|
Author
|
Topic: Practical experiments for testing the concept of intelligent design
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 13. March 2004 21:57
kyle7 wrote quote:
Quite frankly, I'm tired of the critics and their irrational arguments!
So far, all we have by way of a non-subjective EF is Cre8tionist's calculator to mechanize Dembski's Explanatory Filter. As Cre8 recognizes, the heavy lifting for that calculator is still done subjectively. He says he's working on it, and I look forward to seeing any enhancements. But to this point, there is no example of an automated, mechanical version of the EF. It still requires human subjective judgments in order to function, and its artificial disjunction still ignores causal systems that are a combination of chance and law. Is it irrational to ask for one fully worked out example of application of the core methodology of ID to a real biological phenomenon or two?
RBH
[ 13. March 2004, 21:58: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 13. March 2004 23:23
RBH,
We don't criticize the Write Brothers for not developing a hypersonic jet do we? The same can be said for the ID movement. We must realize the difficulty in this endeavor. An effective computer program would require the integration of a number of disciplines. This will take time and I suspect, initially, the different disciplines will work independently. Over time the computer programs will be integrated together. But we must give the ID movement some time to grow and be less critical. I would argue that the ID movement would be more effective if it focused on less emotionally charged areas, such as engineering. This will enable us to prove the method at simple tasks and save the big challange of "life" for later (though I would not discourage anyone working in biology who would choose to use the EF method or ID methods in general). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that ID methods could work. Our brains distinguish the natural from the designed all the time. So, rather than be a critic, jump on board and figure out a way to make ID methods work. The task is not easy, but most things worthwhile require effort. Even if you are a Darwinian evolutionist, a challenge to evolution will only strengthen the theory if it is true. The EF will point evolutionists to areas that they need to confront in order to strengthen the theory. I find the arguments against ID to be irrational and the heart of the matter really shows the fear of those who advocate evolution. Darwinian Evolution is as much a religion as it is a science. If this is not true, why all the fuss about ID? Why are there so many critics when any rational human can see that ID methods work.
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 13. March 2004 23:37
Jack writes:
"All Mike claims is that he was able to discover something true about what's going on inside the cell using teleological reasoning. In your opinion do hypotheses qualify as ID hypotheses if they are based on teleological assumptions even if they fail to directly make a case for something being intelligently designed?"
While Mike's ideas are interesting, I don't think the teleological approach has quite the applicability that things like Fisher's sex balance theory or game theory have. Or maybe it's not applicability per se, but the ability to "connect the rubber to the road" in terms of physical explanation. It's just hard to justify and validate a teleological proposition. For example, one could say that ultimate goal of bacteria is to reproduce and that therefore bacteria should pre-programmed with the ablity to acquire antibiotic resistance in order for at least a few of them to thrive. When we find that a randomly acquired, single point mutation can produce resistance should that count as a "success" for the teleological approach?
Here's another example: We know that protein splicing occurs (at least in cis; that is, within a single polypeptide chain). My prediction is that an example of trans-splicing will be found in which parts of two separately translated polypeptide chains will be spliced together. I'll even stick my neck out and say that I expect the mechanism to be at least partially "borrowed" from cis-splicing reactions.
What's the justification for my prediction? Is it teleological? For example, I could assert that trans-splicing of proteins adds another degree of flexibility to the cell and is therefore a good design practice. Is it an appeal to "natural symmetry", e.g. tran-splicing occurs with mRNA, why not proteins? Is it justified by evolutionary thinking, e.g. The occasional, accidental trans-splicing reaction happened that produced a hybrid protein that was selectively advantageous? Or is my justification an extension some other esoteric viewpont? (Actually, the latter: I think that life displays such diversity and repeated motifs that we should not be surprised if any mechanism we find is repeated with some variation in some other organism).
Now, let's assume that an example of the trans-splicing of polypeptide chains is found in the next couple months: Would that somehow legitimize my "repetition & diversity" (let's call it R&D), reasoning? Should I get my picture on the cover of "Science" or something? No, perhaps not. It would only be a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild-Assed Guess), that just happened to turn out. It would be very hard to take the whole enterprise much further.
IP: Logged
|
|
gregory the grey
Member
Member # 1101
|
posted 20. March 2004 10:53
quote:
“We don't criticize the Write Brothers for not developing a hypersonic jet do we? The same can be said for the ID movement.” – kyle7
Actually, the Wright Brothers experimental accomplishment was celebrated in volumes as an important discovery of practical (i.e. people and thing-transporting) success not long after the first short FLIGHT, even if the newspapers did not at first report it because they didn’t believe it. One hundred years after that simple (cf. pajaro) flight, now their accomplishment is still spoken and celebrated (they even played the anniversary stories over here in Central Europe). Contrast this with the IDM and we witness a complete reversal, a cultural-scientific priority reversal, a supersonic shift of theory and practical application. Why else do you think Micah is asking for discoveries and experimentations in this thread? These things you have suggested should not be so easily paralleled. But then again this paragraph can be taken as just a big written-visual-textual pun in response to k7.
Why will no one out there ask to take the Ring? 1. Paley’s Natural Theology after two hundred years still is primarily about natural theology (i.e. not such a huge surprise) and was ‘updated’ by both Dembski and Dawkins, i.e. they should speak in tandem when the evidence speaks for itself, and 2. The IDM, generally thinking, didn’t feel reason (oxy) to acknowledge publicly (here, at ARN or CSC) its 10th Anniversary (since Pajaro Dunes) as having made any significant signpost…yet (but let me say again, I really like IC’s!). Perhaps there is a generational thing about ID. But imho, ID clearly has not obsolesced evolution or naturalism in any sense, other than in spheres maintained by American Evangelical Christendom and its communication channels. This mention is not meant to make a value judgment one way or the other about the subject, or about the ID ring watchers them-selves, to follow a loose metaphor. I’m just here openly reporting to you in this thread what I witness in the world, from a social sciences background.
quote:
“The war is in words and the wood is in the world.” – James Joyce (FW)
With such talk kyle7, you’ll gather I think your apparent veneration for ID theorists (which I assume you include yourself one, e.g. Salvador T. Cordova recently at ARN said he ‘loves’ W. Dembski), may betray actual historical reality on the claim of (read: scientific) ‘revolution!’ Humbly I suggest that what the leaders of the IDM lack in originality they obviously don’t lack in courage. There’s a ton of getting-their-hands-dirty that is still left undone, i.e. what this thread is about, if something new is to become chief among the ID mountains. Nonetheless k7, I still support your attempts to overcome evolution-ism in whatever (non-natural science) discipline you yourself practise in or theorize about. With all due respect, I’m curious, do you publish your version(s) of an ID theoretic or your bench research, and if so, where? I guess perhaps just gotta keep trying to save and fight for ID while wood is in the world.
quote:
“Our brains distinguish the natural from the designed all the time.” … “Why are there so many critics when any rational human can see that ID methods work.” – kyle7
Apparently it’s a little more complex than a simple natural vs. designed duality figured out in the brain. Design Game II on this board has shown how difficult it is in actual (real) practise, i.e. not just in (game) theory, to distinguish between nature, person/creature/thing and design. This is not abstract like brain-in-vat thought experiments. But where are the ID voices with answers to such clearly stated ID problematics, if in the meantime they wish now again to make experiments? That said, first a person obviously has to be willing to try before they may accept or even possibly utilize ID-theoretic concepts in whatever field they approach to work. Perhaps k7, rather than openly assuming that ID-theoretic concepts have immediate currency with scientists and that it has inevitable relevance nonetheless for all human people (regardless of culture), you could demonstrate (or say who has done so) just what the so-called ID Method (singular) provides beyond the current evolutionary discourse, or what that discourse currently provides. Are you instead just shifting the focus from one thing to another without experimentation? Like Micah and charlie d., I am not interested in unscientific presumptive ID conjectures that simply provide negative evidence for ideological support. Well, I said a bit more than they did, oops…
~~
quote:
“Is it irrational to ask for one fully worked out example of application of the core methodology of ID to a real biological phenomenon or two?” – RBH
A thousand years is a looong time to wait! RBH has become extremely charming these days, though apparently no less witty. And yet I can understand how one’s patience may grow thin when their requests for experiments and explanations repeatedly draw blanks in reponse. Yes, you are irrational RBH. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) But isn’t that to be expected since weren’t you born in that generation sometime near the end of the Age of Reason? No, of course you are not rational because you still take the gosbel of Charles to bed with you (why not take it into the tub?!). However, as I’m sure you’ve begun to guess and wonder, there are also fresher and neo-ID perspectives almost budding on the scene and you’ll just have to wait to see what the spring brings for your benevolent ID vs. EVO retirement garden.
quote:
“Ideas for a seed grant application?” – charlie d.
I think you’d be surprised to know who waits to plant one, captain D, and where. Do you think Aragorn was unwilling to plant seeds outside his own lands before tasting of their fruit? What about RBH – do you think he would be willing to put up a G-note or two or ten for bench research + systematics and a novel overhaul of the entire evolutionary paradigm? Certainty surely shocks the engineer’s shelled saintly sensibilities, and RBH as a well-regarded apologetic elocutionist counts himself as one. Well, but so much work has already been done and simply waits to be collected if the Creator’s word is on our side and if we are on the side of the Creator’s words and people. Vat tele-phone is da Volk? Call this scientific anti-secting if you will and choose another Name for it if you wish, but a grant sure would help get the hidden job done.
Well hey then, charlie d. please show you’re serious and that this is not all just hollow offer-talk at what you articulate as innocuous creation-ists, and put your money where your lips and curiosity is. Send me a private message speaking in greenback numbers and perhaps we can talk. I’m hungry for benching and systematizing to give ID a fresh, neo start. Sociology, Economics, Philosophy and a novel doorway to intelligent design and evolution in the human sciences awaits your query. Jump start to practical X, ID. What say you?
affectionately,
gregory the grey
quote:
“Hey! Come Frodo, there! Where be you a-going? Old Tom Bombadil’s not as blind as that yet. Take off your golden ring! Your hand’s more fair without it. Come back! Leave your game and sit down beside me! We must talk a while more, and think about the morning. Tom must teach the right road, and keep your feet from wandering.”
[ 20. March 2004, 10:58: Message edited by: gregory the grey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 20. March 2004 13:42
Addressing me, GtG wrote quote:
However, as I'm sure you've begun to guess and wonder, there are also fresher and neo-ID perspectives almost budding on the scene and you'll just have to wait to see what the spring brings for your benevolent ID vs. EVO retirement garden.
Ah, yes. "Almost budding on the scene." Almost, but not quite. A light at the end of the tunnel, where the end of the tunnel perpetually recedes even as one seems to approach it.
I put my money where my mouth is. My living depends on evolutionary processes and mechanisms working as advertised, and by golly, they do.
As for funding ID research, there's no need for charlie d to put up a grand or two. In 2001 the Discovery Institute (a 501(c)(3) "public charity") had revenues of $2.67mm and expenses of $2.21mm. It had assets of $1.87mm while its liabilities were less than $34K. Surely there's a spare peso or two to support some actual empirical research on the repeated claims for the design detection methodology we hear so much about. An allegedly objective design detection methodology with the far-reaching implications this one is claimed to have should at least have some calibration and validation data, don't you think?
RBH
[ 20. March 2004, 13:48: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 20. March 2004 20:49
Hi gregory:
I sure wish I had my own little foundation, though I am afraid I'd try to solve my own lab's funding problems first (heck, I may even endow my own Chair ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ).
I actually think it wouild be SO important for the DI to fund its own research, not just as a screen for "respectability", but to truly attract scientists, I am surprised so little is being done. There used to be grants offered at some point, with reasonable grantees (even some non-insiders!), but I don't know if anything has come out of it (except perhaps Axe's paper), or even if the program is still ongoing.
I may be mistrustful, but I have the impression that the lawyers saw the numbers RBH just posted, made a quick calculation of what it would take to bill for the whole loot, and - et voila'! - the new DI legal strategy was born!
IP: Logged
|
|
M. Candel
Member
Member # 1055
|
posted 25. March 2004 06:09
John Bracht: quote:
Thus, intelligent design theorists are willing to ask the question of where the limits to natural change might be. This question is of obvious scientific importance, yet cannot be asked within the current scientific paradigm. It simply makes no sense if Darwinism is the whole story--yet from an intelligent design standpoint it is quite relevant and indeed essential to the whole project of correctly understanding our world.
But Darwin himself asked (and answered) this question in "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Michael Behe used to be pretty explicit in his claim that irreducibly complex (micro miniature) organs such as the flagellum are exactly the kinds of things that Darwin said would destroy his theory. I hear that he's backed down from that claim recently, but still, we have Darwin's thoughts on the limits of his theory and Behe's continuing attempts to find something that is outside those limits and both appear to be operating well within the scientific paradigm.
None of this moves us from philosophical thought experiments to the practical laboratory, but our lab work won't be very practical if we misunderstand the theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
M. Candel
Member
Member # 1055
|
posted 25. March 2004 06:14
Lest my last message appear too negative, I want it known that I fully support the purpose of this thread. ID simply won't ever be a science unless it can figure out some kind of lab work or observations that could support or disprove it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Wilston
Member
Member # 336
|
posted 25. March 2004 11:44
M. Candel, I fully agree with you. Personally, I find the concept of Intelligent Design to be very provocative and captivating, and I certainly hope that the ID research program will flourish in the near future.
However, aside from all the conceptualization work, ID theory isn't going to make substantial progress without resorting to some sort of "empirical experimentation," and consequently, this will be the greatest challenge to beseech ID theoreticians.
For instance, if we really wanted to determine if something is truly intelligently designed, without the possibility of false positives, would this require a time machine?
Hypothetically speaking, ID could very well be true, but it won’t be given a fair hearing without any experimental work to at least give it some “observational backing”. Considering that the current paradigm of origins science is “methodological naturalism,” can ID theoreticians really circumvent this methodology, and if yes, what paradigm will they go with? The answer to this question remains to be seen.
That being said, I refer you all to this thread: On Progress, Readdressing Reality Theory, & Information in the Holographic Universe. Seeing that I am busy with my academics, I have been unable to participate as much as I would like to in this forum. I look forward to posting more on this forum. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 25. March 2004 12:01
Candel,
Your post is not too negative, but it's not too helpful either. Darwin's quote in essence says "if anyone can demonstrate that something could not possibly have formed by my theory, then my theory is false". But that's self-evidently true, and also impossible to prove in a laboratory. Nothing is proved with absolute certainty in a laboratory, and certainly no universal negative (ie, "could not possibly") could ever be proved with absolute certainty (at least the certainty demanded by Darwin). Now, certain molecular systems certainly seem difficult or impossible to explain by Darwin's theory, but that's clearly not enough to satisfy Darwin's criteria.
So the question is: using standard inferential techniques (and relaxing our empistemological requirements for certainty to something more reasonable for scientific understandings), can we do experiments in the laboratory which map out what artifacts are reasonably assigned to Darwinian causation and which are not. Such experiments are very possible but (as I said before) not addressible within the current scientific community. Yes, Darwin paid lip-service to the idea of falsification of his theory but only in a way that really insulated it from any disproof. Currently, the Darwinian paradigm holds such power over biological thought that to even ask whether any biological system ought to be explained by a teleological mechanism is simply not allowed--it's not "science". Darwinian explanations have become the epitomy of what science really is by definition and so the real science that could explore Darwinian vs. Design explanations is not allowed on the table. The question is: once we allow such research "on the table", what does it look like?
John
IP: Logged
|
|
gregory the grey
Member
Member # 1101
|
posted 25. March 2004 18:42
Re: Practical Experiments for testing the concept of intelligent design
Yes, hello again ISCID’ers. Thank you for asking the above questions in this thread. I’m curious to hear the various replies as well – a voice came out from the wood work. Let the real ID scientists speak about practical experiments; to collaborate, cooperate or collapse.
quote:
“(W)whether design concepts can be tested and/or turned into labratory experiments” “I'm curious whether ID can do real work in the real world (outside of spawning grassroots political campaigns [edit: ouch!]). Can the ideas generate real, substantial, enduring research?
In that light, I suppose that both systematics and bench research would be progress on what has thus far been a lackluster showing for ID concepts [!].” – Micah Sparacio
C’mon Micah, where’s the love? By bench research and systematics I assume you mean that which goes beyond the realism versus anti-realism debate, particularly in philosophy of mind. Is that correct? So then does research and systematics take place in the natural or physical sciences alone or also in the social sciences, e.g. economics and psychology? This may be one reason why we have only come so close to discovering a greater answer or method in the ID vs. EVO debate; the narrow application of ID to only a few sciences.
quote:
“What next? What kind of experiment can be informed by this notion?” “what is the next experiment you'd do, assuming technology availability and money are not limiting?” – charlie d.
Yeah, charlie d. is talking about the thirst that quenches or the juice that capitalists make. But it appears to be the courage and competition of the design theorist whose challenge it is to up-take. Who’ll put up the cash, no one knows, though doesn’t it seem to be about more than just a matter of fact?
quote:
“What concepts are worth testing?” – Micah
quote:
HH: “…so what really counts is not what but how?” MM: “Yes.” (from an interview of M. McLuhan by Hubert Hoskins, entitled ‘Electric Consciousness and the Church,’ in The Medium and the Light, 1999)
It seems to me that you should wish to be asking both ‘what concepts’ and how do those concepts do what (you’re saying, and trying to get other scientists and scholars to agree) they’re supposed to do. One way of looking at these things sometimes cancels out another. IMHO, the focus should be on percepts, more than on concepts, which is what McLuhan and others suggest. But if you’re sold on one particular ‘basket' of ID concepts, then by all means stay the course. It sounds like you (Micah, Charlie, John, all) want and expect more from the ID paradigm than it currently provides.
In that case, I would be happy to offer more positive thoughts, if I could first ask you to clarify your terms. What concepts in your opinion are associated with ID (contextually) that would qualify under the umbrella of an ID theoretic; but which are not the concepts ‘design’ or ‘intelligence’ them-selves? The next question is of course, in which disciplines and departments do those theories and concepts ‘belong?’ But that pathway can be left aside for now for the simpler conceptual question.
Qualifying note: The following ID-generated concepts I am familiar with to a larger or smaller degree, as in the ID paradigm: IC, SC, CSI, EF, basal Biology, UPB, Causality, non- and attempted post-Darwin-isms, Evolution (= not good) Icons and Un-Evolvability, Minimal Complexity, (unknown) Agency, Inferences, (some kinda) Purpose and Poof. I guess I really am asking the question: what other words or concepts than these also currently constitute the ID Family or Species of Theory which would qualify under your definition of practical experimentation for testing the concept(s) of intelligent design? If there are any errors or absences in this mini-summary of concepts and topics, then please feel free to correct them.
Advice for actual practical experimentation (whether or not you agree it is consonant):
quote:
“Mapping TRIZ onto biological evolution provides a potentially fruitful avenue of design-theoretic research that is entirely consonant with the principle of methodological engineering.” – Dembski (“Becoming a Disciplined Science”)
But TRIZ is not an ID concept for testing, or is it? I’m pretty sure TRIZ came first and that the IDM uses it (to whatever degree) for its real-theoretical framework. Likewise, the Anthropic Principle(s) is not an ID concept, but is nonetheless useable by the IDM to further its cultural-scientific mission. So what is really on the table for ID to claim as particularly ‘theirs’ (i.e. similar to the above question)? Or am I misreading the greater need for a single ID scientific framework which could support bench research or systematics?
I suggest that identifying the usefulness of concepts in one ID theoretic, as John Bracht and Dembski have both already done, should help to pin down a way for ID practice and systematics or at least start a bench burner. Actually, I was just kidding about the ‘species’ thing above (though serious about the remainder of the question), but it is amazing to look on and read from people who define themselves almost entirely as not-Darwin-ists, and thus we don’t fairly and critically get to see the ‘other side.’ Well, that doesn’t mean to sound impartially harsh to the ears, but the reminder is that people and theories often define themselves in opposition to another theory or person. And it influences them dramatically when they write (cf. Dembski, Dawkins, P. Johnson, D. Dennett – common thread = C.D.?). How in this environment of theories and theorists can the reader, viewer or listener really hope to make one version work?
quote:
“what artifacts are reasonably assigned to Darwinian causation and which are not”
“These more practical applications seem to occur at the interface where intelligent design and Darwinian ideas rub against each other.
For example, consider the evolution of a system like the flagellum. The Darwinist argues...” – John Bracht
Well, that isn’t completely fair (to cut off a sentence), i.e. not meant to be insulting but revealing, and surely Mr. Bracht will forgive the intrusion because he writes openly and honestly about his perspectives on the topic(s) of ID. But I must admit I’m a bit skeptical about anyone’s suggestion of ‘assuming what you are trying to prove’ when it comes to theories and practise(s) of ID. Is it just those two concepts? What do you think this approach reflects to your audience; i.e. when taken fanatically (not suggesting you) to the extreme it reverses its purpose and pushes people away from designed-ness. Surely, ID is not foolproof, but vulnerable to the hermeneutic approach; not epistemological but perhaps open to such things as Micah’s axio-methodo-onto…?
quote:
“I'm already assuming ID is true and trying to make predictions based on that. I'm not trying to "prove" ID (who can do such a thing?) but instead to use it as a predictive source of hypotheses. One way that ID makes predictions is about the limits of natural mechanisms. After all, ID explicitly predicts that some types of artifacts can only be explained by reference to intelligent causation.” – John Bracht
Which artefacts other than human-made ones, if you please? You can’t but do presume such a thing as you say, and that’s the nuke itself in this discourse! Yes, ID friends, we hope to get beyond some hurdles or obstacles that dog the IDM at this point in time, gaps in the method, if you will. Who is causing what? What about the effects? I don’t know if asking for numbers from the crunchers and tube squeezers is going to tell you what you are seeking if you haven’t found it out yet for your-selves. In a far off wave and cave, I’ve got calculators working in a different way than ID-as-neo-Creation-isms would foretell. Perhaps that puts me in the wrong place being here, though I support the idea of bench research and systematic thinking to explore and develop the potential of ID methods as well. And I look beyond evolutionary theory to a new vision for the human race. So what do you say; can you or IDT’s keep up the pace?
quote:
“The next step is to characterize the design--how was it carried out, what patterns can we discern in it, etc. If we can discern patterns we can begin to make predictions. Research might benefit from knowing how designed objects tend to be designed, thereby influencing the types of models that biologists put on the table and test.” – John Bracht
If it is pattern recognition, predictions or detectives, then we should be clear that it is formal cause that we are discussing on the case of the concept of ‘design’; making a scientific study of the formal causes of intelligently designed things. Or did you want to focus primarily on the material or physical for intelligence? Who could propose such a thing? What do you know that is intelligently designed that you can diagram to your non-academic friends how it actually was ‘designed’? Are you not human? Such probes may require a stretch to your story-telling, literary scientific skills and concentration. Mr. Bracht, just a friendly reminder about partisanship, your reader got 6 words into that paragraph above and then read ‘the design’ and that was it for them, end of story.
quote:
“So, the task of the 2004 class of would-be ID bench scientists is akin to that of mainstream scientists from the late '50s early '60s, when modern evolutionary theory consolidated in a reasonably defined biological genetic and molecular frame acceptable to most.” – charlie d.
A blast into the past is the learned suggestion of charlie d, on the non-motion notion of how IDT’s could actually produce experiments. Such is the visionary message of a vectored natural scientist to the world of scholars in the 21st century. Yes, that’s what MET did (like do-do, ‘reasonably defined biological…’), regardless of the philosophical and theological implications of it’s short-cutting; but surely GET would do much more. Evolution spells its own unique gap-theory with hallucinations, didn’t you know? Rather charlie d., we should be sure to return either to Eden or to the evolutionary (but not quite revolutionary) message of the 20th century. Is this what you surmise? Instead, I’d rather be stuck looking forward from where we’ve come. Perhaps it is better to seek in Isaiah 43: 18-19 for you answers. Hopefully together we’ll soon come to a surprise.
With kind regards,
gregory the grey
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 25. March 2004 19:35
John wrote:
quote:
Nothing is proved with absolute certainty in a laboratory, and certainly no universal negative (ie, "could not possibly") could ever be proved with absolute certainty (at least the certainty demanded by Darwin).
My impression is that the EF calls for exactly a proof of "could not possibly", to a level of certainty of one part in 10^-150, which ought to be far more than enough for Darwin.
I think that this is a very tall order, but I'm not sure that you would agree. Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail how you view universal negatives and all possible regularities and chance hypotheses?
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 25. March 2004 20:36
The Duece wrote:
"... design is mostly a historical claim ..."
I fail to see how this is true. Could you please explain? Also, how is this different from Darwinism or evolution? Isn't Darwinism or evolution mostly a historical claim?
Evan wrote:
"One of the criticisms of ID is that it is based on the negative argument that if natural processes didn’t do it, design did."
And this criticism is a misrepresentation of ID. Are you aware that this is a misrepresentation? Which of Dembski's books and/or articles have you read?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 25. March 2004 21:21
SCott asked quote:
And this criticism is a misrepresentation of ID. Are you aware that this is a misrepresentation? Which of Dembski's books and/or articles have you read?
I don't know about Evan, but I've read The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Darwin's Black Box, and a slew of Dembski's essays, and the core argument in all of them is that the processes and mechanisms invoked by evolutionary biology can't produce certain things (e.g., the bacterial flagellum), and we must therefore infer that they are designed. That's what Evan said.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 26. March 2004 03:15
RBH wrote:
"...the core argument in all of them is that the processes and mechanisms invoked by evolutionary biology can't produce certain things (e.g., the bacterial flagellum), and we must therefore infer that they are designed. That's what Evan said."
I would not go so far as to assert that Evan said this. I believe that Evan was attributing this claim to others.
You however seem to agree with the statement. I say the same to you. This is a misrepresentation of ID. Are you truly unaware that this is a misrepresentation, even after admitting to having read a number of papers and/or books by Dembski?
You assert that the ID argument boils down to not A, therefore B. Is this your serious analysis of ID and Dembski's "explanatory filter"?
cheers
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic