
> But you have *hope* that your philosophical speculations will
> eventually be testable. How does this differ from ID proponents claims
> that they are pioneering a new field of science that will eventually
> yield solid results?
Actually, I don't care if the things I like to think about are ever
tested, but I begin my trains of thought with things that are
observable and testable.
I like science fiction and fantasy stories, I like to think about
imaginary technologies that people come up with, sometimes picking
apart inconsistancies.
A lot of authors don't have a lot of background in techy stuff so even
if something they write about makes sense, another part might be wrong
in how we already understand physics, but the author didn't know
about. Fantasy books typically have a fundamental difference from our
world, like magic or strange animals, and little or no attempt at
explanation, kind of like ID.
ID takes creationism, shakes off much of the dogma and changes godidit
to X$didit where X$="god" for all values of monotheism.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin?
That would be the Sitchin mentioned here I trust?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/nutshell.html
We accept your surrender now.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Otto Bean
It might be a bit tough to demonstrate this for the universal
constants, but it seems apparent that something like the earth-moon
system could have been way different. The earth's large moon has
exerted a stabilizing effect on the earth's climate, 'buffering' it
against large swings that could have produced, for instance, a
complete 'snowball earth.' This system is apparently the product of a
collision, early in earth's history, with a mars size planetoid. It
was an apparently unlikely event that made possible conditions which
led eventually to the emergence of intelligent life.
If we're reasoning from anthropic principles, we can legitimately
assume that some intelligent agency might have planned it that way. In
this particular case of the earth-moon system, the alternative is that
a very unlikely event occurred simply by chance. Then you have to go
on to posit many other extremely unlikely events. So the burden of
evidence would seem to be on the one who is postulating a whole great
complex of unlikely events. My assumptions are more parsimonious than
yours.
Mike Dworetsky
news:ea307e49-485e-4eae...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 2:15 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>>
>> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
>> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>>
>> >theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
>> >see if it holds up.
>>
>> >things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
>> >explanations for your observation?
>>
>> would I distinguish between the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
>> and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not clear on what differences I
>> should expect to see.
>
> So your not talking about an ID theory of life, but rather of the
> whole darn universe.
>
> I'm not a scientist, but my impulse would be to hypothesize that there
> is an intelligent entity capable of universe creation or at least
> changin your anthropic constants, and go looking for said entity.
>
Humph. Wasn't that the basic plot of one of the less distinguished StarTrek
movies? "What would God want with a starship?"
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Otto Bean
Why would it necessarily be easy to spot? Would you expect to see a
bacterium on your microscope slide looking back at you? If the
designer's object was to produce intelligent life, then perhaps life
must arrive at a certain point in its development before it can even
begin to look back at its designer.
>If you're going to stick to science and not magic, you will have to
>have some sort of idea about how universes can be designed if you are
>going to have a theory.
You start simple and build from there.
Otto Bean
<desert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 7, 2:59 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
>> > would be the best way of going about it?
>>
>> I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
>> theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
>> see if it holds up.
>
>Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
>an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
>to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
>not aware of any Creationist who does that.
Why assume I'm a creationist? And why assume that working scientists
try to disprove their hypotheses? Potential disproof is just one
possible result of good experimental design.
>> So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
>> things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
>> explanations for your observation?
So far, I haven't been able to determine how non-ID explanations of
anthropic coincidences would differ from ID in the case of fine-tuned
physical constants. The same goes for more localized coincidences like
the climatic balancing provided by various parameters of the
earth-moon system. But, in the latter case, I think the claim can be
eliminated that it couldn't have been any other way. So non-Id
explanations will have to invoke a long line of extremely unlikely
events.
Otto Bean
wrote:
What would you consider as evidence of intelligent design? Would you
go pretty much by analogy to human designs? Do you think such
extrapolations could encompass the methods and aims of an entity
capable of designing and creating entire universes?
>OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
>believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
>this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
>peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
>understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
>too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
the anthropic coincidences.
>> >> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
>> >> >demonstrated to be false.
>> >> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
>> >> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
>> >> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
>> >> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>>
>> >> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
>> >> hypotheses?
>>
>> >How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
>> >multiverse to all experiments?
>>
>> What experiments favor the multiverse hypothesis?
>
>I wouldn't know. Human understanding of physics breaks down at a
>certain threshhold of energy density where we cannot experiment. This
>is not to say that physics itself breaks down, just our
>understanding.
>
>It is trivially easy for the human mind to conceive of imaginary
>beings, like the invisble, pink unicorn behind you. The creator/
>designer that was conceived of before science could investigate cells,
>gravity, and germs had to be changed in the imagination of believers
>as our understanding grew. Should we change our concept of the
>designer everytime we peel back a layer of ignorance? Of course, as
>long as the designer is based on ignorance.
Yes, we should change our concept of the designer when we peel back a
layer of ignorance. We shouldn't maintain any ID concept that is
directly contradicted by empirical evidence.
>Theology has refined the concept of their gods as humans have achieved
>the capability to test theological claims. Today, gods have been
>defined as untestable.
What's a God?
Denis Loubet
"Otto Bean" <Glem...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ojkl3tv6h7bfecjk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:24:04 -0800 (PST), Desertphile
> <desert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 7, 2:59 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
>>> > would be the best way of going about it?
>>>
>>> I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
>>> theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
>>> see if it holds up.
>>
>>Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
>>an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
>>to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
>>not aware of any Creationist who does that.
>
> Why assume I'm a creationist? And why assume that working scientists
> try to disprove their hypotheses? Potential disproof is just one
> possible result of good experimental design.
>
>>> So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
>>> things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
>>> explanations for your observation?
>
> So far, I haven't been able to determine how non-ID explanations of
> anthropic coincidences would differ from ID in the case of fine-tuned
> physical constants.
The ID explanation postulates an enourmous additional entity who's creates
more questions than it answers, and the non-ID explanation doesn't.
> The same goes for more localized coincidences like
> the climatic balancing provided by various parameters of the
> earth-moon system. But, in the latter case, I think the claim can be
> eliminated that it couldn't have been any other way. So non-Id
> explanations will have to invoke a long line of extremely unlikely
> events.
Define "unlikely."
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Dave in Lake Villa
would be the best way of going about it?'
REPLY: You start with what you ALREADY know and what Science has proven
to be absolutely true without exception . Criteria : 1. Very highly
complex designs which accomplish a very definitive goal always come
about from an intelligent Mind at work. 2. Razor edge precision in the
realm of Engineering to accomplish a very definitive goal always come
about from an intelligent Mind at work. 3. Complex informational
Messages to accomplish a very definite goal always come about from an
intelligent Mind at work. In fact, the SETI Program does exactly this ;
they are in search of Messages from outer space which would confirm
there is some intelligence out there.
Note: NONE of the above can randomly occur by unwilled Natural Causes
incorporating Materials and Chemicals because Materials and Chemicals
dont think ; they react. They do not have the capability of achieving
1,2, or 3 above because they possess no inherent intelligence nor a Will
for them to take place.
Next, armed with this criteria above, one should see if this
established criteria can be applied to the most important questions in
Life ; that being : a. Is there evidence that this Universe , Our
Solar System, Earth, and Human Be-
ings ... were the result of a well designed and engineered plan by a
willful Intelligent Being. Fortunately (and easily) , we dont have to
go very far at all :
1. So far , to date, the Scientific Community comprised of non-theist
and theist persuasion, have discovered 133+ extremely narrowly defined
Parameters of Physics for our Universe , which are all needed ,
simultaneously, in order for human beings to live on a spec in the
universe known as Earth. They have also determined that each of these
Parameters depend on the other for thier own existence and if any ONE is
missing, then humans could not inhabit the Earth. Nearly ALL of these
Parameters (Anthropics) are so minutely fine tuned that it completely
boggles the mind . IE: If the Universes' Expansion Rate were to vary
more than 1/1,000,000 th from its current rate, the temperature here
wouild be 10,000 f. If the Gravitational Force were altered by 1 part
in 10 x 40th power (1 with 40 zeros after it) , our Sun would not exist,
the moon would crash into the earth or fly out off into space. The other
131+ Parameters are simular in astounding precision. For a complete
list of these with their explanation, you can visit www.reasons.org
under 'Design Evidences' .
2. The DNA molecule is the most complex thing in the Universe known to
man. The encoding of DNA is such that it resembles an alphabet and
comprises instructions in the form of Informational Messages to tell
the Cell how to operate and build . Micro-biologists have said that the
DNA Molecule is astonishingly busy and about as complex as a major U.S.
city. Scientists have declared that one Cell alone has enough
specified Information in it (message content) to fill 1,000 volumes of
an Encyclopedia . The cofounder of the DNA structure, atheist Dr.
Francis Crick, declared :" DNA could not have spontaneously arisen from
the atmosphere and that it had to have arrived from outer space by
intelligent Aliens".
There are many more examples of these types of highly complex designs
and engineering found in many of the modern sciences today. All one has
to do is a simple investigation.
Since these illustrated examples using our Criteria above fit only an
Intelligent Cause having a Will to accomplish a definitive end product,
Intelligent Design is not 'a theory' any longer --- it is a unmistakable
scientifically proven fact . There are only two types of Causes :
Natural And Intelligent ; if no natural causes known to man can
accomplish what Science has discovered, then, the only other alternative
is an Intelligent Cause which means it is an Intelligent Design . Yes,
there are huge personal implications realizing there IS Intelligent
Design...which is the chief reason Darwinists , Atheists, and Humanists
try out of desperation to reject the Intelligent Designer/Creator out of
the picture by resorting to incredulous unproven THEORIES masquerading
as science.
This implication requires one of two things from every person who lives
: 1. Keep distance from the personal Creator and make excuses in the
form of incredulous philosophical biases 2. Move closer to the
personal Creator and try to get to know him better based on what hes
already revealed of himself . The Bibles promise is, the closer you
move in his direction, the more he will reveal of himself to you in
various distinct way.
The ball is now in our Court.
Ernest Major
<Glem...@sonic.net> writes
This does seem like a case of drawing a mark around the arrow. The
relevant question is not how likely it is in one planetary system, but
in the universe as a whole. To do otherwise is to assume that conclusion
that the universe was fine-tuned to produce us.
>
>If we're reasoning from anthropic principles, we can legitimately
>assume that some intelligent agency might have planned it that way. In
>this particular case of the earth-moon system, the alternative is that
>a very unlikely event occurred simply by chance. Then you have to go
>on to posit many other extremely unlikely events. So the burden of
>evidence would seem to be on the one who is postulating a whole great
>complex of unlikely events. My assumptions are more parsimonious than
>yours.
>
You seem to have a non-standard conception of anthropic principles - I
recognise neither the weak, the strong, nor the completely ridiculous,
in there.
I suspect that you also overestimate the unlikelihood of the earth-moon
system. The current consensus is that large scale collisions are not
uncommon in the later stages of the formation of a planetary system.
Even in this system we have Pluto-Charon, which is a closer match than
Earth-Moon.
And anyway, when calculating probabilities, you need to consider the
number of trials, as well as the probability per trial.
--
alias Ernest Major
no el
Jackson Pillock
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:24:04 -0800 (PST), Desertphile
>
> >On Dec 7, 2:59 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> > would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >> I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
> >> theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> >> see if it holds up.
>
> >Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
> >an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
> >to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
> >not aware of any Creationist who does that.
>
> Why assume I'm a creationist? And why assume that working scientists
> try to disprove their hypotheses? Potential disproof is just one
> possible result of good experimental design.
>
> >> So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
> >> things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
> >> explanations for your observation?
>
> So far, I haven't been able to determine how non-ID explanations of
> anthropic coincidences would differ from ID in the case of fine-tuned
> physical constants.
A lot of people just don't see the problem. The universe is how it is.
If it were different, it would be different.
The same goes for more localized coincidences like
> the climatic balancing provided by various parameters of the
> earth-moon system. But, in the latter case, I think the claim can be
> eliminated that it couldn't have been any other way. So non-Id
> explanations will have to invoke a long line of extremely unlikely
> events.
Those events are apparently the ones which happened. What's the
problem?
Jackson Pillock
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> 'If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?'
>
> REPLY: You start with what you ALREADY know and what Science has proven
> to be absolutely true without exception
BOING......!!!!!!
Science does not offer proof or absolutes. It tries to find the best
provisional explanations for phenomena we can observe and measure.
>. Criteria : 1. Very highly
> complex designs which accomplish a very definitive goal always come
> about from an intelligent Mind at work.
BOING.....!!!!!
Nature is full of highly complex organisms which have the appearance
of being designed. However, we know that such complex organisms can be
the product of the processes of evolution.
> 2. Razor edge precision in the
> realm of Engineering to accomplish a very definitive goal always come
> about from an intelligent Mind at work.
BOING.....!!!
This is the logical fallacy of presuming the consequent.
> 3. Complex informational
> Messages to accomplish a very definite goal always come about from an
> intelligent Mind at work.
BOING...!!!! This is a based on the unfounded assertion that DNA is
information.
> In fact, the SETI Program does exactly this ;
BOING....!!!!
SETI is specifically *not* looking for complex signals.
> they are in search of Messages from outer space which would confirm
> there is some intelligence out there.
>
> Note: NONE of the above can randomly occur by unwilled Natural Causes
> incorporating Materials and Chemicals because Materials and Chemicals
> dont think ; they react.
BOING....!!!! Unfounded assertion.
> They do not have the capability of achieving
> 1,2, or 3 above because they possess no inherent intelligence nor a Will
> for them to take place.
BOING ....!!!! another unfounded assertion
>
> Next, armed with this criteria above,
BOING...!!! any conclusion drawn from false premises is unreliable.
> one should see if this
> established criteria can be applied to the most important questions in
> Life ; that being : a. Is there evidence that this Universe , Our
> Solar System, Earth, and Human Be-
> ings ... were the result of a well designed and engineered plan by a
> willful Intelligent Being. Fortunately (and easily) , we dont have to
> go very far at all :
BOING...!!!!! A conclusions drawn from false premises, and therefore
unreliable
>
> 1. So far , to date, the Scientific Community comprised of non-theist
> and theist persuasion, have discovered 133+ extremely narrowly defined
> Parameters of Physics for our Universe , which are all needed ,
> simultaneously, in order for human beings to live on a spec in the
> universe known as Earth.
BOING....!!! Logical fallacy of presuming the consequent.
> They have also determined that each of these
> Parameters depend on the other for thier own existence and if any ONE is
> missing, then humans could not inhabit the Earth.
BOING....!!!! Utterly irrelvant, and probably based on unsound
evidence in any case. Where does this number of 133+ parameters come
from?
> Nearly ALL of these
> Parameters (Anthropics) are so minutely fine tuned that it completely
> boggles the mind . IE: If the Universes' Expansion Rate were to vary
> more than 1/1,000,000 th from its current rate, the temperature here
> wouild be 10,000 f. If the Gravitational Force were altered by 1 part
> in 10 x 40th power (1 with 40 zeros after it) , our Sun would not exist,
> the moon would crash into the earth or fly out off into space. The other
> 131+ Parameters are simular in astounding precision.
BOING...!!!!! Argument from incredulity.
> For a complete
> list of these with their explanation, you can visitwww.reasons.org
> under 'Design Evidences' .
BOING....!!!! Reliance on demonstrably unreliable sources
>
> 2. The DNA molecule is the most complex thing in the Universe known to
> man. The encoding of DNA is such that it resembles an alphabet and
> comprises instructions in the form of Informational Messages to tell
> the Cell how to operate and build .
BOING...!!!! Argument from analogy.
> Micro-biologists have said that the
> DNA Molecule is astonishingly busy and about as complex as a major U.S.
> city. Scientists have declared that one Cell alone has enough
> specified Information in it (message content) to fill 1,000 volumes of
> an Encyclopedia .
BOING....!!!! Argument from incredulity
> The cofounder of the DNA structure, atheist Dr.
> Francis Crick, declared :" DNA could not have spontaneously arisen from
> the atmosphere and that it had to have arrived from outer space by
> intelligent Aliens".
BOING...!!! Argument from authority
>
> There are many more examples of these types of highly complex designs
> and engineering found in many of the modern sciences today. All one has
> to do is a simple investigation.
BOING...!!! Unfounded assertion.
>
> Since these illustrated examples using our Criteria above fit only an
> Intelligent Cause having a Will to accomplish a definitive end product,
> Intelligent Design is not 'a theory' any longer --- it is a unmistakable
> scientifically proven fact .
BOING...!!!! A demonstration of a lack of understanding of the nature
of science, as well as being a conclusion drawn from false premises.
> There are only two types of Causes :
> Natural And Intelligent ;
BOING...!!!! Setting up a false dichotomy: All the intelligent agents
we know are 100% natural.
> if no natural causes known to man can
> accomplish what Science has discovered, then, the only other alternative
> is an Intelligent Cause which means it is an Intelligent Design .
BOING...!!!! god of the gaps argument alert!
> Yes,
> there are huge personal implications realizing there IS Intelligent
> Design...which is the chief reason Darwinists , Atheists, and Humanists
> try out of desperation to reject the Intelligent Designer/Creator out of
> the picture by resorting to incredulous unproven THEORIES masquerading
> as science.
BOING...!!!!! Empty assertion
>
> This implication requires one of two things from every person who lives
> : 1. Keep distance from the personal Creator and make excuses in the
> form of incredulous philosophical biases
BOING....!!!! Mischaracterisation of opponents
> 2. Move closer to the
> personal Creator and try to get to know him better based on what hes
> already revealed of himself .
BOING...!!! Confusing religion and science
>The Bibles promise is, the closer you
> move in his direction, the more he will reveal of himself to you in
> various distinct way.
BOING...!!! Confusing religion and science.
>
> The ball is now in our Court.
Well, try constructing a logical argument built on evidence in that
case.
RF
tgde...@earthlink.net
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:05:39 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
>
> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <9iljl31kho9eatbc6fp1s1475cls4qb...@4ax.com>, Otto Bean
> ><Glemps...@sonic.net> writes
> >>>> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >>>> would be the best way of going about it?
>
>
> >3) That fine-tuning is an illusion formed by drawing a mark round the
> >arrow, rather than hitting the mark with an arrow.
>
> >4) That the "finely-tuned" parameters aren't free to vary.
>
> Can any of these alternates be empirically tested to determine which
> is most likely to be true?
You are apparently jumping a step in the process. If there are
alternate hypotheses, and no more convincing data for one than the
other, we would first pick the one to study by applying Occam's
Razor.
There is no 'problem' as you pose it, since the designer hypothesis
requires the assumption of a designer, which causes it to fail the
Razor. So the research project must first demonstrate that the
alternative is inadequate, before moving attention and grant funding
to the designer model.
-tg
no el
researched work is totally ignored by Academia, probably because they
would have to re-write their history books. Not to mention their
Sitchin reads cuneiform and Sumerian, literally from the stones and clay
tablets
Re. human evolution, his research refers to intelligent ETs (called
"angels" and "gods" in the Bible and in Hindu religious texts) who
genetically engineered homo sapiens for their own purposes. The book of
Genesis is, according to him, a re-write of earlier Sumerian texts,
there is much evidence to support his theories.
Steven L.
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Start by defining your terms, always a good idea:
1. What is meant by "intelligent" in that context? That is, what
features would such an intelligence have to possess?
2. What is meant by "design" in that context? That is, what
*specifically* are you postulating that this intelligence did, to lead
to our present-day life on Earth?
3. Propose a way to search for that intelligence; either find it today
or find evidence of where it was at the time that life on Earth appeared
or when Man appeared.
4. Or else explain what happened to that intelligence in the interim.
Compare to that other fringe science, the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (SETI). What separates the SETI proponents from the Erich
Van Daniken pseudoscientists is that they don't just assume that oh,
well, somebody visited us thousands of years ago about whom we can only
speculate. They are trying to actually *find* these space aliens, today.
So let me pose you this problem:
Let's assume that centuries from now, humanity has devised the means to
explore the Universe way beyond our solar system. Yes, we'll be living
in the Star Trek era!
Now you go ahead and tell me how to go out into space and find that
intelligence that long ago "designed" life on Earth. Or else find
evidence (fossils, archaeological ruins, etc.) that it had existed at
one time. Is that intelligence hard at work right now, "designing" life
on other worlds? If so, we could catch it in the act, yes?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Inez
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:18:32 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
>
>
>
>
I didn't say it would "necessarily" be easy to spot. But if something
has the power to design universes don't you think it might
occasionally do something detectible? Especially if your thesis is
that earth is the center of life and it's all about us?
> If the
> designer's object was to produce intelligent life, then perhaps life
> must arrive at a certain point in its development before it can even
> begin to look back at its designer.
I don't see why this makes any sense. Why would a universe-creating
entity be hard to see? If you're just throwing out maybes then sure,
or perhaps it would be the thing that all life could see, even life
without eyes. Wouldn't it be reasonable to guess that a designer that
designed intelligence would have done so that it could interact with
that intelligence? And why should it hide from prototypes?
> >If you're going to stick to science and not magic, you will have to
> >have some sort of idea about how universes can be designed if you are
> >going to have a theory.
>
> You start simple and build from there.
That's a vague hand-wavey description, which is fine but not
scientific.
Let's take a different example. I want to formulate a theory about
how the massive stones that make up Stonehenge got there. If I
hypothesize that they were rolled there on logs, that's a real life
tangible concept that makes sense according to the laws of physics.
If I were clever I could figure out how to find evidence for such a
process, studies could be made and papers could be published.
If I say that they were put there by a magic genie using unknown
forces I'm just making up wild assertions that are not available for
study. No science can be done if you can't either describe or
discover the forces, or somehow produce the genie, can it?
Ron O
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Learn about the ID scam, research places like the Discovery Institute,
ISCID and ARN, and then don't do what they did and you can't go very
wrong.
Ron Okimoto
Inez
It's easy to come up with examples if you allow for things we've
already failed to find. If there were a huge life manufactering
facility full of life producing gnomes, that would be evidence. If
historical evidence showed that all life appeared suddenly on the same
day with "Patented by the Smegmar corporation" tattooed on it's
respective backsides, that would be evidence.
> Do you think such
> extrapolations could encompass the methods and aims of an entity
> capable of designing and creating entire universes?
>
It may well be that we'll never be able to explore the methods and
aims of a mysterious and all powerful or nearly all powerful entity
that doesn't want to be found, which means that if such an entity
exists there will probably never be a meaningful scientific ID
theory.
> >OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
> >believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
> >this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
> >peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
> >understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
> >too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
>
> OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
> empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
> the anthropic coincidences.
So? When science doesn't give you your answer you have to go with
your instincts.
You can't always have a scientific theory to cover what you're
interested in, you have to wait until you have the necessary tools.
Ferrous Patella
> This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars,
> one would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone. However,
> none, other than the earth, appears to be inhabited.
[...]
Of the properly examined planets, intelligent life has been found on 100%
of them.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote innews:iakjl35f9covq7pg9...@4ax.com:
>
> > This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars,
> > one would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone. However,
> > none, other than the earth, appears to be inhabited.
>
> [...]
>
> Of the properly examined planets, intelligent life has been found on 100%
> of them.
Where?
RF
Ferrous Patella
>>On Dec 7, 2:59 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
>>an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
>>to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
>>not aware of any Creationist who does that.
>
> Why assume I'm a creationist?
Where did Inez say you are a creationist? He refers to the in the third
person.
> And why assume that working scientists
> try to disprove their hypotheses? Potential disproof is just one
> possible result of good experimental design.
Do you have an example? Every one that I can come up with tries to
distinguish a hypotheses from other possibilities, so at least to some
degree disprove it.
>
>>> So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
>>> things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
>>> explanations for your observation?
>
> So far, I haven't been able to determine how non-ID explanations of
> anthropic coincidences would differ from ID in the case of fine-tuned
> physical constants. The same goes for more localized coincidences like
> the climatic balancing provided by various parameters of the
> earth-moon system. But, in the latter case, I think the claim can be
> eliminated that it couldn't have been any other way. So non-Id
> explanations will have to invoke a long line of extremely unlikely
> events.
Can you give us a quick rundown on how you calculated those odds?
Rodjk #613
I think you missed something there, Richard.
Think a bit on 'properly examined planets'.
:)
Rodjk #613
Free Lunch
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote in
<399732e0-76de-4276...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
For broad enough definition of intelligent.
Mike L
> On Dec 8, 12:28 am, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:48:42 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
> > >believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
> > >this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
> > >peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
> > >understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
> > >too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
>
> > OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
> > empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
> > the anthropic coincidences.
>
> So? �When science doesn't give you your answer you have to go with
> your instincts.
> You can't always have a scientific theory to cover what you're
And, in any case, there is no equivalence. We have found non-ID
explanations for a lot of things, but we haven't identified any
evidence for an ID explanation of even one thing. We do, however, have
evidence which is hard to reconcile with intelligent design. To be
sure, extrapolation mustn't be taken too far, but it's misleading to
attribute the scientific method to "faith", if we are to use that word
usefully in discussions of this kind.
--
Mike.
Rodjk #613
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:14:46 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
>
>
> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 2:15 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >> >theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> >> >see if it holds up.
>
> >> >things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
> >> >explanations for your observation?
>
> >> would I distinguish between the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
> >> and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not clear on what differences I
> >> should expect to see.
>
> >So your not talking about an ID theory of life, but rather of the
> >whole darn universe.
>
> >I'm not a scientist, but my impulse would be to hypothesize that there
> >is an intelligent entity capable of universe creation or at least
> >changin your anthropic constants, and go looking for said entity.
>
> How would I do so? You would probably agree that it's not an easy
> testing alternate explanations. Mainstream science and ID would appear
> to be more or less on an equal footing when it comes to answering this
> very basic question.
Well, so would ouiji boards. Like ID, it has failed in every single
test, but it is equal in this situation.
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
wrote:
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes. It did make me think, though.
What use would god have with a son?
Rodjk #613
Free Lunch
"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<68c2b43c-1783-42c3...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
You may have missed an old Star Trek joke:
Kirk is on Earth and radios to Commander Scott: "Beam me up, Scotty.
There's no intelligent life on this planet."
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, it was a dig at the possibility of intelligent life on earth.
In the same vein, Mohatma Ghandi's response when he was asked what he
thought about Western Civilisation.
"I think it would be a good idea."
Here we are, patting ourselves on the back for our superior
intelligence, when at the same time we are causing the biggest mass
extinction on the planet since the demise of the dinosaurs.
Intelligent?
RF
Dwib
> How would I do so? You would probably agree that it's not an easy
> problem. But astrophysics doesn't appear to have an easier time in
> testing alternate explanations. Mainstream science and ID would appear
> to be more or less on an equal footing when it comes to answering this
> very basic question.
Carl Sagan's answer (in "Contact") was to search for patterns in
universal constants. Like, finding the image of a circle encoded into
the value for PI.
Or look for "signature" in our DNA code.
Dwib
Cory Albrecht
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:35:11 -0800 (PST), Craig T
> <craig...@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote:
>> When did you observe enough other extra-solar planets to decide that
>> none of them hold life? If life is found on Mars or Europa, does that
>> disprove ID?
> We have plentiful evidence of planets that could not support life as
> we know it - "hot Jupiters" etc., but no data that could be
> interpreted as signs of life. Primitive life on other planets wouldn't
> disprove ID. It would simply mean that some, but not all, the
> conditions exist there that allowed intelligent life to arise on
> earth. If the designer wanted intelligent life to develop and to
> eventually seed the universe; he, she or it could have been planed for
> intelligence to begin on one planet and then spread to the universe at
> large.
So, by not answering "If life is found on Mars or Europa, does that
disprove ID?" are you then by default admitting that it would disprove ID?
Cory Albrecht
> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin? His scholarly and heavily
> researched work is totally ignored by Academia, probably because they
"Totally ignored", eh? Why does this sound like the "I ARE ASTRONOMER"
version of <http://cectic.com/030.html>?
> would have to re-write their history books. Not to mention their
> religious histories..
>
> Sitchin reads cuneiform and Sumerian, literally from the stones and
> ancient clay tablets.
>
> Re. human evolution, his research refers to intelligent ETs (called
> "angels" and "gods" in the Bible and in Hindu religious texts) who
> genetically engineered homo sapiens for their own purposes. The book of
> Genesis is, according to him, a re-write of earlier Sumerian texts,
> There is much evidence to support his theories.
Ferrous Patella
44377f...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Here we are, patting ourselves on the back for our superior
> intelligence, when at the same time we are causing the biggest mass
> extinction on the planet since the demise of the dinosaurs.
A sure sign of intelligence, no? I think is was Dumbeldore who said
something like, "because on my great abilities, when I make a mistake, it
is a really big one."
Except he said it articulater than that.
Frank J
> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin?
You are asking that of the IDers as well, I hope. Correct?
ID can accommodate all the results of Sitchin's work. If IDers
disagree with it, then must one wonder why they don't demand that
students "critically analyze" it.
(snip)
David Iain Greig
> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin?
Have you read Immanuel Velikovsky?
--D.
Switch89
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
It's good to see that you are looking to do actual science. However,
if one is looking to prove the God of the Bible, I would make it very
simple:
1. Find an ancient copy of an old testament book with a historically
confirmed, highly specific prophecy written in it.
2. Carbon date the ancient scroll.
3. If it dates to at least several hundred years before the prophecy,
the Bible is proven true.
As far as I know, this has never been done.
Bodega
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
It's been tried. Hasn't worked. It's like tryng out a theory of how
Poseidon produces tsunamis. Why waste time on ridiculous
investigations?
Ken
>
> Well, try constructing a logical argument built on evidence in that
> case.
>
> RF
He can't He's on webtv which goes to great length to exclude any
possible signs of intelligence in it's users
Cory Albrecht
> no el <sky...@webtv.net> wrote:
>> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin?
>
> Have you read Immanuel Velikovsky?
With or without laughing?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You may want to look into Sitchin's books-most are in paperback and
> readily available.
>
> HolyDay blessings, all- N..
Scriptures are not scientific evidence. They are folk-tales. Scriptures
are not history. They are just-so stories.
As scientific evidence religious books are worthless.
Bob Kolker
>
Baron Bodissey
> try to disprove their hypotheses? Potential disproof is just one
> possible result of good experimental design.
I have to disagree with this. A hypothesis constructed in such a way
that it is not at least potentially falsifiable will never make it
past peer review.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> The ball is now in our Court.
I very much hope so! The last time you lot were in Court, it was
more fun than a barrel of pandas and people!
Please go to Court more often. I can really use the entertainment.
Inez
car was intelligently designed, for example.
If you want to acuse non-ID folk of having "faith," I have to respond
that there are different levels of faith. I have faith that the sun
will rise tomorrow- it always has before. I have faith that there
will not turn out to be a boogeyman under my bed, I've never found one
there yet nor even heard his disco music.
Max
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:24:06 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
>
>
> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 3:35 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:59:56 -0800 (PST), Homer Sapiens
>
> >> <ej.spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 7, 4:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >> >to the concept; 1) the presence of an intelligent designer and 2) the
> >> >subsequent presence of design. In order to test for ID one would need
> >> >to test independently for each of the components. One cannot simply
> >> >infer design (i.e., the 2nd component) and then presume an intelligent
> >> >designer (part 1). ID proponents make extraordinary claims and thus
> >> >need extraordinary evidence providing proof and support in multiple
> >> >ways. The first challenge is as old as religion, i.e., how do you
> >> >prove the existence of god (I suppose one could also go about trying
> >> >to prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials). If an when
> >> >the first part is satisfied then one can test for design based on what
> >> >is learned about the attributes of the designer. For example, artists
> >> >of paintings can be determined by the quirks and skills. One could
> >> >search for a "Made in Japan" label under the cushion. There is no way
> >> >to test for an entity that one expects to defy natural laws and
> >> >predictions. One can only get to the God of the Gaps this way. It is
> >> >always the God of the Gaps arguments that ID proponents claim as their
> >> >logic.
>
> >> If so, it would appear that we have two alternate hypotheses, neither
> >> of which can be presently tested. On the one hand we have the elusive
> >> designer or designers; on the other we have the elusive alternate
> >> universes. Thus, unless you can test for these alternate universes, it
> >> would seem that intelligent design and contemporary physics share the
> >> same problem. Since the apparently fine-tuned physical constants are
> >> built into the very structure of the physical universe, do you
> >> acknowledge that modern science has reached a basic impasse? Or do you
> >> think that this is only a temporary state of affairs and that,for the
> >> time being, conventional science should, on the basis of its track
> >> record, be given a free pass on this one?
>
> >You are, of course, assuming that the physical laws/constants could be
> >other than they are.
> >That's the only way they could be "apparently fine-tuned" in your
> >statement above.
> >So the first thing to do seems to be showing they could be other than
> >they are.
>
> It might be a bit tough to demonstrate this for the universal
> constants, but it seems apparent that something like the earth-moon
> system could have been way different. The earth's large moon has
> exerted a stabilizing effect on the earth's climate, 'buffering' it
> against large swings that could have produced, for instance, a
> complete 'snowball earth.' This system is apparently the product of a
> collision, early in earth's history, with a mars size planetoid. It
> was an apparently unlikely event that made possible conditions which
> led eventually to the emergence of intelligent life.
>
> If we're reasoning from anthropic principles, we can legitimately
> assume that some intelligent agency might have planned it that way. In
> this particular case of the earth-moon system, the alternative is that
> a very unlikely event occurred simply by chance. Then you have to go
> on to posit many other extremely unlikely events. So the burden of
> evidence would seem to be on the one who is postulating a whole great
> complex of unlikely events. My assumptions are more parsimonious than
> yours.
If a person wins the lottery, can they then assume that they were
destined to be rich and chosen by God? After all, it's an extremely
unlikely event.
You see, you're looking at the odds that it would happen in one
precise spot in once precise way. The question, at best, is what are
the odds of a favorable system coming into being out of all the
cosmos. Even if we knew those odds and they stacked up against us, we
just are weighing being very lucky against the ID hypotheses. Hardly
what I'd even call evidence.
Jkop1
"Otto Bean" <Glem...@sonic.net> wrote
> snip
> If you regard the anthropic coincidences as data, this would seem to
> put a very high bound on the designer's power. So it would be
> unrealistic to propose a limited designer. Does this, in your opinion,
> mean that the anthropic coincidences are not to be considered as data?
>
The anthropic principle provides no real useful information and really comes
down (at this point in time) to pure speculation because:
1. Life must necessarily conform to the physics/physical constants of the
universe because we live in this universe. We have absolutely no idea if
any kind of life can exist if the physics were different and there is no
known way to know that.
2. We don't even have enough information about where life can and cannot
exist in THIS UNIVERSE. We only know that life exists on earth and the
conditions that can support life on earth.
This is why the anthropic principle can have absolutely no bearing on the ID
argument--it can only appy to life as we know it.
Andre Lieven
If I may, I would say that this is not really " faith ", as your
experience,
observations, considerations, and teachers ( I am not limiting this to
education facility persons, parents and caretakers are major teachers
of children ) have given you *reason* to expect and understand that
the
sun will return each day, and why.
Faith is not about a reasoned view, it is about belief without
evidence.
So, when folks use it in a context where facts and reason led one to a
belief, then its not accurate to use the word faith for that
position.
> I have faith that there
> will not turn out to be a boogeyman under my bed, I've never found one
> there yet nor even heard his disco music.
Same point there.
This is not just a point of grammar; The creationist view means that
their
use of the word " faith " is utterly different ( Opposite, actually )
from the
useage that you used.
When two groups use the same word in such utterly different ways,
well, clear communication is made rather unlikely. And, while its
reasonable ( Literally ) to believe that many creationists will never
grasp any other meaning of the words " faith " or " theory ", it is
within our power to not muddy the waters any farther.
Andre
Gary Bohn
news:vlqjl31ids5v8rk44...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:35:11 -0800 (PST), Craig T
> <craig...@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 7, 5:16 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:51:53 -0800 (PST), "Greg G."
>>> <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Dec 7, 5:15 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>>>
>>> >> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design,
>>> >> >> what would be the best way of going about it?
>>>
>>> >> >I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make
>>> >> >up a theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more
>>> >> >evidence to see if it holds up.
>>>
>>> >> >So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
>>> >> >things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
>>> >> >explanations for your observation?
>>>
>>> >> I could begin with the hundred or so major anthropic
>>> >> coincidences. How would I distinguish between the hypothesis of
>>> >> an intelligent designer and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not
>>> >> clear on what differences I should expect to see.
>>>
>>> >The anthropic coincidences mentioned by IDers often sound like mud
>>> >puddle coincidences. The puddle thinks the hole was designed
>>> >specifically to hold the shape of the puddle.
>>>
>>> >There is the Goldilocks hypothesis that the earth is not too cold
>>> >or too hot for liquid water to exist in some regions. If the sun
>>> >were a bit cooler, both Earth and Venus might be in the Goldilocks
>>> >zone or if Mars was a bit larger, it would still retain liquid
>>> >water. It seems that as soon as technology is able to detect a
>>> >certain type of planet, they detect those types of planets in
>>> >nearby star systems. Just last month, there was this story about a
>>> >planet found in the Goldilocks zone around another star:
>>>
>>> >http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/11/08/2003386821
>>>
>>> This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars,
>>> one would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone.
>>> However, none, other than the earth, appears to be inhabited.
>>> Uninhabitable extra-solar planets are part of our data set. If I
>>> hypothesize that an intelligent entity or entities designed the
>>> universe to contain one life supporting planet, the evidence of dead
>>> planets would support this, rather than an alternate hypothesis that
>>> any planet in a star's habitable zone can support life.
>>
>>When did you observe enough other extra-solar planets to decide that
>>none of them hold life? If life is found on Mars or Europa, does that
>>disprove ID?
>
> We have plentiful evidence of planets that could not support life as
> we know it - "hot Jupiters" etc., but no data that could be
> interpreted as signs of life. Primitive life on other planets wouldn't
> disprove ID. It would simply mean that some, but not all, the
> conditions exist there that allowed intelligent life to arise on
> earth. If the designer wanted intelligent life to develop and to
> eventually seed the universe; he, she or it could have been planed for
> intelligence to begin on one planet and then spread to the universe at
> large.
>
>
You just moved the goal posts from life to intelligent life. Unless you
are now claiming that all life but intelligent life can be the result of
undirected processes then this is an invalid change.
If this is the case then where is the line of demarkation between ID
'helped' intelligence and non-'helped' intelligence.
You need to answer quite a number of questions if you want to make the
ID hypothesis anything more than just supposition, including the one
above.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
I need a new sig.
Vend
> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> would be the best way of going about it?
Start by formulating a definition of what "intelligent design" means.
Vend
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Inez
>
> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> >see if it holds up.
>
> >So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
> >things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
> >explanations for your observation?
>
> I could begin with the hundred or so major anthropic coincidences. How
> would I distinguish between the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
> and the many-worlds hypothesis? I'm not clear on what differences I
> should expect to see.
Isn't an intelligent designer that created an universe suitable for
human life an anthropic coincidence too?
Vend
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:27:38 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
>
>
> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
> >it.
> >Roughly:
> >1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
> >2. You collect more data
> >3. You formulate an hypothesis
> >4. You check it against the data
> >5. You check it against yet more data
> >6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1
>
> >At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
> >sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
> >Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
> >points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
> >School, or wants to.
>
> I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
> possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
> anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
> I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
> many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
> one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
> concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.
Anthropic coincidences are not proper scientific observations.
A scientific observation are events that happen in the physical world
that can be observed.
An anthropic coincidence is the notion that if an universal constant
was different, humans couldn't exist.
It's an argument about hypothetical alternative worlds, not about the
observable physical world.
> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >demonstrated to be false.
> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> hypotheses?
>
> >That is a statement of fact that can be tested.
>
> >My thought is that in order to make a testable statement about ID you
> >need a test that shows designedness, of some kind. Good luck with
> >that.
> >(hint: nobody has come up with one yet)
Desertphile
<Glem...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:24:04 -0800 (PST), Desertphile
> <desert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 2:59 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> > would be the best way of going about it?
> >>
> >> I'm told the usual process is to start with an observation, make up a
> >> theory to explain it, and then test that theory with more evidence to
> >> see if it holds up.
> >
> >Those tests should be an attempt to disprove the hypothesis instead of
> >an attempt to support it. It is the job of Creationists to first try
> >to disprove their claims before they ask others to do so. Sadly I'm
> >not aware of any Creationist who does that.
> Why assume I'm a creationist?
I did not assume you are a Creationist: I accepted the fract that
your subject is Creationism ("intelligent design"). Creationism
and Creationists are two totally different things.
> And why assume that working scientists
> try to disprove their hypotheses?
Because that is the scientific method. When one reads papers in a
peer-reviewed science journal one reads the authors' research and
also what the authors did to disprove their hypothesies.
> Potential disproof is just one
> possible result of good experimental design.
"Potential disproof" is the chief function of science experiments.
> >> So, what observations are you trying to explain? What different
> >> things would you expect to see from ID than you would other
> >> explanations for your observation?
>
> So far, I haven't been able to determine how non-ID explanations of
> anthropic coincidences would differ from ID in the case of fine-tuned
> physical constants. The same goes for more localized coincidences like
> the climatic balancing provided by various parameters of the
> earth-moon system. But, in the latter case, I think the claim can be
> eliminated that it couldn't have been any other way. So non-Id
> explanations will have to invoke a long line of extremely unlikely
> events.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
awo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:35 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > If so, it would appear that we have two alternate hypotheses, neither
> > of which can be presently tested. On the one hand we have the elusive
> > designer or designers; on the other we have the elusive alternate
> > universes. Thus, unless you can test for these alternate universes, it
> > would seem that intelligent design and contemporary physics share the
> > same problem. Since the apparently fine-tuned physical constants are
> > built into the very structure of the physical universe, do you
> > acknowledge that modern science has reached a basic impasse? Or do you
> > think that this is only a temporary state of affairs and that,for the
> > time being, conventional science should, on the basis of its track
> > record, be given a free pass on this one?
>
> You are, of course, assuming that the physical laws/constants could be
> other than they are.
> That's the only way they could be "apparently fine-tuned" in your
> statement above.
> So the first thing to do seems to be showing they could be other than
> they are.
Fair question. If the physical constants could not have been other
than they are, we could not have measured them to be what they are. We
would have derived them in non-empirical way from first principles,
like a proof of math or logic.
For example, consider the law of non-contradiction. Science does not
demonstrate it empirically. It is used as a conclusion from a non-
empirical branch of knowledge. The very fact we do not derive these
universal constants from first principles but determine them by
empirical means, testifies that they could have been other than they
are.
-- Alan Wostenberg fnord
awo...@gmail.com
> On Dec 8, 12:28 am, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
> > empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
> > the anthropic coincidences.
>
> So? When science doesn't give you your answer you have to go with
> your instincts.
> You can't always have a scientific theory to cover what you're
> interested in, you have to wait until you have the necessary tools.
Let's test that theory. Science fails to answer if there are an
infinity of prime numbers. Does that mean we go with instinct? Or wait
for science to develop the tools for the job?
No, we answer it with rational yet non-scientific mode of
investigation.
We use the tools of math.
Observe we neither wait for science to develop tools for deciding the
question, nor go with instinct. Nobody argues we are using math-of-the-
gaps. Clearly, the scientific does not exhaust the rational. While
modern science is limits itself to the physical, reason enjoys much
broader scope, and extends to such immaterial entities as numbers and
universe designers.
-Alan Wostenberg fnord
Ernest Major
<be31d42d-4d61-4871...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
awo...@gmail.com writes
first principles, to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, but once upon a
time we could only derive it by empirical means. This doesn't mean that
the value of pi could have been different from what it is prior to our
ability to derive it from first principles.
In atomic physics the frequencies of lines in the hydrogen spectrum were
once only known empirically. We can now derive them from first
principles. This doesn't mean that the frequencies could have been
different from what they are prior to our ability to derive them from
first principles.
The fact that we cannot yet derive these universal constants from first
principles testifies that we don't know whether or not they could have
had different values from what we observe.
--
alias Ernest Major
Greg G.
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:48:42 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 7, 6:24 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:06:35 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 7, 5:46 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:27:38 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
> >> >> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> >> >> would be the best way of going about it?
>
> >> >> >Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
> >> >> >it.
> >> >> >Roughly:
> >> >> >1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
> >> >> >2. You collect more data
> >> >> >3. You formulate an hypothesis
> >> >> >4. You check it against the data
> >> >> >5. You check it against yet more data
> >> >> >6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1
>
> >> >> >At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
> >> >> >sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
> >> >> >Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
> >> >> >points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
> >> >> >School, or wants to.
>
> >> >> I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
> >> >> possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
> >> >> anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
> >> >> I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
> >> >> many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
> >> >> one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
> >> >> concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.
>
> >> >sufficiently potent) being could, by definition, do anything to
> >> >confound your experiment. Perhaps you could work on an experiment to
> >> >show that the designer was limited in power.
>
> >> If you regard the anthropic coincidences as data, this would seem to
> >> put a very high bound on the designer's power. So it would be
> >> unrealistic to propose a limited designer. Does this, in your opinion,
> >> mean that the anthropic coincidences are not to be considered as data?
>
> >are. If things were different, nobody would be asking the question
> >"Why are we not here?" This makes the "Why are we here?" question less
> >meaningful.
>
> >LAWKI is not possible in the universe we know except for a thin film
> >around one small planet where it has maintained a tenuous existance
> >between hits and misses of asteroids, comets and meteors.
>
> >I have considered the coincidences but I don't see anything that
> >indicates an intelligent design.
>
> What would you consider as evidence of intelligent design?
It would have to be something that I understood, rather than
concluding intelligent design simply because it is something humans
haven't figured out.
> Would you
> go pretty much by analogy to human designs?
I think that could be very misleading. Humans often copy natural
designs and sometimes find that nature had prviously discovered
methods that humans had to engineer.
> Do you think such
> extrapolations could encompass the methods and aims of an entity
> capable of designing and creating entire universes?
Coincidental solutions to similar problems using similar materials
should be expected between nature and humans.
>
> >OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
> >believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
> >this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
> >peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
> >understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
> >too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
>
> OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
> empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
> the anthropic coincidences.
No, I simply think it is always premature to jump to ID conclusions
without positive evidence of ID. The demon-theory of disease was a
premature conclusion. To conflate saying "we don't know but maybe
we'll figure it out" with faith shows disdain toward faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
> >> >> >demonstrated to be false.
> >> >> >e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
> >> >> >name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
> >> >> >further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
> >> >> >show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.
>
> >> >> Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
> >> >> hypotheses?
>
> >> >How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
> >> >multiverse to all experiments?
>
> >> What experiments favor the multiverse hypothesis?
>
> >I wouldn't know. Human understanding of physics breaks down at a
> >certain threshhold of energy density where we cannot experiment. This
> >is not to say that physics itself breaks down, just our
> >understanding.
>
> >It is trivially easy for the human mind to conceive of imaginary
> >beings, like the invisble, pink unicorn behind you. The creator/
> >designer that was conceived of before science could investigate cells,
> >gravity, and germs had to be changed in the imagination of believers
> >as our understanding grew. Should we change our concept of the
> >designer everytime we peel back a layer of ignorance? Of course, as
> >long as the designer is based on ignorance.
>
> Yes, we should change our concept of the designer when we peel back a
> layer of ignorance. We shouldn't maintain any ID concept that is
> directly contradicted by empirical evidence.
>
> >Theology has refined the concept of their gods as humans have achieved
> >the capability to test theological claims. Today, gods have been
> >defined as untestable.
>
> What's a God?
Something that religious folk like to invoke to quell their fears of
the mysteries of life and death and IDers usually pretend to not talk
while mentioning an intelligent designer.
--
Greg G.
To stop a circus, go for the juggler.
.
Rodjk #613
> On Dec 8, 4:43 pm, "Rodjk#613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 10:03 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Dec, 15:52, Ferrous Patella <FerrousPate...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote innews:iakjl35f9covq7pg9...@4ax.com:
>
> > > > > This is hardly unexpected. Given the existence of billions of stars,
> > > > > one would expect some to have planets in the habitable zone. However,
> > > > > none, other than the earth, appears to be inhabited.
>
>
> > > > Of the properly examined planets, intelligent life has been found on 100%
> > > > of them.
>
> > > Where?
>
> > > RF
>
> > I think you missed something there, Richard.
> > Think a bit on 'properly examined planets'.
>
> > :)
>
> >Rodjk#613
>
> No, it was a dig at the possibility of intelligent life on earth.
>
> In the same vein, Mohatma Ghandi's response when he was asked what he
> thought about Western Civilisation.
> "I think it would be a good idea."
>
> Here we are, patting ourselves on the back for our superior
> intelligence, when at the same time we are causing the biggest mass
> extinction on the planet since the demise of the dinosaurs.
>
>
> RF
D'oh!
Ok, my bad.
Rodjk #613
Earle Jones
<d126f90a-7a6c-471d...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:32 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 8:45 am, Mike L <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 8, 2:29?pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 8, 12:28 am, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:48:42 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > >OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
> > > > > >believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
> > > > > >this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
> > > > > >peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
> > > > > >understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
> > > > > >too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.
> >
> > > > > OK, but your confidence is simply a statement of faith that methods of
> > > > > empirical testing will turn up and will support non-ID explanations of
> > > > > the anthropic coincidences.
> >
> > > > So? ?When science doesn't give you your answer you have to go with
> > > > your instincts.
> > > > You can't always have a scientific theory to cover what you're
> > > > interested in, you have to wait until you have the necessary tools.-
> >
> > > And, in any case, there is no equivalence. We have found non-ID
> > > explanations for a lot of things, but we haven't identified any
> > > evidence for an ID explanation of even one thing. We do, however, have
> > > evidence which is hard to reconcile with intelligent design. To be
> > > sure, extrapolation mustn't be taken too far, but it's misleading to
> > > attribute the scientific method to "faith", if we are to use that word
> > > usefully in discussions of this kind.
> >
> > I agree, pretty much, depending on how you define "ID." I believe my
> > car was intelligently designed, for example.
> >
> > If you want to acuse non-ID folk of having "faith," I have to respond
> > that there are different levels of faith. I have faith that the sun
> > will rise tomorrow- it always has before...
*
If you define 'faith' as 'belief without evidence', then I have no faith
that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But I do have evidence. The earth is a massive rotating object with a
huge moment of inertia. The sun is an even more massive body that
radiates energy. I know of no force that will prevent the earth's
rotation. Likewise, I know of no force that will, before tomorrow
morning, turn off the sun's radiation.
Therefore, based on physical evidence, I believe the sun will rise
tomorrow.
No faith required.
earle
*
"Communism is the exploitation of man by man.
Capitalism is just the reverse."
--Who?
Christopher Denney
> In message
> <be31d42d-4d61-4871-aaea-2489953ae...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
And, of course, these values derived from first principals are exactly
what people talk about being potentially different in "other
dimensions" or what ever.
Sam
news:akijl3518v1njh671...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
> possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
> anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
> I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
> many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
> one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
> concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.
You are missing the point many here have iterated to you. Your either/or
premise offers that the life supporting universe we observe is the result of
either A (supernatural) or B (natural). As the factual existence of A has
never been confirmed by the criteria of science that defines B it is thus
deemed hypothetical under those rules. Any speculation of the hypothetical
lies in the realm of philosophy, not science. This is the point.
In order to address the premise, observable, repeatable, and testable
evidence must be found to move A from hypothetical to factual under the same
standards used to evaluate B. If found, we are no longer attempting to
compare A, a hypothetical, to B, an observable. We are instead comparing B
to B' and well within the realm of science. As long as the factual
existence of A with relation to B remains hypothetical, any attempt at
comparison remains philosophical.
If the claim that A is outside the bounderies of science that defines B
makes it unfair to constrain A by those rules, then the issue is resolved
for us. A is distinct from B in such a way they can't be directly related.
Thus again, from the standpoint of B, the factual existance of A remains
hypothetical, untestable and a matter of philosophy. A and B are recognized
to address two different things.
An individual attempting to reconcile A vs B, is left with several possible
positions:
- Reject B and live in a reality in conflict with theology
- Accept B as an unverifiable product of A and science and religion
addresses seperate issues
- Accept B by assuming B is explainable with no need of A
Proponents of A who seek to find a way to move A to B and still retain the
nature of A face an impossible task. If they succeed, A is now B and A
vanishes as B incorporates it. A is no longer numinus and untangible, it is
natrual and explainable. A has lost everything and becomes unnecessary.
Thus a supernatural (outside B) A explainable by B is an impossibility. If
A is explainable, it is not A. A cannot be both A and B at the same time.
There is however a very simple solution that defines A in terms of B just as
the proponents described above seek to do, though as predicted, it has the
side effect of removing A and is thus rejected, leaving these proponents
stuck in their quandry of attempting to have their cake and eat it too. The
dichotomy is altogether resolved when A is seen a not as a physical reality
seperate from B, but rather as a physiological property of B. A is B and no
delima exists.
With this the true heart of the matter is revealed. It is not a matter of
"A" vs "B", but rather "A is B" vs "A is not B". The primary difference
between the two is, respectively, that one is completly resolvable with the
observable universe and one is not.
<snip>
fnord
Sam
Desertphile
wrote:
> Have any of you folks read Zecharia Sitchin? His scholarly and heavily
> researched work is totally ignored by Academia, probably because they
> would have to re-write their history books. Not to mention their
> religious histories..
If his work was scholarly and heavily researched it would not be
ignored by acamedia.
Desertphile
<Glem...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:40:17 -0800 (PST), noctiluca
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> >> would be the best way of going about it?
> >
> >Well, the first thing you need to do is figure out what kind of design
> >you're testing for. If your definition of design includes some element
> >of intelligent input (in other words you wish to exclude kinds of
> >purposeful activity, such as that of beavers, bower birds and spiders,
> >that do not normally come into consideration when we talk of design)
> >then there is only one type of intelligent design for which you can
> >test - that of humans.
> >
> >There is, at this juncture in our understanding, no other intelligent
> >designer. Therefore your test will have to rely substantially on
> >methods developed in those fields of inquiry: archeology, forensic
> >criminology etc., which actually test for human design.
> >
> >If you wish to test for another form of intelligent design your task
> >is much more daunting.
> >
> >Since human experience is replete with examples of phenomena initially
> >attributed to the work of some non-human intelligent agency which were
> >eventually found to be hoaxes or the result of natural processes,
> >science has very reasonably developed to include provisions to prevent
> >such digressions. These include various sorts of methodological
> >guides, such as the notion that the phenomenon under investigation
> >must be observable and testable in some way. What this means for your
> >endeavor is that the standard for what qualifies as an "explanation"
> >for a particular phenomenon is much more demanding than simple
> >inference by analogy.
> >
> >An analogical explanation may work in the case of, say, spear points,
> >because we have ample evidence of the existence of the designing
> >agency in question - humans. As well, we have plenty of evidence that
> >humans are capable of creating such artifacts and have in the past
> >been responsible for doing so.
> >
> >None of this a priori documentation exists in the case of non-human
> >intelligent agency. Thus analogy becomes far less powerful an
> >argument. In this case the most it can do is offer a point of
> >departure for a hypothesis to be tested. That's what happens in the
> >case of SETI, and this is a legitimate hypothesis because the concept
> >of a natural intelligent agency other than humans is something that
> >is, at least in principle, testable.
> >
> >The point I'm building to here is that this is why the "designer" of
> >ID - which is *not* constrained in such a way that science could test
> >for it (i.e., a natural part of this universe) - is, as it is
> >currently conceived, utterly irrelevant to scientific inquiry.
> >
> >ID proponents have two logical choices then,
> >
> >1) repudiate any inference to non-natural agency - in which process
> >they might be able to be considered part of the scientific community,
> >or
> >
> >2) be up front about the nature of their designer, admit the theology
> >inherent in their argument, and get the hell out of the way of real
> >science education
> >
> >Either path takes them a step toward intellectual integrity beyond
> >where they now stand.
> How would your approach allow you to test whether the numerous
> fine-tuned physical constants were designed or just happened?
That makes zero sense. Nobody existed to do the "designing:" it is
therefore a fact that the "fine-tuned constants" were not
designed. Surely this is.... well, fucking obvious.
> Would
> you even attempt to explain them in terms of natural agencies? If not;
> are you prepared to acknowledge that modern science has reached an
> impasse in its endeavor to explain the nature of the universe? Should
> we admit that there exists a class of question which, although it
> involves measurable data, cannot be apprehended by science?
Desertphile
<michael...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
> > would be the best way of going about it?
> It's been tried. Hasn't worked. It's like tryng out a theory of how
> Poseidon produces tsunamis. Why waste time on ridiculous
> investigations?
Or how Santa Claus manages to leave gifts at millions of houses on
one night.