Abiogenesis vs ID

[philadiddle]

This has been a side topic in several threads so I wanted to start a new thread to make my point about this topic clear.

I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).

But here's how I know this is the appropriate view to take on this subject. Let's look at abiogenesis. The idea is that the OOL has a natural cause. I'd like everyone to think about the following point. Nobody, no matter what side they're on, thinks that "a natural cause" is an explanation. Those in favor of abiogenesis don't think it's an explanation and they try to find the mechanisms and the process used in order to have an explantion. We also have the ID advocates who don't accept the vague claim of "a natural cause". In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".

 

[Chesterton]

If I understand you right, I don't think it's fair to compare the two ideas that way. We expect a naturally occurring act to proceed according to laws we know something about, so it should be explicable theoretically at least. But a supernatural act? We know nothing about what that entails or what that means really. I wouldn't expect the supernatural to be explicable. And the fact that it is, or would be, inexplicable is not evidence either for or against it.

 

[marktheblake]

What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing.

This is beyond our scope.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is beyond our scope.

Only if you don't try to call ID a science. If you DO insist that ID is a science, well, you'd better accept it is at least as much in your scope as abiogenesis is to evolution.

 

[shinbits]

I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).

ID is useful for explaining origins, but not in a scientific way. The argument from design is philosophical, and was first proposed by philosophers like Aristotle and Descartes. Proprosing a mechanism by which the designer designed, isn't necessary since the argument from design isn't scientific.

But here's how I know this is the appropriate view to take on this subject. Let's look at abiogenesis. The idea is that the OOL has a natural cause. I'd like everyone to think about the following point. Nobody, no matter what side they're on, thinks that "a natural cause" is an explanation. Those in favor of abiogenesis don't think it's an explanation and they try to find the mechanisms and the process used in order to have an explantion. We also have the ID advocates who don't accept the vague claim of "a natural cause". In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".

abiogenesis is still a somewhat new field, so it's premature to say that people don't think it's an explanation. I believe that abiogenesis is thought of more as a work in progress. given enough time and research, we may be surprised to see what abiogenesis can find.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

ID is useful for explaining origins, but not in a scientific way.

Great. So lets just keep it out of science, and allow scientists to get on with studying and teaching evolution as science, and everyone's happy.

 

[marktheblake]

Only if...

No, not ever. He even tells us so (Job)

and allow scientists to get on with studying and teaching evolution as science

Nothing is hindering them from doing that now, they should be happy.

 

[shinbits]

Great. So lets just keep it out of science, and allow scientists to get on with studying and teaching evolution as science, and everyone's happy.

agreed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, not ever. He even tells us so (Job)



Nothing is hindering them from doing that now, they should be happy.

The people who insist on dragging ID into science classrooms are hindering that.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

This has been a side topic in several threads so I wanted to start a new thread to make my point about this topic clear.

I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).

The methods and reasoning used to answer the question of is something designed is a science. The question of who the designer is a separate and distinct question. ID advocates make no attempt to hide the fact that they believe the designer is God, but this does not change the fact that detection of ID is a science. ID advocates do not reject natural causes in general, they contend that 1) there is evidence for design in living systems, and 2) the current best explanation for the OOL is that it was designed and not a result of a natural undirected process.

In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".

This is not the position of ID advocates. Given multiple (designed or undirected) possible explanations for the OOL the best explanation is currently design. The choice is between a designed process or an undirected process. The undirected process or paradigm (by its nature )requires a mechanism to be substantiated.

Abiogenesis
Paradigm/Mechanism
----------------------------------
Designed/Christians believe God
Undirected/Chemistry, etc ...

SETI Signal Detection
Paradigm/Mechanism
----------------------------------
Designed/Alien Transmitters
Undirected/Patterned Noise

In both cases the detection of the paradigm, or process, is legitimately separate from the mechanism that drives the process. In the case of SETI if you contend it is undirected then you would logically need to propose a source for the noise. In the case of design you would by definition be unable to infer anything about the aliens except from the signal itself. Why? Because by definition that is the only source of information you have since they are an independent intelligence able to act of their own will.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Only if you don't try to call ID a science. If you DO insist that ID is a science, well, you'd better accept it is at least as much in your scope as abiogenesis is to evolution.

If you take the time to read what ID proposes you will see that the scientific portion of ID is detection of design. Any claim of explaining God as the designer is not science.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

ID is useful for explaining origins, but not in a scientific way. The argument from design is philosophical, and was first proposed by philosophers like Aristotle and Descartes. Proprosing a mechanism by which the designer designed, isn't necessary since the argument from design isn't scientific.

The argument for God from design is philosophical. This is not what ID is or advocates. I do agree that if a design inference were made about life that this could then be used in philosophical arguments, but this is no different from the current state of cosmology. In cosmology today it is legitimate science to publish and describe the characteristics of the universe that give the appearance of design. Physicists spend huge amounts of time trying to explain and ponder these questions in scientific journals.

abiogenesis is still a somewhat new field, so it's premature to say that people don't think it's an explanation. I believe that abiogenesis is thought of more as a work in progress. given enough time and research, we may be surprised to see what abiogenesis can find.

This is not true at all. Again if you read Signature in The Cell you will find a detailed history dating back at least a hundred years. The problem is not that it is new science. The problem is that the revolution of modern cell biology is outstripping our ability to explain the OOL. The problem is that independent discoveries are making the problem ever harder, all with out the concomitant advances in OOL research.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

The people who insist on dragging ID into science classrooms are hindering that.

This is not true, and simply a caricature. ID advocates do not wish to hinder any existing science, nor do they wish to enforce any exclusivity. On the contrary, some who oppose ID are trying to hinder an open discussion of true science and enforce a group think.

 

[marktheblake]

The people who insist on dragging ID into science classrooms are hindering that.

How? they are not barricading up classrooms and burning dinosaurs.

If evolution is so true, then why are the 'evolutionists' so worried. Their theory should be able to stand up to the scrutiny from all alternate views.

 

[MattLangley]

Science is finding the detection of something and then supporting it with an explanation. Hence evolution often looks to abiogenesis as a possible explanation of origins. ID is not a scientific explanation of origins, otherwise it would have to resort to "God did it" and as you so blatantly pointed out that's a philosophical stance (more accurately theological, but we'll agree it's not science).

Hence ID has no theory explaining the origin of life, hence it can't be compared to abiogenesis. ID realistically should be part of a greater theory explaining origins by an intelligent designer... so where is the theory that can actually be compared to abiogenesis, something that tries to explain the origin of life?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Science is finding the detection of something and then supporting it with an explanation.

This sentence makes no sense. Do you want to rephrase it?

Hence evolution often looks to abiogenesis as a possible explanation of origins. ID is not a scientific explanation of origins, otherwise it would have to resort to "God did it" and as you so blatantly pointed out that's a philosophical stance (more accurately theological, but we'll agree it's not science).

Hence ID has no theory explaining the origin of life, hence it can't be compared to abiogenesis. ID realistically should be part of a greater theory explaining origins by an intelligent designer... so where is the theory that can actually be compared to abiogenesis, something that tries to explain the origin of life?

I assume you mean me when you say "you". ID does not have to be an explanation of origins in order to be scientific. ID can make a statement about a pattern of design and still be scientific.

 

[MattLangley]

This sentence makes no sense. Do you want to rephrase it?

No it was perfectly fine the way I phrased it, what did you find difficult? A means of detection = evidence or a way to gather evidence.... explanation = the actual theory... "this is why we observe this evidence". What was hard about that?

I assume you mean me when you say "you". ID does not have to be an explanation of origins in order to be scientific. ID can make a statement about a pattern of design and still be scientific.

Sure it can be science but it cannot be compared to abiogenesis since it's not a scientific explanation of origins, hence your comparison fails... it's not ID vs. abiogenesis in your own words that would be

A scientific "statement about a pattern of design" vs. the scientific study of origins

Like comparing an apple to a banana.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

No it was perfectly fine the way I phrased it, what did you find difficult? A means of detection = evidence or a way to gather evidence.... explanation = the actual theory... "this is why we observe this evidence". What was hard about that?

Can you parse this phrase for me ...
"Science is finding the detection of something"

Sure it can be science ...

We agree here. I also believe it is science.

but it cannot be compared to abiogenesis since it's not a scientific explanation of origins, hence your comparison fails...

I never compared them. In my first post in this forum I clearly showed design detection to be distinct from abiogeneisis.

 

[MattLangley]

Can you parse this phrase for me ...
"Science is finding the detection of something"

This is my last response in this "debate." Again it is pointless so I am going to discontinue this... unfortunately you chose to selectively cut off half my sentence lol... I -actually- said:

"Science is finding the detection of something and then supporting it with an explanation."

I already explained what detection and explanation means in that sentence.

We agree the evaluating scientific data is science, the conclusion that it's intelligent design is not science, it's a lack of science, it's only science if you can explain the intelligent design and how it equates to it. So ID involves science in my opinion but it's conclusion is not scientific in my opinion, it's like looking at a blue sky and saying it's blue because someone made it blue. That's not science, even if you pointed out why you don't think it's blue because of X natural cause that does not equate to you saying it is blue because of Y.... saying what it isn't is not a valid theory, it's part of building a valid theory, but a small segment in the grand scheme, so I think ID "scientists" are falling short of anything scientifically valid as a whole even if they do utilize scientific data.

On that note I will no longer respond since this is pointless, I hope you do enjoy further debates with others though.

 

[shinbits]

The argument for God from design is philosophical. This is not what ID is or advocates.

That's the same thing ID does, only "God" is replaced with "Designer".

I do agree that if a design inference were made about life that this could then be used in philosophical arguments, but this is no different from the current state of cosmology. In cosmology today it is legitimate science to publish and describe the characteristics of the universe that give the appearance of design. Physicists spend huge amounts of time trying to explain and ponder these questions in scientific journals.

ID isn't considered a legitamate science anywhere. Cosmology doesn't ponder "design", but the seeks to learn the physical mechanics of the universe, and what physical forces may have put those things together. Whether or not intelligent forces are behind it is not a concern for cosmology or any science.

This is not true at all. Again if you read Signature in The Cell you will find a detailed history dating back at least a hundred years. The problem is not that it is new science. The problem is that the revolution of modern cell biology is outstripping our ability to explain the OOL. The problem is that independent discoveries are making the problem ever harder, all with out the concomitant advances in OOL research.

compared to the other sciences, such as biology or cosmology which has been around for centuries (millenia, really) abiogenesis is indeed quite new. And modern cell biology has no effect on abiogenesis, since the earliest life forms would logically be nowhere near as complex as what cells have evolved to now. So modern biolgoy doesn't "outstrip" abiogenesis at all.