On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

[Radrook]

Yes, you did.

"No, you answer the question I asked you concerning the dark matter and why we can't use the same method in determining existence in reference to an ID."--Radrook, post 37

You are the one claiming that scientists aren't doing the science to support an intelligent designer. So what science are they not doing?

What I said why can't we use observation of phenomena just as it was done with dark matter to infer the existence of an ID in the same manner that the existence of dark matter is inferred. All they needed was observation. Nothing more to conclude that something is there. But you insist that for us inference an ID more than observation and inference is needed. My question is why. Why can you infer in reference to dark matter but not in reference to the activity of an ID based on observation with no need for experimentation? This is something we do normally every single day. So why suddenly this inability?

 

[Loudmouth]

What I said why can't we use observation of phenomena just as it was done with dark matter to infer the existence of an ID in the same manner that the existence of dark matter is inferred. All they needed was observation.

No, that wasn't all they needed. They needed a testable hypothesis and an accompanying null hypothesis. Science isn't just observations.

But you insist that for us inference an ID more than observation and inference is needed. My question is why.

In order to be science you need a testable hypothesis, a null hypothesis, and an experiment to test them with. That's how the scientific method works.

Why can you infer in reference to dark matter but not in reference to the activity of an ID based on observation with no need for experimentation?

Because that wouldn't be science.

Steps of the Scientific Method

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I said why can't we use observation of phenomena just as it was done with dark matter to infer the existence of an ID in the same manner that the existence of dark matter is inferred. All they needed was observation. Nothing more to conclude that something is there. But you insist that for us inference an ID more than observation and inference is needed. My question is why. Why can you infer in reference to dark matter but not in reference to the activity of an ID based on observation with no need for experimentation? This is something we do normally every single day. So why suddenly this inability?

Dark matter is more acceptable because it is a testable hypothesis. Purveyors of ID seem to be too afraid to design a proper test for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I said why can't we use observation of phenomena just as it was done with dark matter to infer the existence of an ID in the same manner that the existence of dark matter is inferred. All they needed was observation. Nothing more to conclude that something is there. But you insist that for us inference an ID more than observation and inference is needed. My question is why. Why can you infer in reference to dark matter but not in reference to the activity of an ID based on observation with no need for experimentation? This is something we do normally every single day. So why suddenly this inability?

I felt like a double dip on this post . . .

To help you understand how the scientific method works, let's use dark matter as our example. The hypothesis is that dark matter does not emit light (hence the dark part of dark matter), does not interact with luminous matter, and has gravity due to its mass. We can map where mass is in the universe by how starlight bends through space around areas with gravity as described by the theory of relativity. But how do we test the hypothesis that it doesn't interact with luminous matter. One way of doing that is looking at places in the universe where two massive luminous bodies have smashed into one another. The test is to see if there are two areas of mass, one where two globs of luminous matter smashed into one another and interacted and one where the dark matter passed right through the interaction. That test was done with the Bullet Cluster.

The two red clumps towards the middle represent the luminous matter. When the two globs of luminous matter crashed into one another they slowed each other down. There were also two lobes on the outside where they observed distortion of the background starlight but no luminous matter, right where they hypothesized that the dark matter should be. Bingo, a positive test for dark matter.

Now, how in the world would that test identify an intelligent designer?

 

[Radrook]

No, that wasn't all they needed. They needed a testable hypothesis and an accompanying null hypothesis. Science isn't just observations.



In order to be science you need a testable hypothesis, a null hypothesis, and an experiment to test them with. That's how the scientific method works.



Because that wouldn't be science.

Steps of the Scientific Method

That was all they needed to determine that there was something there disturbing the orbits of those stars.

 

[Loudmouth]

That was all they needed to determine that there was something there disturbing the orbits of those stars.

Read the post above this one.

 

[Radrook]

I felt like a double dip on this post . . .

To help you understand how the scientific method works, let's use dark matter as our example. The hypothesis is that dark matter does not emit light (hence the dark part of dark matter), does not interact with luminous matter, and has gravity due to its mass. We can map where mass is in the universe by how starlight bends through space around areas with gravity as described by the theory of relativity. But how do we test the hypothesis that it doesn't interact with luminous matter. One way of doing that is looking at places in the universe where two massive luminous bodies have smashed into one another. The test is to see if there are two areas of mass, one where two globs of luminous matter smashed into one another and interacted and one where the dark matter passed right through the interaction. That test was done with the Bullet Cluster.

The two red clumps towards the middle represent the luminous matter. When the two globs of luminous matter crashed into one another they slowed each other down. There were also two lobes on the outside where they observed distortion of the background starlight but no luminous matter, right where they hypothesized that the dark matter should be. Bingo, a positive test for dark matter.

Now, how in the world would that test identify an intelligent designer?

Thanks for the explanation but it wasn't necessary since I am aware of how the scientific method works and its applications in astronomy. All I am saying is that you need not go through all that in order to determine the existence of something. They noticed an anomaly in the orbits of stars. That observation indicated the existence of SOMETHING. Nothing more was needed to know that SOMETHING was affecting those orbits. All further inquiry via experimentation was to determine the NATURE, Quantity and Location of that Something which they had already concluded existed. The same holds true for dark energy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for the explanation but it wasn't necessary since I am aware of how the scientific method works and its applications in astronomy. All I am saying is that you need not go through all that in order to determine the existence of something. They noticed an anomaly in the orbits of stars.

In order to determine there was an anomaly they had to run experiments that tested hypotheses. It wasn't just observation.

And still, you won't answer my question. WHAT SCIENCE ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN ORDER TO TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN????

 

[Radrook]

In order to determine there was an anomaly they had to run experiments that tested hypotheses. It wasn't just observation.

And still, you won't answer my question. WHAT SCIENCE ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN ORDER TO TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN????

They observed the orbits of the stars and noticed that they were not in accordance with their predicted trajectories and concluded that SOMETHING was affecting them gravitationally. Are you denying this basic fact?

 

[Loudmouth]

They observed the orbits of the stars and noticed that they were not in accordance with their predicted trajectories and concluded that SOMETHING was affecting them gravitationally. Are you denying this basic fact?

Are you denying that the test was comparing their predicted trajectories with their actual trajectories?

Still waiting for you to answer my question.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for the explanation but it wasn't necessary since I am aware of how the scientific method works and its applications in astronomy. All I am saying is that you need not go through all that in order to determine the existence of something.

Then walk us step by step through the application of this method, in regards to "God". Let´s see how far it gets you.

 

[Radrook]

Then walk us step by step through the application of this method, in regards to "God". Let´s see how far it gets you.

Do you need to be walked step by step through the scientific method for every single conclusion you reach? That is absurd!

 

[Radrook]

Are you denying that the test was comparing their predicted trajectories with their actual trajectories?

Still waiting for you to answer my question.

Are you denying that it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion after an observation without it needing to be followed by experimentation and testing? Do you carry a science lab wherever you go just to verify every single conclusion you reach? LOL!

 

[quatona]

Do you need to be walked step by step through the scientific method for every single conclusion you reach?

Why most definitely - if I want it to be acknowledged as a scientific conclusion.
You were the one postulating that the scientific method should be applied to "God". So show us how it should and can be done.

 

[quatona]

They observed the orbits of the stars and noticed that they were not in accordance with their predicted trajectories and concluded that SOMETHING was affecting them gravitationally. Are you denying this basic fact?

Would you be more content if they replaced SOMETHING by GOD?

 

[Radrook]

Would you be more content if they replaced SOMETHING by GOD?

The one who introduced God into this is you not me. I simply disagree with calling a certain flawed methodology scientific when its modus operandi is completely contrary to the required objectivity that is the basis for scientific inquiry. Such an attitude is similar to trying to chant things out of existence because we don't want to see them. Calling such an approach scientific is an insult to science.

 

[Radrook]

Why most definitely - if I want it to be acknowledged as a scientific conclusion.
You were the one postulating that the scientific method should be applied to "God". So show us how it should and can be done.

That is a strawman. I never made that claim. I simply and clearly said that observation is sufficient in itself to draw valid conclusions. You say that it isn't but fail to provide the logic to support such a statement. That's because the statement is inherently illogical.

 

[quatona]

That is a strawman. I never made that claim.

Well, you said:

All I am saying is that you need not go through all that in order to determine the existence of something.

So, unless you are saying that God´s existence can´t be determined....

The one who introduced God into this is you not me.

You used another term? Ok. So what is it you feel should but isn´t investigated scientifically?

I simply disagree with calling a certain flawed methodology scientific when its modus operandi is completely contrary to the required objectivity that is the basis for scientific inquiry. Such an attitude is similar to trying to chant things out of existence because we don't want to see them. Calling such an approach scientific is an insult to science.

I completely agree with you here.

I simply and clearly said that observation is sufficient in itself to draw valid conclusions.

I think there needs to be logic involved on the way from observation to conclusion. Typically, there are also some (unspoken) premises involved.
If you want to give me an example how to get from an observation to a conclusion without any of the above, feel free to go ahead.

You say that it isn't but fail to provide the logic to support such a statement.

According to your avove reasoning - why would I need logic? I could simply point to my observation.

 

[Radrook]

Well, you said:

So, unless you are saying that God´s existence can´t be determined....


You used another term? Ok. So what is it you feel should but isn´t investigated scientifically?


I completely agree with you here.

I think there needs to be logic involved on the way from observation to conclusion. Typically, there are also some (unspoken) premises involved.
If you want to give me an example how to get from an observation to a conclusion without any of the above, feel free to go ahead.


According to your avove reasoning - why would I need logic? I could simply point to my observation.

Are you actually saying that observation alone isn't a sufficient basis to draw a valid conclusion?
That you need help to know how exactly one observes something and concludes?
Sorry but that kind of specialized assistance is beyond my ability to provide.
Perhaps a specialist in cognitive science might prove helpful.

 

[Radrook]

This is ironic. On the one hand you have atheists refusal to be objective which is a requirement of the scientific method and on the other you have the same people demanding adherence to the scientific method. Inconsistency of policy isn't conducive to persuasion.