Intelligent Design Criteria

[madarab]

Intelligent design does not have a self-consistent set of of criteria that can be used to judge its claims. I'd like to start building a really rigorous one.

Imagine a scenario where civilization ends in 50 to 100 years. Thousands of years later, it builds itself up to a comparable level of technological advancement. Perhaps it has some idea of evolution, preserved in myth during that previous period of barbarism; like they might keep some version of the germ theory of disease. (Wash your hands so the sickness demons are all washed away!)

When they get to the point of actual genome sequencing, they're going to have a problem. It won't make sense to them why salmon have anti-freeze genes found in fish in Antartica or why cats have exactly the same gene as fireflies to make them light up or why several of what were thought to be very widely-seperated kinds of plants produce exactly the same kind of insecticide. It could be even more complicated if they find proteins made from otherwise novel amino acids or even novel nucleic acids used in some organisms DNA.

What kind of methodologies could they use to figure out that in our time people changed the genomes of many species? Would simply applying the scientific method work for them? Could they create a rigorous philosophy of science that would allow them to detect design?

My expectations on the subject are that if such a thing is possible then it would clearly show no evidence of design in life as we currently know it.

 

[sbvera13]

A key difference in this case is there would also be empirically verifiable evidence that a possible designer existed (ruins of our civilization). if they were able to identify themselves as descendents therof, and identify the approximate technology level of their ancestors (us) they would realize that there is a possibility of our having introduced deliberate genetic modifications into the ecosphere. The continuity of evidence would, in this case, support a design assertion.

The problem with ID is that there is no such evidence. There is no empirical evidence for a divine creator. There is no empirical evidence for an extra-terrestrial creater. In fact, there is evidence (and lots of it) of the exact opposite. ID asserts that life is too complex to have evolved on its own, and thus must have been created by an outside influence, yet laboratory experiments demontrate firsthand that life-supporting compounds do indeed evolve on their own; the innate properties of certain molecules COMPEL them to form into amino acids when the conditions are right. It doesn't just shoot down the creationist line that life is improbable, it makes it instead a near certainty (when those conditions are present).

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with ID is that there is no such evidence.

That's not a problem, that's a strength. God would have to be outside of spacetime in order to create it; and where does evidence reside?

In spacetime.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That's not a problem, that's a strength. God would have to be outside of spacetime in order to create it; and where does evidence reside?

In spacetime.

And yet, the things he created are very much in spacetime, and therefore should show some characteristics of being created.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's not a problem, that's a strength. God would have to be outside of spacetime in order to create it; and where does evidence reside?

God doesn't exist. I have no evidence to to prove it but thats a strength as no evidence is exactly what we would find if god didn't exist.

In spacetime.

can you be more specific? space time cover a very large spectrum of stuff. Don't you mean outside of space time as we are currently in space time?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, the things he created are very much in spacetime, and therefore should show some characteristics of being created.

Not when that world spent 6099 years in a fallen state. The "evidence" you want presented was destroyed a long time ago.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Not when that world spent 6099 years in a fallen state. The "evidence" you want presented was destroyed a long time ago.

So you assume. The Bible says nothing of the sort, as far as I can remember.

 

[milkyway]

Not when that world spent 6099 years in a fallen state. The "evidence" you want presented was destroyed a long time ago.

Your assertion is the creationists' final admission of defeat. Throw your hands up, say god is outside of time /spacetime / reality / whatever so neither him nor his deeds can be seen.

It's so for you easy, so convenient! The Great Cop-Out we call it.


"In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality." - Clarence Darrow

 

[AV1611VET]

Throw your hands up, say god is outside of time /spacetime / reality / whatever so neither him nor his deeds can be seen.

The thing is though, I don't have to say it. It's in writing, and quite frankly, you should know it already.

[bible]Genesis 1:1[/bible]

[bible]Isaiah 34:4[/bible]

[bible]Isaiah 46:10[/bible]

 

[BVZ]

Intelligent design does not have a self-consistent set of of criteria that can be used to judge its claims. I'd like to start building a really rigorous one.

Imagine a scenario where civilization ends in 50 to 100 years. Thousands of years later, it builds itself up to a comparable level of technological advancement. Perhaps it has some idea of evolution, preserved in myth during that previous period of barbarism; like they might keep some version of the germ theory of disease. (Wash your hands so the sickness demons are all washed away!)

When they get to the point of actual genome sequencing, they're going to have a problem. It won't make sense to them why salmon have anti-freeze genes found in fish in Antartica or why cats have exactly the same gene as fireflies to make them light up or why several of what were thought to be very widely-seperated kinds of plants produce exactly the same kind of insecticide. It could be even more complicated if they find proteins made from otherwise novel amino acids or even novel nucleic acids used in some organisms DNA.

What kind of methodologies could they use to figure out that in our time people changed the genomes of many species? Would simply applying the scientific method work for them? Could they create a rigorous philosophy of science that would allow them to detect design?

My expectations on the subject are that if such a thing is possible then it would clearly show no evidence of design in life as we currently know it.

Interesting scenario.

If these people are doing science, they would have to create a theory that explains all the evidence.

Since all life we discover fit into a nested hierarchy, we have no reason to think any life has bees designed.

The people in your scenario however, will find that they cannot successfully construct a nested hierarchy.

This would indicate design.

 

[Patashu]

That's not a problem, that's a strength. God would have to be outside of spacetime in order to create it; and where does evidence reside?

In spacetime.

Is this like saying that if a programmer creates an artificial world, it is impossible to find evidence of the programmer from within it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this like saying that if a programmer creates an artificial world, it is impossible to find evidence of the programmer from within it?

Yes.

 

[Patashu]

Yes.

Okay, but the problem is that's not true. Taking an extreme example, I could scatter repeated messages of 'Bob did this' around my virtual world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, but the problem is that's not true. Taking an extreme example, I could scatter repeated messages of 'Bob did this' around my virtual world.

Unless your name is Bob, you'd be lying then, wouldn't you?

 

[Patashu]

Unless your name is Bob, you'd be lying then, wouldn't you?

Assume for the example that my name is Bob. I could go on and list my date of birth, phone number, some basic facts about the world I live in, my shoe size, etc. This evidence is not instantly false because the source is outside their world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assume for the example that my name is Bob. I could go on and list my date of birth, phone number, some basic facts about the world I live in, my shoe size, etc. This evidence is not instantly false because the source is outside their world.

That is correct --- I like where we're going with this, but remember, you cannot lie, or this scenario doesn't apply to the Bible.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That is correct --- I like where we're going with this, but remember, you cannot lie, or this scenario doesn't apply to the Bible.

So? Patashu's name is Bob (or so we assume). Patashu writes a program and includes short messages, like "Bob wrote this" for example. Why should he lie?

 

[Blackmarch]

Intelligent design does not have a self-consistent set of of criteria that can be used to judge its claims. I'd like to start building a really rigorous one.

Imagine a scenario where civilization ends in 50 to 100 years. Thousands of years later, it builds itself up to a comparable level of technological advancement. Perhaps it has some idea of evolution, preserved in myth during that previous period of barbarism; like they might keep some version of the germ theory of disease. (Wash your hands so the sickness demons are all washed away!)

When they get to the point of actual genome sequencing, they're going to have a problem. It won't make sense to them why salmon have anti-freeze genes found in fish in Antartica or why cats have exactly the same gene as fireflies to make them light up or why several of what were thought to be very widely-seperated kinds of plants produce exactly the same kind of insecticide. It could be even more complicated if they find proteins made from otherwise novel amino acids or even novel nucleic acids used in some organisms DNA.

What kind of methodologies could they use to figure out that in our time people changed the genomes of many species? Would simply applying the scientific method work for them? Could they create a rigorous philosophy of science that would allow them to detect design?

My expectations on the subject are that if such a thing is possible then it would clearly show no evidence of design in life as we currently know it.

probably starting with order and complexity and then comparing natural things to things that are Made by intelligence (IE artifacts).

 

[Naraoia]

Unless your name is Bob, you'd be lying then, wouldn't you?

I don't think it really matters. If you found such messages they would indicate that someone had put them there, regardless of the someone's honesty or actual identity.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is correct --- I like where we're going with this, but remember, you cannot lie, or this scenario doesn't apply to the Bible.

It applies whether or not he is lying. Afterall, we wouldn't know if God were lying, right? In fact, the absence of evidence that God is lying is evidence that God is lying, right?