Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[Resha Caner]

. Supernatural causation is untestable so what’s your point?

This is exactly the problem I'm getting at. You assume an ulterior motive and answer the assumed motive rather than the actual question. To me it indicates a fear you think you might be forced to accept a premise you have a priori decided not to accept. Or maybe you aren't as familiar with the origins of ID as I thought you were.

So, first, let me put that fear to rest. You are on record that ID is not tenable. Your position will not change as a result of this conversation. Second, of course this conversation is about ID. We all know that. No one will be surprised when I tie my question back to ID. Third, I'm heading toward asking: Where did ID go off the tracks? If you think it happens when supernatural phenomena are proposed, OK. But Dembski's original work never proposed that. So you would be saying his original work was OK. I don't think you want to say that because his original work had some problems apart from supernatural claims.

Are we good? Can we get back to my original, more general question now? For my proposed general scenario where the hypothesis is falsified, did the person do something unscientific or pseudo-scientific?

 

[stevevw]

1the idea that a deity can cause anything to happen
2 that this deity did cause natural phenomena.
Remember science is verifiable evidence based . Mere Belief in that deity just won’t cut it

As mentioned in the links posted ID has nothing to do with attributing a deity or God to anything natural or supernatural. It does not even dispute that change can happen over time thus countering any supernatural creation events. It merely claims that design in life can be scientifically supported. The design it supports has nothing to do with a creator God. IT is only interested in evidence of design just as evidence of design can be found from a machine or artwork can show but in life and existence. We can acknowledge and verify that design in artwork for example without making any reference to who the designer was. The same for ID in life and existence. Its all about the design and not the designer.

 

[Brightmoon]

This is exactly the problem I'm getting at. You assume an ulterior motive and answer the assumed motive rather than the actual question. To me it indicates a fear you think you might be forced to accept a premise you have a priori decided not to accept. Or maybe you aren't as familiar with the origins of ID as I thought you were.

So, first, let me put that fear to rest. You are on record that ID is not tenable. Your position will not change as a result of this conversation. Second, of course this conversation is about ID. We all know that. No one will be surprised when I tie my question back to ID. Third, I'm heading toward asking: Where did ID go off the tracks? If you think it happens when supernatural phenomena are proposed, OK. But Dembski's original work never proposed that. So you would be saying his original work was OK. I don't think you want to say that because his original work had some problems apart from supernatural claims.

Are we good? Can we get back to my original, more general question now? For my proposed general scenario where the hypothesis is falsified, did the person do something unscientific or pseudo-scientific?

. IDists were careful not to mention deities because they knew the USA courts would squash it. They got caught anyway because it basically was an open secret. Cdesignproponentists anyone!

As mentioned in the links posted ID has nothing to do with attributing a deity or God to anything natural or supernatural. It does not even dispute that change can happen over time thus countering any supernatural creation events. It merely claims that design in life can be scientifically supported. The design it supports has nothing to do with a creator God. IT is only interested in evidence of design just as evidence of design can be found from a machine or artwork can show but in life and existence. We can acknowledge and verify that design in artwork for example without making any reference to who the designer was. The same for ID in life and existence. Its all about the design and not the designer.

. Fine then you should be able to come up with a workable definition of design that scientists could actually use. ( aside from meaningless buzzwords. ) When mainstream scientists currently use design they’re actually being poetic about how ongoing natural phenomena seems to make everything fit together. That’s not what I’m talking about as most of that is the environment weeding out organisms that don’t do well . In other words natural selection over long periods of time.

 

[Brightmoon]

you’re quite right that I don’t accept ID as it’s simply blaming God for human ignorance. We don’t know how this happened so God-did-it, is bad science and bad theology

 

[Resha Caner]

. IDists were careful not to mention deities because they knew the USA courts would squash it. They got caught anyway because it basically was an open secret. Cdesignproponentists anyone!

So it's not valid for scientists to discuss intelligence? Or is it simply that you refuse to discuss it? Or you just refuse to answer any questions I ask in this forum?

 

[Brightmoon]

So it's not valid for scientists to discuss intelligence? Or is it simply that you refuse to discuss it? Or you just refuse to answer any questions I ask in this forum?

I answered your question you just refused to accept my answer. If you feel that the universe is somehow sentient or was made by a sentient being it’s up to you to produce that evidence if you want this accepted as science. The only thing I see from IDers is like that scene in the wizard of oz where the wizard yells out,”I don’t know how it works “, as he flies off in the balloon

 

[Resha Caner]

I answered your question you just refused to accept my answer. If you feel that the universe is somehow sentient or was made by a sentient being it’s up to you to produce that evidence if you want this accepted as science

It's not an answer when what you say was never part of my question. You refuse to answer. It's as simple as that. I get it. You're afraid. Sorry about asking such a daunting question. I'll try to ask simpler things next time.

Do you like chocolate?

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually I do like chocolate and trying to gaslight me is insulting

 

[stevevw]

. Fine then you should be able to come up with a workable definition of design that scientists could actually use. ( aside from meaningless buzzwords. ) When mainstream scientists currently use design they’re actually being poetic about how ongoing natural phenomena seems to make everything fit together. That’s not what I’m talking about as most of that is the environment weeding out organisms that don’t do well . In other words natural selection over long periods of time.

I find this question frustratingly hard to answer, at least when it comes to explaining the logic of design in nature. As Dawkins says evolution gives the appearance of things being designed all ID does is claim that this is not just an appearance it is design. I could use the examples of DNA and how there is a coded language which has the instructions for making proteins that go on to build body plans or the fact that the information for building body plans is specified because it is not only information but it also gives instructions to produce a specific outcome. This has been supported by mainstream scientists now as with the paper below.

To counter the design argument people use natural selection as the mechanism that can produce the design like features but claim that the process along with random mutations is basically blind and has no purpose. It weeds out the dysfunctional and leaves that which can survive but to Darwinian evolution this has no direction and design. But as I alluded to above with how natural selection is being questioned and given credit for producing some of the incredible features we see when there may be other mechanisms that can allow living things to evolve new features like in EES with development bias, plasticity and niche construction which are more directed and integrated. These mechanisms are more directed and well integrated which point to design.

 

[Brightmoon]

Dawkins was correct . Natural phenomena can look like it was designed. Like snowflakes. They look designed ,in fact , they look like engineering fantasies . Snowflakes form six sided shapes because of the geometry of the water molecules . they aren’t designed. Neither are living organisms , they just fit into a local environment due to trial and error weeding out the unfit ones aka natural selection

 

[stevevw]

Dawkins was correct . Natural phenomena can look like it was designed. Like snowflakes. They look designed ,in fact , they look like engineering fantasies . Snowflakes form six sided shapes because of the geometry of the water molecules . they aren’t designed. Neither are living organisms , they just fit into a local environment due to trial and error weeding out the unfit ones aka natural selection

If snowflakes form 6 sided shapes because of the geometry of the water molecules then this would point to there being a mathematical formula involved and not just chance. Snow flakes are basically designed by natural laws. They conform to psychical laws and mathematical equations based on water molecules which will produce certain basic shapes. It is only the branches that stem off the basic shape that is subject to chance because of the different conditions they may be subjected to. But even these shapes are not totally random and will follow certain shapes (though many) and not an unlimited number of random shapes. A mathematical formula has now been developed to reflect many set forms within forms which shows they follow math and physical laws.
Snowflake Growth Successfully Modeled from Physical Laws

I think it is different when comparing snowflakes to living things. Snowflakes don't have a lot of specified complex info. Living things do and they have inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to change themselves or the environment which snowflakes don't have. But they are also similar in that living things have a set of basic proteins, the forms of life that are the same for all living things and based more on natural laws than chance and random evolutionary forces. Snowflakes also have a set of basic structures that can conform to natural laws.

 

[Resha Caner]

Actually I do like chocolate and trying to gaslight me is insulting

Thanks for answering. Do you wish to ask me a question?

 

[Brightmoon]

Specified complexity is a creationist buzzword that actually has no meaning . Snowflakes get their shapes from simple geometry( because water molecules are flat) temperature and humidity . They look designed and they aren’t. Living organisms have the ability to change over time because the DNA code has a sloppy copying issue. You want to read more into it than is there is . Of course, after almost 4 billion years of copying and lots of selection pressure, living organisms are now rather complex