Intelligent Design / Evolution

[idscience]

2. While vaccines may have been discovered before the theory of evolution came about, without evolution, there would be no understanding of how to change those vaccines to combat viruses as they evolved. There's a reason why you need a new flu shot every year.

3. The fight against ID in schools has nothing to do with religion (apart from a few people like Dawkins) or silencing criticism and everything to do with teaching good science. ID does not present any testable hypotheses and is therefore bad science. It's as simple as that. Currently, ID consists of two things: "It's so complicated, it must have been designed by Go...I mean an intelligent designer!" and "Look what evolution got wrong!" There's no science there.

That is misleading. The "evolution" here is adaptation and variation. Which is not contested by anybody. It is used as a hammer to scare the public into thinking any consideration of ID would cost lives. As in the fear mongering piece about cancer research. That rhetoric was even posted on the NCSE (National Center for Science Eduction) site. so, this doesn't enter into the question.

Your next point is off as well. The great fury that sent so many into a rage over the Dover case was a one line statement that evolution as not without controversy, it has questions not yet answered and some may want to look into alternative ideas that have been presented. No teaching about ID, no information at all about ID. The problem here was the questioning of evolution. Which has been so conveluted to mean all change everywhere.
As stated previously, the only issue ID has with evolution is common descent. Creationism is not Intelligent Design. ID does not start from the premise it is too complicated. The evolution lobby has cointed that term. It is precisely what is known about complexity that infers intelligent causation.

I disagree that something better has to come along before evolution can be deemed bad science. IF it is bad, it is bad and if nothing in some opinions is better, than we stick with what we know to be wrong is better?

The digital code in DNA along with all the information contained within it, and the layers of regulation all point to intelligent causation. Nothing in the known universe causes language and instructions but intelligence. I have not read one instance of it and I won't anytime soon. I am sure you have no answer for that either.

common descent has been falsified many times. The problem is it cannot. Everytime it is, a new theory is presented to fit the evidence in.

Vertical tree (now a web of interconnected organisms)
traits passed down (Horizontal Gene Transfer kills that)
fossil record stasis (now puncuated equalibrium is the reason)
junk DNA (now fuctional)

many predictions falsified yet, there doesn't seem to be a way to actually falsify common descent to the evolutionist.

This is another reason why, it is adhered to like a faith, making the evidence fit the theology. In that way it is no different than creationism.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Your next point is off as well. The great fury that sent so many into a rage over the Dover case was a one line statement that evolution as not without controversy, it has questions not yet answered and some may want to look into alternative ideas that have been presented. No teaching about ID, no information at all about ID. The problem here was the questioning of evolution. Which has been so conveluted to mean all change everywhere.

The problem was not with the questioning of evolution, but with the proposal of teaching "alternative ideas" The only "alternative ideas" to evolution are ID and creationism, neither of which is proper science.

As stated previously, the only issue ID has with evolution is common descent. Creationism is not Intelligent Design. ID does not start from the premise it is too complicated. The evolution lobby has cointed that term. It is precisely what is known about complexity that infers intelligent causation.

The problem is that you see complexity and stop, saying that it must have been designed. A true scientist might have the hypothesis that it was designed, but then would test that. ID doesn't.

In fact, it could be argued that there is no way to test for design. Some things that are designed show no evidence of design, while others that do show evidence are not designed. Since there is no way to test for design, it cannot be considered science. Period.

I disagree that something better has to come along before evolution can be deemed bad science. IF it is bad, it is bad and if nothing in some opinions is better, than we stick with what we know to be wrong is better?

No arguments here, but you have to prove that evolution is bad science first. Just because components have been disproven does not mean it's bad science. It just means it's science.

The digital code in DNA along with all the information contained within it, and the layers of regulation all point to intelligent causation. Nothing in the known universe causes language and instructions but intelligence. I have not read one instance of it and I won't anytime soon. I am sure you have no answer for that either.

This is only because you characterize it as a language and instructions.

common descent has been falsified many times. The problem is it cannot. Everytime it is, a new theory is presented to fit the evidence in.

Vertical tree (now a web of interconnected organisms)
traits passed down (Horizontal Gene Transfer kills that)
fossil record stasis (now puncuated equalibrium is the reason)
junk DNA (now fuctional)

many predictions falsified yet, there doesn't seem to be a way to actually falsify common descent to the evolutionist.

I've got news for you: that's how science works. You make a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis until it breaks, then you make a new one that includes all the things that worked with the old one while also explaining the thing that broke. Rinse and repeat.

I'll say it again: a single failed prediction or a single falsified hypothesis does not falsify a theory.

 

[idscience]

The problem was not with the questioning of evolution, but with the proposal of teaching "alternative ideas" The only "alternative ideas" to evolution are ID and creationism, neither of which is proper science.


The problem is that you see complexity and stop, saying that it must have been designed. A true scientist might have the hypothesis that it was designed, but then would test that. ID doesn't.

In fact, it could be argued that there is no way to test for design. Some things that are designed show no evidence of design, while others that do show evidence are not designed. Since there is no way to test for design, it cannot be considered science. Period.


No arguments here, but you have to prove that evolution is bad science first. Just because components have been disproven does not mean it's bad science. It just means it's science.


This is only because you characterize it as a language and instructions.


I've got news for you: that's how science works. You make a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis until it breaks, then you make a new one that includes all the things that worked with the old one while also explaining the thing that broke. Rinse and repeat.

I'll say it again: a single failed prediction or a single falsified hypothesis does not falsify a theory.

Wow, clear, cogent and no ranting. I appreciate that. Many would disagree you can't test for intelligence or design. I think we are on the verge of a big change in that area. I believe a revolution is on the horizon like the earh orbiting the sun. Maybe science doesn't quite know yet how to determine design, mathematicians like Dembski thinks he can test for design through specifed complexity. There are several computer networking scientists that would disagree with you to, who say DNA opperates exactly like a designed machine. They may not be able to sell it yet to science but they know it is.

I read this testing argument a lot. You can't test common descent either. It is abductive reasoning, based on inference. There is no test that can prove common descent. Listed above are a few things that would falsify it. If every time it is falsified, an ad hock reason is applied to make it plausible, it becomes unfalsifiable and no longer a valid hypothesis.

DNA is charaterized as a language and instruction set because that is exactly what it is. I will be doing a post on that shortly.

ID doesn't see complexity and stop. It then reverse engineers it to see how it works, how it may be changed. How things got here are not as important as to how they work. When a Zero crashed in Alaska during the second world war, no one cared who the manufacturer was, they needed to know what its capabilites were. Same with medicine and science. Many things are explained by mutation but when you reach the end after 150 years of looking, its time to start looking else where.

 

[USincognito]

Speaking of falsehoods, No where did I say he was An ID supporter. There are many scientists who dissent from Darwinian theology and but don't support ID.

You number 2 point, is evolution in a net shell. Natural selection vertical descent of biological information. Without these tenants, evolution hypothesis falls apart.

This is how the evolution lobby keeps the rhetoric going, by twisting statements, twisting evidence. Anything to keep everyone's eyes off the actual lack of evidence. Creating controversy about the controversy. The facts about this article are turned around from a scientist who was censored, who believes aspects of evolution are wrong, to look the ID'er wrongly claims ID support. Critical thinkers don't miss the deception.

Darwinists rarely actually answer anything, the tactic is to attach who ever is opposing their theology. In his book, Raoult calls Darwin a priest that modeled his tree after the bible.

So what have we learned about evolution lobby tactics? Watch what they say and how they say it. Disregard any comments about the messenger as that has nothing to do with the facts presented. For example, an arsonist saying fire is hot, would be rebutted by an evolutionist saying, "this guy just wants to destroy things, he's a criminal, look a judge even says so."

Don't be intimidated by the lengthy ranting about really nothing to do with the subject at hand. The louder, more obnoxious, and more personal they get, shows how weak the ground they are standing on is.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire! Well, evolution blows a lot of smoke. Ignore that and look for the fire.

And there goes another irony meter.

IDs, you spend a lot of time in your posts engaging in metadebate rather than simply responding to replies to your post and engaging in a debate/discussion over the content.

 

[Hobz]

The design problem was one I tried to highlight before. The simple fact of the matter is "intelligent design" cannot be defined in any meaningful way to account for all objects which are known to be defined. Even if this definition could be reached, it could not be extended to an undefined entity (the intelligent creator), as this entity may have unique design methods not previously observed. Also there's the classic argument of who created the creator, which slips into infinite regression.

The idea of irreducible complexity is absolutely fallacious and every example which has been put forward has been debunked, this includes proposed mechanisms for eye development (an impossible exercise according to ID), the stepwise developement of the flaggelum motor, etc.

My initial assumption was also true, the OP tends to talk more about the shortcomings of evolution than the positive evidences of his own pet theory, mainly because there are none.

My last huge problem with ID is its predictive power, while evolution has made many predictions about the state of biology and what we should and should not observe, ID tells us nothing. It has no usefulness, no function, and no application; it is simply a feel good theory. This is obvious in the reasoning IDers use, it's not about how good my theory is, it's all about how BAD evolution is. I'd propose that IDers know more "shortcomings" of evolution than they do the basics of their own theory.

Prove me wrong, come up with a working definition of "intelligent design," explain some of the predictions your theory makes about the state of the world, and why these predictions should be the case. Until you can manage to do some of these basics, you should stop googling "why evolution is wrong" and concentrate on how your own theory operates.

 

[Hobz]

ID doesn't see complexity and stop. It then reverse engineers it to see how it works, how it may be changed. How things got here are not as important as to how they work. When a Zero crashed in Alaska during the second world war, no one cared who the manufacturer was, they needed to know what its capabilites were. Same with medicine and science. Many things are explained by mutation but when you reach the end after 150 years of looking, its time to start looking else where.

Ahhhh, really?

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, just the origins of diversity.

2. Evolution is a process and a description of "how something works"

3. People definitely care about how medicine and science got here, otherwise we wouldn't have them. Or do you like taking things for granted?

4. Creationism dates back to at least the 5th century, so while evolution has had a measly 150 years to be defined and evidences collected. Creationism has had ten times the duration - 1500 years - to get it's facts straight, yet we're still waiting for basic definitions.

 

[Hobz]

I'm going to try and explain some scientific method to you in the hope that you'll see why ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

The scientific method in 4 crude steps:

1. Observe Phenomena
2. Propose a hypothesis to explain 1.
3. Deduce a prediction based on 2.
4. Test the predictions in 3.

If we can show any of the predictions (3) to be false, we know (2) is also false, and must propose a new hypothesis. If no predictions can be made (3) the hypothesis is untestable, and not a valid scientific hypothesis. Note that this method can never verify (2), it can only disprove (2).

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

I read this testing argument a lot. You can't test common descent either. It is abductive reasoning, based on inference. There is no test that can prove common descent. Listed above are a few things that would falsify it. If every time it is falsified, an ad hock reason is applied to make it plausible, it becomes unfalsifiable and no longer a valid hypothesis.

Now I'll address the above.

Since common descent makes predictions which can be tested, the theory itself IS testable.

There is no test you can do to prove anything, nevermind common descent, see the above explanation on how the scientific method works.

As for us making ad hock reasons to explain phenomena, see (2) above, it's scientific protocol to continue to propose TESTABLE hypothesis to explain phenomena.

As far as I know, ID makes NO testable predictions, and therefore can't be proposed in science.

Again, prove me wrong, take the 4 steps above and apply them to ID, I'd love to see what you come up with. As I'm sure would many others.

 

[idscience]

The design problem was one I tried to highlight before. The simple fact of the matter is "intelligent design" cannot be defined in any meaningful way to account for all objects which are known to be defined. Even if this definition could be reached, it could not be extended to an undefined entity (the intelligent creator), as this entity may have unique design methods not previously observed. Also there's the classic argument of who created the creator, which slips into infinite regression.

The idea of irreducible complexity is absolutely fallacious and every example which has been put forward has been debunked, this includes proposed mechanisms for eye development (an impossible exercise according to ID), the stepwise developement of the flaggelum motor, etc.

My initial assumption was also true, the OP tends to talk more about the shortcomings of evolution than the positive evidences of his own pet theory, mainly because there are none.

My last huge problem with ID is its predictive power, while evolution has made many predictions about the state of biology and what we should and should not observe, ID tells us nothing. It has no usefulness, no function, and no application; it is simply a feel good theory. This is obvious in the reasoning IDers use, it's not about how good my theory is, it's all about how BAD evolution is. I'd propose that IDers know more "shortcomings" of evolution than they do the basics of their own theory.

Prove me wrong, come up with a working definition of "intelligent design," explain some of the predictions your theory makes about the state of the world, and why these predictions should be the case. Until you can manage to do some of these basics, you should stop googling "why evolution is wrong" and concentrate on how your own theory operates.

ID can't define a creator? evolution can't define origin either. It conveniently ignors it and then you say, doesn't deal with it. How convenient for your hypothesis. Who created the intelligent cause is irrelevant. Another side track.

IC has not been demonstrated at all. I notice a very large whole where your proof is. There should be plenty of cites for it.....?? none, that is what I thought. All talk no evidence. The only thing that has attempted it is hypothesis. No pathsays, no evidence, no emipriacle data, nothing but it could maybe of happened this way or that. Total rubbish.

Predictive power? We see how short evolution comes with that in my previous post. Again, no facts just jibber jabber.

"Prove me wrong", Classic side stepping. For those who are watching the thread, see how many times actual evidence is offered from the evolution lobby. See how many facts and cited sources I have produced only to be replied, you have shown us nothing. I am not here for the jibber jabberers, cuz that is just the price for posting.

I will try to keep my posts on topic and less on their jibber jabber, he said she said.

 

[idscience]

I'm going to try and explain some scientific method to you in the hope that you'll see why ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

The scientific method in 4 crude steps:

1. Observe Phenomena
2. Propose a hypothesis to explain 1.
3. Deduce a prediction based on 2.
4. Test the predictions in 3.

If we can show any of the predictions (3) to be false, we know (2) is also false, and must propose a new hypothesis. If no predictions can be made (3) the hypothesis is untestable, and not a valid scientific hypothesis. Note that this method can never verify (2), it can only disprove (2).

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein



Now I'll address the above.

Since common descent makes predictions which can be tested, the theory itself IS testable.

There is no test you can do to prove anything, nevermind common descent, see the above explanation on how the scientific method works.

As for us making ad hock reasons to explain phenomena, see (2) above, it's scientific protocol to continue to propose TESTABLE hypothesis to explain phenomena.

As far as I know, ID makes NO testable predictions, and therefore can't be proposed in science.

Again, prove me wrong, take the 4 steps above and apply them to ID, I'd love to see what you come up with. As I'm sure would many others.

Again, all explanation no facts to back anything up. Common descent has had many false predictions. I rest my case.

 

[Hobz]

Last post I promise.

Back to the debate on the definition of intelligent design, where you proposed high levels of functionality and specificity.

Consider the ultimate designer designing something with the minimum levels of functionality and specificity which I'll call "Object X." Now since this creator is capable of creating designs which are highly specific and functional he must by extension be able to create the mundane and useless. However by him creating such a thing, your definition breaks down, as we would not recognise Object X as being designed (since this was the purpose of the design, and the designer is the ultimate designer).

This leads back to my main point I outlined earlier, we cannot recognise the designs of intelligent agents we are unfamiliar with. Additionally, if an intelligent designer who was "above us" in the realms of design and creation, decided to "create a fake" this could not be recognised. Hence, intelligent design CANNOT be defined in such a way that it applies to all sentient beings.

 

[Hobz]

I thought you were open for debate, but OK, keep posting walls of text, I've heard they're very persuasive.

 

[Hobz]

ID can't define a creator? evolution can't define origin either. It conveniently ignors it and then you say, doesn't deal with it. How convenient for your hypothesis. Who created the intelligent cause is irrelevant. Another side track.

I never asked you to define the creator, I asked you to define "intelligent design," the bit in quotes in my original post. Read before you type.

IC has not been demonstrated at all. I notice a very large whole where your proof is. There should be plenty of cites for it.....?? none, that is what I thought. All talk no evidence. The only thing that has attempted it is hypothesis. No pathsays, no evidence, no emipriacle data, nothing but it could maybe of happened this way or that. Total rubbish.

This is my point, the idea of IC has never been shown to hold up. We can never demonstrate it, cause ID has never shown IC to be necessary or in fact exist. Every example they have come up with have been debunked, I have no references because I can't post links, I've explained this to you, in 50 posts time i'll be sure to let you know.

Predictive power? We see how short evolution comes with that in my previous post. Again, no facts just jibber jabber.

Predictive power, like the twin nested heirarchy, or the temporal stratification of fossils, or the similarities in genomes, these are all predictions from evolution. Forget for the time being whether they are true or not, make some predictions regarding ID, what should we find, what should we not find? If you can't make predictions you havn't got a valid hypothesis.

"Prove me wrong", Classic side stepping. For those who are watching the thread, see how many times actual evidence is offered from the evolution lobby. See how many facts and cited sources I have produced only to be replied, you have shown us nothing. I am not here for the jibber jabberers, cuz that is just the price for posting.

We are not discussing evolution, we are discussing ID, I only offered examples from evolution because i've never been offered corresponding examples from ID, show them to me.

I will try to keep my posts on topic and less on their jibber jabber, he said she said.

Responding to me instead of attacking me personally would go a long way.

 

[Hobz]

Again, all explanation no facts to back anything up. Common descent has had many false predictions. I rest my case.

What fact should I use to back up the scientific method? How about the fact that cars work, or computers work, or mobile phones work, or ummmm, the clothing your wearing? The veracity of the scientific method is self-apparent, just take a look.

Correction of false predictions is a sign of maturity of a theory, if you read my post explaining the scientific method you would understand that. As a scientific theory undergoes rigorous testing and verification holes are often found which either uncover unexplain phenomenon, or show a current theory to be wrong. Take the theory of propagation of light, first we had no idea, then we had waves in an aether, then we had waves without an aether, then we had wave/particle duality, now we're going further down the rabbit hole into quantum mechanics. Yes, science made alot of false predictions, but it was these falsities which allowed us to get closer to the truth. By having no predictive power, you have no method of falsification, and no way of moving forwards, this is why you'll often hear scientists saying ID is just Goddidit. If science ever accepted ID, it's next step would be to pack up shop since it could never be replaced.

 

[Jazer]

scientists saying ID is just Goddidit.

Science goes a long way to show us how God does what He did. They use to say Science tells us how and religion tells us why.

 

[USincognito]

Vertical tree (now a web of interconnected organisms)

How is that a faslification? And you do realize that the vast majority of HGT occurs between single celled organisms, right? Plus, one example of HGT that happens in animals - retroviral insertions - actually provides a magnificent confirmation of common descent.

traits passed down (Horizontal Gene Transfer kills that)

Traits are passed down. That's why you look a bit like your mom and your dad and you have a few mutations of your own. How exactly does HGT "kill" that fact and how does HGT apply to animals where it's barely a factor at all?

fossil record stasis (now puncuated equalibrium is the reason)

How can one who claims to have studied evolution fail to comprehend that Punk Eek in no way contradicts common ancestry and isn't really that far off from the original idea of gradualism. In fact it incorporates gradualism (hence the "equilibrium"), but also explains why, after an extinction event or when a new niche is exploited or opened, there's an explosion of diversity (hence the "punctuated"). I mean seriously, it's right there in the name.

junk DNA (now fuctional)

Not all junk DNA has been found to be functional. There are a number of genes that really are broken and don't do anything (vitamin c production in humans). And junk DNA isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory per se. It was more of an observation of non-functioning genes (40 years ago) and it's my understanding that Susumu Ohno regretted using that particular phraseology.

many predictions falsified yet...

Yet, you've provided none in your list.

 

[idscience]

Last post I promise.

Back to the debate on the definition of intelligent design, where you proposed high levels of functionality and specificity.

Consider the ultimate designer designing something with the minimum levels of functionality and specificity which I'll call "Object X." Now since this creator is capable of creating designs which are highly specific and functional he must by extension be able to create the mundane and useless. However by him creating such a thing, your definition breaks down, as we would not recognise Object X as being designed (since this was the purpose of the design, and the designer is the ultimate designer).

This leads back to my main point I outlined earlier, we cannot recognise the designs of intelligent agents we are unfamiliar with. Additionally, if an intelligent designer who was "above us" in the realms of design and creation, decided to "create a fake" this could not be recognised. Hence, intelligent design CANNOT be defined in such a way that it applies to all sentient beings.

I have no problems replying to reasonable posts like this one. I have no time for those who want to argue for argue sake! Every forum is the same. There are always 4 or 5 who believe it is their job to try and frustrate, annoy, insult and critisize whoever states a position that is not in keeping with their's. Especially ID and Global Warming. I run into them all the time and just don't have much time for that. I do however have time for those who want intelligent discussion, and that means even if you don't think I am intelligent. If you say I am wrong, great! state why, then cite a source to back up your statement if you can. I hope you will continue to post.

You are however, getting a little hung up on the designer. I submit that scientists can determine if something is likely to have been designed, or has design characteristics, without knowning anything about the designer. Your premise takes us into the philosophical when assuming characteristics of a designer.

Would science be able to determine an alien craft, or object if it crashed on earth? Something completely foreign. How could science determine if it was manufactured or some crazy natural object from another solar system that found its way here by asteroid or what ever? There would be no way of knowing anything about the designer but I suspect, it could be determined if it was designed or a natural object. I understand we are talking about biological and mechanical things here so the mind has to be stretched a little, since the mind set is organic is natural, mechanical is designed. The difference is obvious. I don't think it is.

Dempski hypothesizes, if something improbable has highly specified and complex functionality it can be determined to be designed. Many if not most disagree with this. Many revolutionary hypothesis were thrown out over history until decades later when they were found to be correct or close to be correct.

when you combine complexity, function and functional information ,many believe that points to intelligence.

"make 10 and stop"
"kemp 0a tsd aosn"
two strings of information. Random selections of letters would be the same improbability of comming up with either of these two strings. Both information, both highly improbable. Only one has functional information. One is governed by a language convention the other is not. The second string is jumbled and random and thousands of random choices or mutations of leters will produce the same jumble of non functional information. Dembski says, the highly improbable, plus functional information points to intelligence.

There is no dispute DNA is the building instructions of life.
Learn Genetics (University of Utah)
"DNA is made of four simple building blocks, yet it contains all of the information necessary to build an organism. Segments of DNA called genes contain specific instructions that make each individual unique."
NASA
"DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life"
NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
"(DNA), which contains the biological instructions that make each species unique."

Can we agree DNA is full of instructions, buiding plans?

You may find some of this interesting. It is a debate from "Infidels" or you may think he is an IDiot too. I submit it to you anyway. I have not read it through but I have read some of his other stuff too. He is a computer network guy.

• Gentlemen:
• The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
• 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
  2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
  3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
• If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
  occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
• Perry Marshall
• The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.
• There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:

This is interesting for techy's DNA motors that run on a track

 

[Hobz]

My problem isn't the designer, it's your definition of design, so far it doesn't stand up to critique. I'm still wanting a definition of design that includes all of human design, and i've logically shown you it is impossible to infer information about designs when you have no familiarity with the designer. You say I shouldn't get hung up on this definition but it is central to your theory.

As far as information without intelligence goes, do pulsars count as information? We can use them to establish time as accurately as using an atomic clock, so they do contain information. Does this count as information without intelligence? Why/why not?

Would science be able to determine an alien craft, or object if it crashed on earth? Something completely foreign. How could science determine if it was manufactured or some crazy natural object from another solar system that found its way here by asteroid or what ever?

They may, but not necessarily, who says we havn't already been visited and never even realised it? This is well within the bounds of the ultimate designer, is it not?

Anyways lets move on from this, although I still believe this is a major hole in your theory. Lets move on to prediction, without any predictions, a theory cannot be validated. What predictions does ID make?

Please, if you're going to answer one part of my post, answer to me the predictions made by ID.

 

[idscience]

I never asked you to define the creator, I asked you to define "intelligent design," the bit in quotes in my original post. Read before you type.

This is my point, the idea of IC has never been shown to hold up. We can never demonstrate it, cause ID has never shown IC to be necessary or in fact exist. Every example they have come up with have been debunked, I have no references because I can't post links, I've explained this to you, in 50 posts time i'll be sure to let you know.

Predictive power, like the twin nested heirarchy, or the temporal stratification of fossils, or the similarities in genomes, these are all predictions from evolution. Forget for the time being whether they are true or not, make some predictions regarding ID, what should we find, what should we not find? If you can't make predictions you havn't got a valid hypothesis.

We are not discussing evolution, we are discussing ID, I only offered examples from evolution because i've never been offered corresponding examples from ID, show them to me.

Responding to me instead of attacking me personally would go a long way.

I took your entire post #110 as being unable to describe design without being able to describe the designer. My mistake.

IC does hold up, no one has demonstrated anything but ideas as to how the flagellum may have originated. I just came off an Atheist creation/evolution site and after 50 pages of back and forth, I still had not one, example of how the flagellum came about by random mutation, or co-option, or duplication, or anything else. Everything presented is theory, in the worlds sence not the scientific sense. The closest paper to come to it I have read is Matzke, but even that is, this or that could have happened.

heirarchies are based on similarities which could also be common design. It is not surprising that genome similarity is high given life processes are very similar. There have been many genome discoveries that conflict with predictions. for example, bacteria with genes their ancestors did not have (Horizontal Gene Tranfer) was used to fix that prediction problem. DNA in organisms points to one tree while their RNA points to another tree. Morphology of the fossil record and molecular homology are conflicting. The tree is not a tree it is a web of interconnecting organisms. This is not a prediction of evolution which predicted a vertical gene transfer. It is however a prediction of ID as common design, common programming. Many genes would be used in a variety of organisms which would make a tree look all over the place. Which is what is seen.

Stratification of fossils? I will give you that one. That is one of the best arguments for increasing complexity of organisms, but not so much common ancestry. From single cells to cambrian explosion, no gradual progression of fossils. (counter predictive of evolution)

Prediction of ID:
junk dna has function
common design will show common components throughout living things
dna would be very similar in all life
life can not spontaneously arise
complexity is not self organizing
systems and structures of living things will have emergent properties (IC)
There are no vesigial features in living things.
engineers will be instrumental in biological discoveries.
Computer network engineers will decipher dna
functional information only comes from intelligence

Many of the same claims common ancestry makes ID can make with common design features. You can't rule one out over the other on just similarity. Where I look at it as leaning to ID is where predictions for common descent fail. As more scientists realize that DNA is a language code, of networked manufacturing instructions and processes, ID will gain more and more respect.

If evolution is one unifying theory, it has to include origins. If evolution can only be seen a naturalistic, then the origin has to be as well. Science will never find life spontaneously arising. Evolution has no answer for origins, ID does.

Can you determine an individuals personality by examining his physical brain? There are things beyond physics and matter. What is consciousness?, instinct, emotion, morality and intuitiveness. These are all things beyond physics and matter but they do exist. DNA is the signature of an intelligence. This is the next scientific revolution.

My eyes and fingers aren't coordinating anymore, its too late.

 

[idscience]

My problem isn't the designer, it's your definition of design, so far it doesn't stand up to critique. I'm still wanting a definition of design that includes all of human design, and i've logically shown you it is impossible to infer information about designs when you have no familiarity with the designer. You say I shouldn't get hung up on this definition but it is central to your theory.

As far as information without intelligence goes, do pulsars count as information? We can use them to establish time as accurately as using an atomic clock, so they do contain information. Does this count as information without intelligence? Why/why not?



They may, but not necessarily, who says we havn't already been visited and never even realised it? This is well within the bounds of the ultimate designer, is it not?

Anyways lets move on from this, although I still believe this is a major hole in your theory. Lets move on to prediction, without any predictions, a theory cannot be validated. What predictions does ID make?

Please, if you're going to answer one part of my post, answer to me the predictions made by ID.

Pulsars are not information. They are a pattern we make into information. Is a heart beating information? No. Patterns are not information. Patterns are naturally made, like snow flakes, clouds and ripples on the beach. They convey no information so it can be infered no intelligence is involved in their making. If a wave came in and when it went out it left your portrait in the sand, what could be inferred there? and why? What makes your image different from a ripple pattern? It is specific functional information of a highly improbable kind. It would be recognizable as you because its functional information.

 

[Hobz]

I'll drop the pulsar thing, I have little idea of how information theory works. I'll get back to you on post #119 in a day or two, there's plenty there to be said.