Intelligence Inquiry

[xianghua]

Occam's razor.

It's not so much that it can't as it is that it simply doesn't.

While there may be questionable evidence, there is, at the same time, substantial solid evidence which just keeps growing.

Intelligent Design isn't a real theory - it's a conclusion which makes no predictions and is unfalsifiable. It is simply a religious explanation which is not useful in science. It's fine for philosophy class, however.

we can actually test id. first question: do you think that a robot with DNA is evidence for design or not?

 

[pitabread]

do you think that a robot with DNA

There is no such thing as a "robot with DNA".

If you actually want to address the subject of ID with respect to biological organisms, you have to do so with respect to biological organisms.

Rehashing your failed arguments and fantasy scenarios isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[Yttrium]

I agree, but ID has not had the opportunity to develop in an academic setting. It gets shot down in the courts.

That's because it's not a scientific theory. If there's something more to it than argument from ignorance (irreducible complexity), I haven't seen it. It proposes no mechanisms for intelligent creation, no description of an intelligent creator, and (as far as I can tell) resorts solely to pointing at complex structures and suggesting that they're too complex to have formed naturally.

Schools are places for learning. Churches are places for learning. We can teach science in schools, and we can teach religious alternatives in churches.

You can deny it if you want, but it’s got more holes in it than downtown Baghdad had a few years back.

The theory of evolution was made to fit the evidence we find in nature. There are certainly gaps in the evidence. The theory can be adjusted or replaced as we find new evidence. At this point, given the vast amount of evidence we have, replacement doesn't seem likely.

 

[inquiring mind]

Anyone who substantively produced evidence falsifying evolution using actual science would world famous.

That's exactly why it will not be allowed to happen under the present situation. Someone can show without a doubt that a mouse trap won't work with a component missing, and someone else will beat the drum that it's not a biological example, and then hypothesize how a paper clip can develop into one; or, that the eye can form on its own... given enough time of course. It is a well-entrenched system, with millions of indoctrinated supporters, but I think it may eventually be shown to be the 'belief' it is, provided only that it is demanded by our youth (imo why they get hit with all the intimidation at such an early age).

 

[pitabread]

It is a well-entrenched system, with millions of indoctrinated supporters, but I think it may eventually be shown to be the 'belief' it is

But it's not just a "belief". That is the fundamental disconnect in the theme of this thread.

The reality is that the theory of evolution is well evidenced and has real world application to boot. The premise of the ToE being just a belief, teetering on collapse, etc, etc, is false.

 

[pitabread]

It proposes no mechanisms for intelligent creation, no description of an intelligent creator, and (as far as I can tell) resorts solely to pointing at complex structures and suggesting that they're too complex to have formed naturally.

This is one of the keys. Actual examples of design detection (e.g. archaeology, SETI, etc) invariably invoke a proposed mechanism or process for the creation of said design. The recognition of design is then based on the understanding of that mechanism.

This is something ID proponents have never successfully done with biology. In effect, they are working backwards.

 

[inquiring mind]

It proposes no mechanisms for intelligent creation

Given enough time and opportunity it will. Where is the mechanism that actually demonstrates how an other-than-human develops into a human?

 

[Yttrium]

Given enough time and opportunity it will. Where is the mechanism that actually demonstrates how an other-than-human develops into a human?

DNA, mutations, and selection.

 

[pitabread]

DNA, mutations, and selection.

In fairness, that's an over simplification. There are more evolutionary mechanisms involved than just the above.

 

[inquiring mind]

DNA, mutations, and selection.

First, does the info in DNA indicate no prior intelligence to you at all? Second, don't confuse hypothesizing with demonstrating.

 

[xianghua]

Every time we sequence the genome of another species, we have the potential to overturn common descent.

how exactly?

 

[xianghua]

So you have been repeating for quite some time now, yet you never actually provide us with any of these supposed "holes".

Why is that?

here is one hole for you: scientists cant show any calculation for how much time we need to evolve even a single organ. isnt it a big hole in the theory that suppose to explain this?

 

[xianghua]

I think these would take 10 years or more of 60 plus hours a week of studying and research to even begin to properly debate this. I'm just going to go on simple logic that no one was there to see the beginning of this process.

its true. actually id is base on observation and experimentation (a cat stay as a cat) and evolution base on belief (a cat can evolve into something that isnt a cat).

 

[inquiring mind]

here is one hole for you: scientists cant show any calculation for how much time we need to evolve even a single organ. isnt it a big hole in the theory that suppose to be explain this?

Their 'go to' calculation is only 'given enough time.'

 

[xianghua]

The evidence is the evidence. The theory is made to fit the evidence. A supernatural explanation is outside the realm of science.

actually everything in nature is natural by definition. so id is a natural explanation too. and its a good one.

 

[xianghua]

There is no such thing as a "robot with DNA".

i asked a theoretical question.

 

[pitabread]

i asked a theoretical question.

It's not a theoretical question because it's not based on theory; it's just fantasy.

We've been over this before. If you want to address the subject of design in biology, you need to do so with respect to biology. You've never done that and this is why your arguments never work.

 

[xianghua]

It's not a theoretical question because it's not based on theory; it's just fantasy.

We've been over this before. If you want to address the subject of design in biology, you need to do so with respect to biology. You've never done that and this is why your arguments never work.

do you agree that the flagellum is a spinning motor? do you agree that a motor is evidence for design?

(image from Figure 1 The Bacterial Flagellum)

 

[pitabread]

here is one hole for you: scientists cant show any calculation for how much time we need to evolve even a single organ.

That's not true. You should know this since we've discussed this paper previously : A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[pitabread]

do you agree that the flagellum is a spinning motor? do you agree that a motor is evidence for design?

Just stop. We've been over this ad nauseam with you. You're just going to engage in the usual equivocation over the term "motor" and people are going to once again explain why your argument is terrible.

Try learning from prior discussions for a change. It would be a breath of fresh air around here.