the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

ID is midway between nature and God: agency.

So far, God and nature seem to have done fine without it.

Of course, once you have demonstrated agency, then you pull out further evidence to prove that its the God of the bible. Eye witness testimony, the resurrection of Jesus, all falsifiable and testable.
But, it at least gives other ideas a chance without leading to the supernatural all in one go. Like Panspermia.

The "God of the Bible?" Surely, it doesn't have to lead there, does it?

 

[Speedwell]

But the challenge has already been laid down: ID theory. You can't entertain it by virtue of your world view.

Or you can reject it on its merits--or rather, lack of them--without regard for the question of agency.

 

[VirOptimus]

But the challenge has already been laid down: ID theory. You can't entertain it by virtue of your world view.
Although, as you will realise, your worldview does not allow you any admissible alternatives, so you are rather confined to nature only.

Kind of like begging the question in favour of atheism.

This is bad for science because science is supposed to be objective.

And since agency is also an explicator ito explanation (and not just scientific mechanism), those who are not restricted embrace it. You wouldn't say agency doesn't exist, thats like saying we don't exist!

ID is a better inference as far as explanatory power, explanatory scope, contrivance and adaptability goes.

Again ID is not a ”theory” in the science use of the term. It isnt even scientific, its religion.

Your blustering does not impress.

 

[MaudDib]

So far, God and nature seem to have done fine without it.

The "God of the Bible?" Surely, it doesn't have to lead there, does it?

Yes it does, because there are many other religions out there and not all religions can be true now can they?

 

[MaudDib]

Again ID is not a ”theory” in the science use of the term. It isnt even scientific, its religion.

Your blustering does not impress.

ID postulates agency, something that exists on our planet. Look in the mirror. By definition your worldview(scientific method alone) doesn't allow you to postulate anything but nature.
But that is self defeating. You would have to step outside nature to know that nature is the only way to truth. But then you would have arrived at truth through the use of metaphysics as opposed to physics.

Henry Ford is an explicator at the level of an agent regarding a motor car, just as internal combustion is an explicator at the level of a mechanism regarding a motor car. TWO explicators. Agency AND mechanism.

Where is agency in your postulations? What about Panspermia?

 

[MaudDib]

Or you can reject it on its merits--or rather, lack of them--without regard for the question of agency.

If you are a theist, then you automatically postulate agency, and have narrowed him down to God.
wheres the in principle difficulty in rolling with that?

 

[Speedwell]

If you are a theist, then you automatically postulate agency, and have narrowed him down to God.
wheres the in principle difficulty in rolling with that?

ID, as the implementation of that agency.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes it does, because there are many other religions out there and not all religions can be true now can they?

I don't know how it is in South Africa, but in this country "The God of the Bible" is code for God as envisaged by politically right wing Evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. Nobody else uses the phrase much. Is that the religion you think is the only true one?

 

[MaudDib]

I don't know how it is in South Africa, but in this country "The God of the Bible" is code for God as envisaged by politically right wing Evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. Nobody else uses the phrase much. Is that the religion you think is the only true one?

Ahh I see, its a loaded term there then. Over here it just means the biblical God as opposed to the multiple gods of hinduism for example, or the god of islam.
So there could be many religions boasting that the agency is reflective of their god/s as opposed to the God of the bible.
No politics involved!

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is no evidence that life is not a product of divine intervention. Evidence that it is is by way of inference.

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life is a product of chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics exist ! Credible mechanisms using chemistry and physics to create life exist. If anything, the problem is hat we have too many pathways to create life.

You have the burden of proof reversed. Your assertion is that life is a product of divine intervention so:
13 June 2018 bcbsr: List your scientific evidence that life is a product of divine intervention.

 

[RealityCheck01]

ID is a better inference as far as explanatory power, explanatory scope, contrivance and adaptability goes.

13 June 2018 MaudDib: "ID is a better inference.." ignorance about ID
ID is pseudoscience that has failed to "better infer" anything.
Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1][2] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.[3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

A fundamental part of a scientific theory is the ability to predict, MaudDib. You must be able to understand that the introduction of a undefined designer means that predictions cannot be done. That designer can do anything they want in the past, present or future.

ETA: An example. We expose bacteria to an environment. Evolution predicts that the bacteria will evolve to fit the environment. ID "predicts" that whatever the designer wants to happen, happens. That includes the bacteria turning into pink unicorns !

Support for ID from a Christian is ignorant about ID. ID officially denies that there is any statement about the nature of the designer. The creationist background of ID suggests that this is a lie but proponents, e.g. Dembski, have not ruled out aliens. However you seem to be supporting ID as science, not as basically theology.

12 June 2018 MaudDib: A bit of "philosophy underpins science" ignorance.

12 June 2018 MaudDib: A fantasy that Thomas Nagel is "looking for more satisfactory answers than Darwinism" is support of ID or even creationism.

 

[pitabread]

DNA exhibits precisely the same kind of specified complexity as language since the order of the letters in a gene specifies the order of the sequence of amino acids in the protein.

Remember what I said earlier about analogies?

If you want to define information as it relates to DNA, then you need to define it as it relates to DNA. So forget the comparisons with language; define information content as it relates to DNA itself.

And FWIW, DNA doesn't contain letters. It contains chemical bases. Those chemicals are represented by letters for ease of discussing them, but they aren't actual letters.

So do you want to try again? Third time's the charm?

 

[Kylie]

There is no evidence that life is not a product of divine intervention. Evidence that it is is by way of inference.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20

So this is the old, "You can't prove it ISN'T, so we should start out assuming it IS," line of reasoning?

Is that really the best you've got?

 

[RealityCheck01]

So this is the old, "You can't prove it ISN'T, so we should start out assuming it IS," line of reasoning?

Is that really the best you've got?

I was tempted to address that logical fallacy also: "There is no evidence that life is not a product of aliens dumping garbage. So life is a product of alien garbage" !

 

[bcbsr]

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life is a product of chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics exist ! Credible mechanisms using chemistry and physics to create life exist. If anything, the problem is hat we have too many pathways to create life.

You have the burden of proof reversed. Your assertion is that life is a product of divine intervention so:
13 June 2018 bcbsr: List your scientific evidence that life is a product of divine intervention.

No, not credible. And that's the problem. Science is based on inferences. The problem is that conclusions based on inferences may seem credible but incredible to another. The DNA code itself is to me credible evidence of divine intervention. So there you go!

 

[bcbsr]

So this is the old, "You can't prove it ISN'T, so we should start out assuming it IS," line of reasoning?

Is that really the best you've got?

That's what evolutionists do. The DNA code is credible evidence enough of divine intervention. To me it's the idea that life was the likely outcome of stochastic processes which is incredible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ID postulates agency, something that exists on our planet. Look in the mirror. By definition your worldview(scientific method alone) doesn't allow you to postulate anything but nature.
But that is self defeating. You would have to step outside nature to know that nature is the only way to truth. But then you would have arrived at truth through the use of metaphysics as opposed to physics.

Henry Ford is an explicator at the level of an agent regarding a motor car, just as internal combustion is an explicator at the level of a mechanism regarding a motor car. TWO explicators. Agency AND mechanism.

Where is agency in your postulations? What about Panspermia?

And you have agents that push the planets around, stir up volcanoes, and create lightning?

We have found that thunder and meteors and dolphin fins, for example, are caused by the actions of nature, not by gods that manipulate the elements.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ID is a better inference as far as explanatory power, explanatory scope, contrivance and adaptability goes.

I have an explanation for horses like Justify. He is the result of a long line of evolution from ancient animals like eohippus. How does your view better explain the marvel of the modern horse? Do you agree with the scientific case for horse evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

. God stopped creating on the 7th day and what do you suppose has been happening since? Evolution of course.

Ah, so you are an "evolutionist"?

Just curious, in your view, when did the seventh day end? 4004 BC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, not credible...

13 June 2018 bcbsr: List your scientific evidence that life is a product of divine intervention.

13 June 2018 bcbsr: List your credible evidence that DNA is evidence of divine intervention rather than chemistry or even aliens.
Have you found a trademark "Made by God" in DNA ?

Argument from personal incredibility or ignorance does not make science not credible.
13 June 2018 bcbsr: More "not credible", etc ignorance about abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life is a product of chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics exist ! Credible mechanisms using chemistry and physics to create life exist. If anything, the problem is that we have too many pathways to create life.