How We Detect Design

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Ok. Then what is the actual explanation - and how does it lead to your god of choice?

It's funny, because the argument from "common sense" is actually an argument from ignorance by definition....

"common sense" is nothing more then the total sum of knowledge you have and working from there.

Before relativity, the argument of "common sense" would lead you to believe that time is a constant everywhere at any speed to any observer.

Before quantum mechanics, the "argument of common sense" would lead you to believe that objects can't be in 2 places at once.

Common sense only allows you to draw conclusions within the context of that which you actually know. It can't tell you things about stuff you do NOT know.

If you don't know how resistance works on falling objects, common sense would not lead you to accept that a feather and a hammer will fall at the same speed in a vacuum.

The general rule is when common sense makes sense there is no other reason to look for another sense. It's true our senses can sometimes be fooled but by default we accepted our senses are telling us about "reality" unless proven otherwise.
Just because our senses can be fooled at times doesn't mean it's smart to throw common sense out the window.

Yes. The difference, off course, being that we actually know how cars are made.
You don't know how life is made. You have a couple of a priori faith based beliefs about it, but that is not knowledge.

Plus that there are actually sensible evolutionary pathways to get to such "IC" structures.

If we found a space ship on Pluto this month are you claiming scientist couldn't determine if the ship is IC or not? Again you are throwing common sense out the window just because there is a few cases where our senses are misleading. You are trying to use our ignorance of how something evolve as evidence it did which is complete nonsense.

Such as?

Again, just because there is a structure ABC that can't perform its current function without A or B or C, does not mean that it was created that way. Nore does it mean it always was that way.

"IC" implies that it is "impossible" to get to such a structure naturally.
And therein lies the problem. That word "imposible". How do you demonstrate that?
Well, simply by pointing out that there is no known mechanism that can produce it (for the sake of the argument, i'll assume that there idd is no such known mechanism).

THAT, right there, is the argument from ignorance.

"we don't know, therefor it does not exist".

No, that's not how it works.
Instead: "we don't know so.......... we don't know." Period.

What Behe does (with many words to obfuscate it, off course) is: "we don't know so.....god."

Only because you actually know enough about how electronics work and how they are made.

You don't know such things about life. You merely have a faith-based belief about it. Which is irrelevant.

IC doesn't say something is impossible but the only knowledge we have that produced something that is complex on multiply levels is intelligence. It's evolutionist that is based on faith since they believe something that has not be proven to be true.

The only thing we are ignorant of is how something that is IC could have evolved. There reason why we are ignorant how IC systems could evolve is because it didn't. I do know IC systems are intelligent designed as I have experience that myself.

Just because I'm ignorant of how Windows 8 could evolve naturally is not evidence that it did evolve.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
Your video is not peer reviewed. (At the end of your video the statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is not scientific but a religious statement.) Darwinist love to refer to N.J.Matzke paper as if it's proved Behe IC wrong but it's doesn't. His logic is totally flawed since intelligence is required to rearrangement a number of parts to preform different functions. The parts themselves is only a faction of information needed to build IC systems. The individual part (chips) of the computer requires information but also put them in the right place on a circuit board requires more information. Yeah that's not enough to build a computer since the boards has to connected right with other hardware again another level of complexity. Again this is not enough information as you also need software to run the hardware. N.J.Matzke will only deceive the simple minded who doesn't understand the different level of information required for IC systems. Behe as a biochemist has a more understanding of the complex task.

Not only has Behe IC not been falsified but has been reinforced by development biologist who has found the interconnecting of dGRN as something like a circuit board. There is no way around that living systems are IC and the evidence is getting stronger in other fields than biochemistry.

It's the evolutionist like Miller who is working backward.

How do you falsify something, that is unfalsifiable?

That would be quite a trick.

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
How do you falsify something, that is unfalsifiable?

That would be quite a trick.

How could you falsify the sun let's off electromagnetic waves? Design is something "wired" into us and gives us the ability to create IC systems. Trying to falsify IC systems is like trying to falsify our own existence. This is why I found Behe Darwin's Black Box a little boring as IC just plain common sense. In order for naturalist to keep their faith they have to throw out common sense.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
How could you falsify the sun let's off electromagnetic waves? Design is something "wired" into us and gives us the ability to create IC systems. Trying to falsify IC systems is like trying to falsify our own existence. This is why I found Behe Darwin's Black Box a little boring as IC just plain common sense. In order for naturalist to keep their faith they have to throw out common sense.

You were discussing Behe and that fact his claims have not been falsified.

Do you really see value in claiming something has not been falsified, which by it's very nature, can not be falsified? That would seem to be fools gold to me.

You can't falsify whether I was abducted by aliens last night in my home and returned safely after I visited their space ship. I could claim this happened all day long.

Behe was embarrassed at the Dover trial in trying to present ID as science and a conservative Christian judge, saw through it all.

mark kennedy · Jul 6, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
What point are you trying to make here?

From the link:

Science's siesta: 8th - 15th century

In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question - Ptolemy in the field of astronomy, Galen on matters anatomical.

A few untypical scholars show an interest in scientific research. The 13th-century Franciscan friar Roger Bacon is the most often quoted example, but his studies include alchemy and astrology as well as optics and astronomy. The practical scepticism required for science must await the Renaissance.

The Renaissance was already underway in Bacon's day. What was required for the rise of modern inductive science was the Protestant Reformation. Had there been no Reformation there would have been no Scientific Revolution.

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
You were discussing Behe and that fact his claims have not been falsified.

Do you really see value in claiming something has not been falsified, which by it's very nature, can not be falsified? That would seem to be fools gold to me.

You can't falsify whether I was abducted by aliens last night in my home and returned safely after I visited their space ship. I could claim this happened all day long.

Behe was embarrassed at the Dover trial in trying to present ID as science and a conservative Christian judge, saw through it all.

I don't let what I don't know (how can IC system evolve) disturb what I do know (IC system are the result of intelligence). It's impossible to falsify a pass event but we can take what we know (IC system are intelligent design) and apply it to the past. As Behe pointed out in that trial man determines what is science and what not but by leaving out ID is has a blind spot in knowing reality.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
I don't let what I don't know (how can IC system evolve) disturb what I do know (IC system are the result of intelligence). If impossible to falsify a pass event but we can take what we know (IC system are intelligent design) and apply it to the past. As Behe pointed out man determines what is science and what not but by leaving out ID is has a blind spot in knowing reality.

Yes and according to Behe, if we adhered to his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would also be considered a scientific theory.

That had to be a very embarrassing admission by him, at the trial.

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
Yes and according to Behe, if we adhered to his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would also be considered a scientific theory.

That had to be a very embarrassing admission by him, at the trial.

What is it embarrassing for him to admit scientist choose to be blind when it comes to ID and Creation? I knew this for a long time. Yet like a blind man running in a wall those who deny ID keeps running to "reality" of ID.
Just because evolutionist want to be blind to ID of IC systems doesn't mean I have to.

mark kennedy · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
Yes and according to Behe, if we adhered to his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would also be considered a scientific theory.

That had to be a very embarrassing admission by him, at the trial.

It was also beside the whole point of the Dover case. All the court was determining was whether or not God was the Designer. Behe like many ID thinkers actually suggests that irreducible complexity is identifiable, it's akin to the old Paley argument of the watch:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given. (William Paley, Natural Theology 1802)

More commonly Intelligent Design is a simple acknowledgment that the universe has it's origin in God.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

mark kennedy said:
It was also beside the whole point of the Dover case. All the court was determining was whether or not God was the Designer. Behe like many ID thinkers actually suggests that irreducible complexity is identifiable, it's akin to the old Paley argument of the watch:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given. (William Paley, Natural Theology 1802)

More commonly Intelligent Design is a simple acknowledgment that the universe has it's origin in God.

No, the court was trying to decide, whether ID was legitimate science and make a call as to whether the topic should be allowed in the science class room.

I would agree, ID is basically creationism with a mask on and it makes claims it can not support with any objectivity and this was exposed when certain individuals were under oath and were cross examined. The fact that ID has no specific definition of what it is and the fact there is no test to determine if ID is present or not, that can be falsified, makes it a faith belief, at this point in time.

If this faith belief suits a certain person, they are free to believe in it.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
What is it embarrassing for him to admit scientist choose to be blind when it comes to ID and Creation? I knew this for a long time. Yet like a blind man running in a wall those who deny ID keeps running to "reality" of ID.
Just because evolutionist want to be blind to ID of IC systems doesn't mean I have to.

Certain people like to use the term "blind" because it has such a dramatic effect. The fact is, science has not accepted ID, because it has yet to be shown to be legitimate science. And, I would think, it is a good thing, science does not deal with things, that are not scientific.

No one is stopping anyone from showing ID is legit science though, the floor is open for anyone to come forward and show their work.

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
Certain people like to use the term "blind" because it has such a dramatic effect. The fact is, science has not accepted ID, because it has yet to be shown to be legitimate science. And, I would think, it is a good thing, science does not deal with things, that are not scientific.

No one is stopping anyone from showing ID is legit science though, the floor is open for anyone to come forward and show their work.

Blind is in reference of someone worldview keeps running into "reality". The reason why scientist rejects ID is totally because on political and religious reasons. If someone wants to refuse the existence of ID in the universe it's totally impossible to prove to that person otherwise. It's the same with someone who refuses to believe the universe exist outside their mind.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
Blind is in reference of someone worldview keeps running into "reality" The reason why scientist rejects ID is totally because of political and religious reasons.

Show me a scientific test for ID and then show me how ID can be tested for, that is falsifiable and then I will buy your claim.
Since Behe and his people can't do this, maybe you can.

Until then, science rejects ID, because it is simply, not science and your claim, is simply wishful thinking.

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
Show me a scientific test for ID and then show me how ID can be tested for, that is falsifiable and then I will buy your claim.
Since Behe and his people can't do this, maybe you can.

Until then, science rejects ID, because it is simply, not science and your claim, is simply wishful thinking.

Again ID is something "wired" into us that allows us to create IC systems. Science can only deal with the "outside" world which ultimately has to be filtered through our minds. The evidence comes from within us and not the outside world. If someone refuses to believe the universe is real and/or ID is real it's impossible to prove to that person otherwise.

Scientist can reject anything in the name of science but if it rejects that which is real it no longer reliable to understand the outside world.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Smidlee said:
Again ID is something "wired" into us that allows us to create IC systems. Science can only deal with the "outside" world which ultimately has to be filtered through our minds. The evidence comes from within us and not the outside world. If someone refuses to believe the universe is real and/or ID is real it's impossible to prove to that person otherwise.

Scientist can reject anything in the name of science but if it rejects that which is real it no longer reliable to understand the outside world.

Wishful thinking.

Oncedeceived · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
No, the court was trying to decide, whether ID was legitimate science and make a call as to whether the topic should be allowed in the science class room.

I would agree, ID is basically creationism with a mask on and it makes claims it can not support with any objectivity and this was exposed when certain individuals were under oath and were cross examined. The fact that ID has no specific definition of what it is and the fact there is no test to determine if ID is present or not, that can be falsified, makes it a faith belief, at this point in time.

If this faith belief suits a certain person, they are free to believe in it.

And who makes that determination...a judge. A judge that has no training in biological Science. Would you accept a scientific paper created by a mechanic? No?, same thing.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2015

Experts in the field provide evidence and their testimony and the judge evaluates the evidence.

Since Behe is a Phd level expert and was supporting ID, he had his chance to present the evidence, that ID was science. Not rocket science to determine if something meets the criteria of science or not, once this is presented in court.

The conservative Christian judge made his ruling, based on the evidence, including Behe's.

And, the judges ruling just so happens to mirror the consensus of Phd level biologists in the field. Wow, what a coincidence.

Oncedeceived · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
Experts in the field provide evidence and their testimony and the judge evaluates the evidence.

Since Behe is a Phd level expert and was supporting ID, he had his chance to present the evidence, that ID was science. Not rocket science to determine if something meets the criteria of science or not, once this is presented in court.

The conservative Christian judge made his ruling, based on the evidence, including Behe's.

How do you know what his motivations were? How could he weigh the evidence without knowing who's evidence was correct?

Smidlee · Jul 6, 2015

One of the things the Dover trial did bring out was how useless homology was to evolution.

mark kennedy · Jul 6, 2015

bhsmte said:
No, the court was trying to decide, whether ID was legitimate science and make a call as to whether the topic should be allowed in the science class room.

No they were not, the court offered no opinion whether of not ID was true or false. The question was whether or not ID is religious:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. John E. Jones III

The Lemon Test was used to determine if teaching ID violates the establishment clause:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition…[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion (Endorsement Test)

I would agree, ID is basically creationism with a mask on and it makes claims it can not support with any objectivity and this was exposed when certain individuals were under oath and were cross examined. The fact that ID has no specific definition of what it is and the fact there is no test to determine if ID is present or not, that can be falsified, makes it a faith belief, at this point in time.

If this faith belief suits a certain person, they are free to believe in it.

I don't disagree with that, I have never teaching creationism in the public schools. It's profoundly religious, religious doctrine must be sought earnestly for them to have any meaning at all.

How We Detect Design

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads