[_ Old Earth _] An interesting thought

[Rollo Tamasi]

Yup.
Interesting.

Yes, I agree.
I find Christianity to be very interesting.
Especially when we can show that modern science agrees with what Scripture says.
It gives some credibility to science which is a good thing.

 

[Vaccine]

That theory makes the assumption that there is a designer and then goes and looks for evidence to support the theory.
But, no matter how much "evidence" is found, the theory cannot be tested.
So, it's not science. It's theology looking for evidence of God in nature.
That's not a bad thing to do. It is a very worthwhile THEOLOGICAL exercise.
It's just not science.

And we're back to injecting materialistic assumptions into science, actual circular reasoning. TRUE science, (true examination of creation) makes no assumptions. The theory itself makes no statement whatsoever about the identity of the designer. Of course, if we base what we think on it's critics then by all means there must be assumptions. An implication isn't the same as an assumptuon.

ANd they would be right. When you get to the core of the ID argument, you find that it is a variation on the theology of creation which pretends to be science by avoiding saying "God."
When you say you are not seeking a designer but, rather, only a "cause," you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and not fooling anyone but yourself. The "designer" is the "cause" and everyone knows that you're talking about God.

The reduction argument would be like reducing natural selection down to the weather or fire, then saying heat causes evolution. Not a valid argument.
If you think they're right then perhaps you can explain how asserting the design we see in nature is not imagined but indeed actual, 'proves' something immeasurable?
No matter how many times the critics say so, ID theory doesn't prove God anymore than the theory of evolution disproves God.
Science is only concerned with identifying a cause. The core of ID theory is distinguishing intelligent causes from non-intelligent causes, the rest is beyond science and into theology.

It's not a very difficult task since we have millions of examples of each to which they can compare anything they find.
So far, nothing but natural microwave energy has been detected.

iakov the fool

The principles of design theory are being employed there, proving it valid science. Whether it can be applied to biology is what makes it controversial. They don't like the implications is all.

 

[Vaccine]

I believe you're confused there. ID does not assume anything beyond the reach of science. ID allows for the possibility of explanations that do not fit within the paradigm of naturalistic materialism. Since science is by definition wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, it cannot even allow for the possibility.

ID seeks evidence for which the best explanation would seem to be an intelligent designer quite different from what evolution would be likely to produce. As the proponents of ID point out, the designer could well be something or someone who does not resemble any conventional notion of a God, let alone the God of Christianity. The very real possibility exists that we occupy a virtual reality and that the designer is some programmer at a higher level or dimension; this would still be ID to the nth degree.

ID proponents would simply say that when a body of evidence exists for which intelligent design seems to be the most plausible explanation, the paradigm must be expanded to allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. To remain wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, whereby the possibility of an intelligent designer is simply inadmissible, makes no sense in these circumstances.

A legitimate debate can be had and is being had as to whether evolutionary forces are capable of producing the results that ID proponents attribute to design or whether there is enough real evidence of design to require the paradigm of naturalistic materialism to be expanded, but I have read extensively in the ID literature and really don't believe the proponents are operating from any assumption that is more unreasonable than the countervailing assumption that "there is nothing beyond the reach of science."

Of course believers, including me, love ID. Of course many ID proponents, including me, have an explicitly Christian agenda. The opposite can be said of many proponents of naturalistic materialism. This really has no bearing on the validity of either paradigm.

Well said!

 

[Jim Parker]

yeah Jim thats what I said.

OK
just checking

 

[Barbarian]

The guys who invented ID say that it's about bringing God into science. That's the stated "Governing Goal."

Now, if you're saying that the guys at the Discovery Institute have perverted the idea of intelligent design into a religious doctrine, and that there is an argument for it outside of a religious belief such as the IDers are proposing, I'd very much like to hear about that, and see how it matches up with the evidence.

I don't doubt for a minute that nature is self-organizing because the Creator made it so. Obviously, ID as Philip Johnson and Co. have proposed it, is a religious belief.

But I'm open to other interpretations. Let's talk about that.

 

[Jim Parker]

TRUE science, (true examination of creation) makes no assumptions.

That is incorrect.
Scientific research is done by beginning with a set of assumptions called a hypothesis.
The hypothesis is then used to design experiments to test it and the experiments are carried out.
The results of the experiments are examined and the assumptions (hypothesis) is adjusted to coincide with the results of the experiment.
New experiments may be designed and carried out based on the revised assumptions. (Hypothesis)
When an experiment can be repeated over and over, resulting in the same outcome no matter where or by whom the experiment is done, the hypothesis is then assumed to be a valid statement of reality and is deemed to be a fact rather than a hypothesis.

The theory itself makes no statement whatsoever about the identity of the designer.

The identity of "the designer" is perfectly obvious to all.
Pretending that you didn't really mean God because you didn't actually say "God" is a childish attempt at avoiding the obvious.
ID is based on the assumption of the existence of an entity which is intelligent and which designs.
When research comes to a point at which no further progress can be made, the conclusion is that the assumed intelligent designer did it.

I don't have a problem with ID. I believe God made everything and that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made."
I do have a problem with people pretending that they aren't really attempting to mix science with theology and expecting to get away with it. Any person of average intellectual ability (IQ of 100 or more) can see right through such a smoke screen. It would be better to just admit that we really do believe God was intimately involved in the creation of all the multitudes of things in existence. That does not prevent anyone from doing science as long as that don't default to "God did it" when they come to the end of their ability to discover. Science isn't about "who done it?"; it's about "how does this work?".

iakov the fool

 

[Barbarian]

Vaccine, can you summarize for us, what you think the scientific hypotheses of ID are, apart from any religious notions that some IDers might have?

And what might we see come of these hypotheses as far as understanding nature goes?

This is not meant to be a leading question. You've shown us some interesting lines of thought on the idea. Can you flesh those out a little and give us some idea where to go from here?

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have a problem with ID. I believe God made everything and that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made."
I do have a problem with people pretending that they aren't really attempting to mix science with theology and expecting to get away with it. Any person of average intellectual ability (IQ of 100 or more) can see right through such a smoke screen. It would be better to just admit that we really do believe God was intimately involved in the creation of all the multitudes of things in existence. That does not prevent anyone from doing science as long as that don't default to "God did it" when they come to the end of their ability to discover. Science isn't about "who done it?"; it's about "how does this work?".

This is true and well-stated. My question at this point, is "is there a way to scientifically test the notion that nature shows actual design?"

I would have rejected that not long ago, but I'm willing to take a look at it again.

 

[Vaccine]

That is incorrect.
Scientific research is done by beginning with a set of assumptions called a hypothesis.
The hypothesis is then used to design experiments to test it and the experiments are carried out.
The results of the experiments are examined and the assumptions (hypothesis) is adjusted to coincide with the results of the experiment.
New experiments may be designed and carried out based on the revised assumptions. (Hypothesis)
When an experiment can be repeated over and over, resulting in the same outcome no matter where or by whom the experiment is done, the hypothesis is then assumed to be a valid statement of reality and is deemed to be a fact rather than a hypothesis.

As I've stated several times now, I agree with you about the method. That isn't an issue. The issue is with a presupposition. I keep saying before any evaluation assuming what can and cannot be concluded is circular reasoning. You keep saying hypothesizing is a nornal part of science, which I agree it is. Guessing what may or may not be found is fine. Presupposing something cannot be found is wrong. Your statement is about a method of inquiry, mine is about a presupposition before any inquiry.
Nobody actually says 'experiments are made and the assumptions are adjusted'. Thats rediculous, they say hypothesis.

The identity of "the designer" is perfectly obvious to all.
Pretending that you didn't really mean God because you didn't actually say "God" is a childish attempt at avoiding the obvious.
ID is based on the assumption of the existence of an entity which is intelligent and which designs.
When research comes to a point at which no further progress can be made, the conclusion is that the assumed intelligent designer did it.

The identity of the designer is a theological issue. The identification of a cause is a scientific issue. Basically, you're making a theological objection to a scientific theory.

I don't have a problem with ID. I believe God made everything and that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made."
I do have a problem with people pretending that they aren't really attempting to mix science with theology and expecting to get away with it. Any person of average intellectual ability (IQ of 100 or more) can see right through such a smoke screen. It would be better to just admit that we really do believe God was intimately involved in the creation of all the multitudes of things in existence. That does not prevent anyone from doing science as long as that don't default to "God did it" when they come to the end of their ability to discover. Science isn't about "who done it?"; it's about "how does this work?".

iakov the fool

See above, about mixing science with theology. Science goes along perfectly well studying the effects of gravity, yet without actually idintifying what gravity actually is. Science can also study the effects of a designer without actually identifying the designer. Of course, from a theological perspective the agent at work is no secret to anyone.

 

[Vaccine]

Vaccine, can you summarize for us, what you think the scientific hypotheses of ID are, apart from any religious notions that some IDers might have?

And what might we see come of these hypotheses as far as understanding nature goes?

This is not meant to be a leading question. You've shown us some interesting lines of thought on the idea. Can you flesh those out a little and give us some idea where to go from here?

No problem. They propose specified complexity and irreducible comllexity are hallmarks of design. Meyer proposed the specified complexity we see in the genetic code is the product of design. Everywhere we see codes they are the product of an intelligent agent. The inference to the best explanation is the genetic code was designed.
Behe proposed an experiment wherr non motile bacteria placed in an environment with selection pressures to evolve motility. If they evolved a rotary motor irreducible complexity would be falsified.
ID theory would lead to further examination of the junk dna, a greater understanding from an engineering perspective how to proceed with medicine, insights into the origin of life, progress in medicine in general.

 

[Jim Parker]

I keep saying before any evaluation assuming what can and cannot be concluded is circular reasoning.

And I keep trying to point out to you that a scientist does not "ASSSUME" that science cannot come to a proof that God designed anything because the scientific examination, research, evaluation of God is an impossibility. Science deals exclusively with nature. God is not part of nature and is, therefore, outside the purview of scientific examination and analysis.
It is not an assumption. It is a fact.
It is not "circular reasoning". It is a fact.

Presupposing something cannot be found is wrong.

Presupposing that, by application of scientific methods, God can not be proven to have done some act (or even exist) is also a fact.

Nobody actually says 'experiments are made and the assumptions are adjusted'. Thats rediculous, they say hypothesis.

yawn

The identity of the designer is a theological issue. The identification of a cause is a scientific issue. Basically, you're making a theological objection to a scientific theory.

You have simply attempted to disguise God as a cause.
Referring to God as "cause" does not make Him available for scientific evaluation.
I sincerely hope you weren't fooled by that nonsense.

Since science is not able to demonstrate the existence of God by any scientific method, there can be no SCIENTIFIC conclusion that God is the cause of any effect. It is not science to conclude that a cause was something that one cannot demonstrate even exists by the application of scientific methods.
You are mincing words to attempt to make "intelligent design" a legitimate SCIENTIFIC conclusion. Intelligent Design is just another word for the belief in a creator (God) and is not science even though the truth is that God is indeed the creator of the heavens and the earth and all things visible and invisible.
Since it is not possible to prove the existence of God or to examine the means by which God creates by the application of scientific methods, it is nonsense to combine the fact the God is the creator with the investigation of what He created.
ID is not science. It is the attempt to insert theology into science where it doesn't belong.
ID is just a linguistic device used to say "Creation Science" with out having to say "Creation Science."
Real scientists aren't buying it.
Neither should you.
it's flim-flam.

iakov the fool

 

[Barbarian]

Behe proposed an experiment wherr non motile bacteria placed in an environment with selection pressures to evolve motility. If they evolved a rotary motor irreducible complexity would be falsified.

So if bacteria evolved an irreducibly complex system, then ID would be falsified? The reason I ask, is because Behe has agreed that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve.

The flagellum of bacteria are now known to have as a component, the Type III secretory apparatus, which has a function of its own. By Behe's definition, such a secondary function within a larger system means that the system cannot be irreducibly complex, since the structure would still be functional if all other parts were removed.

I should point out that irreducible complexity is not required for Michael Denton's conception of ID, although it certainly is required for Behe's conception of the process. Have you read Denton's Nature's Destiny? It seems to me that Denton's idea of pre-loading at creation is a much more defensible concept than irreducible complexity.

ID theory would lead to further examination of the junk dna,[/quote]

We've come a long way WRT non-coding DNA (which is what biologists formally call it). When we are able to run down the history of much of that DNA, it turns out that it did once have a function. And often, as in the case of certain classes of non-coding DNA, it has been adapted to a different function.

a greater understanding from an engineering perspective how to proceed with medicine, insights into the origin of life, progress in general.

Have you read Adrian Bejan's Design in Nature? He's committed to a naturalistic outlook on nature, but he keeps running into the fact that almost everything in nature is set to work in the most efficient way. His "constructal law" describes how all things seem to be "designed" to optimize flow in systems.

Again, this seems to fit what Michael Denton is thinking about design.

It's noteworthy that engineers are now using genetic algorithms to solve problems that are too difficult for us to address by design. But it still doesn't explain why nature should work in such a reliable and optimal way.

A materialist would say "because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to see it." That is, however, an intellectually unsatisfying answer. One intuitively looks for final causes, not just efficient causes.

Are we kidding ourselves? I don't think so, although I can't see how science could ever address that question.

 

[Vaccine]

You have simply attempted to disguise God as a cause.
Referring to God as "cause" does not make Him available for scientific evaluation.
I sincerely hope you weren't fooled by that nonsense.

Since science is not able to demonstrate the existence of God by any scientific method, there can be no SCIENTIFIC conclusion that God is the cause of any effect. It is not science to conclude that a cause was something that one cannot demonstrate even exists by the application of scientific methods.
You are mincing words to attempt to make "intelligent design" a legitimate SCIENTIFIC conclusion. Intelligent Design is just another word for the belief in a creator (God) and is not science even though the truth is that God is indeed the creator of the heavens and the earth and all things visible and invisible.
Since it is not possible to prove the existence of God or to examine the means by which God creates by the application of scientific methods, it is nonsense to combine the fact the God is the creator with the investigation of what He created.
ID is not science. It is the attempt to insert theology into science where it doesn't belong.
ID is just a linguistic device used to say "Creation Science" with out having to say "Creation Science."
Real scientists aren't buying it.
Neither should you.
it's flim-flam.

iakov the fool

Frequently raised but weak objections:
"Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all. "
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#chptux

There is no disguise because intelligent design theory simply doesn't attempt to identify the designer. Fire inspectors declare arson without identifying the arsonist, detectives declare murder without identifying the murderer, SETI (if they ever find it) will declare an intelligent cause for a signal. Once a cause is established, then the identity can be explored. Design theory is only concerned with whether something is designed, they don't go any further. Intelligent design theory is empirical based science, Creationism is faith based philosophy. Same holds true for Darwin's theory is science and Darwinism is philosophy.

Let's take a look at this statement:
"Intelligent Design is just another word for the belief in a creator (God"
Mischaracterizing something isn't an effective way to attack it. Do you realize specified complexity or irreducible complexity can be experimentally verified? It's science not a belief.

 

[Vaccine]

So if bacteria evolved an irreducibly complex system, then ID would be falsified? The reason I ask, is because Behe has agreed that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve.

The flagellum of bacteria are now known to have as a component, the Type III secretory apparatus, which has a function of its own. By Behe's definition, such a secondary function within a larger system means that the system cannot be irreducibly complex, since the structure would still be functional if all other parts were removed.

Yes, showing an irreducible complex system can evolve would falsify it. Behe said none of it is 100% and an indirect pathway is always a possibility. He said it may very well be falsified in the future, but it should still be pursued until then. They've tested Behe's claims and found the type III secretion system came from the flagellum:
"Based on our results we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialise in the export of proteins from
the bacterium to the host."
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/9/2069.abstract

I should point out that irreducible complexity is not required for Michael Denton's conception of ID, although it certainly is required for Behe's conception of the process. Have you read Denton's Nature's Destiny? It seems to me that Denton's idea of pre-loading at creation is a much more defensible concept than irreducible complexity.

ID theory would lead to further examination of the junk dna,

We've come a long way WRT non-coding DNA (which is what biologists formally call it). When we are able to run down the history of much of that DNA, it turns out that it did once have a function. And often, as in the case of certain classes of non-coding DNA, it has been adapted to a different function.



Have you read Adrian Bejan's Design in Nature? He's committed to a naturalistic outlook on nature, but he keeps running into the fact that almost everything in nature is set to work in the most efficient way. His "constructal law" describes how all things seem to be "designed" to optimize flow in systems.

Again, this seems to fit what Michael Denton is thinking about design.

It's noteworthy that engineers are now using genetic algorithms to solve problems that are too difficult for us to address by design. But it still doesn't explain why nature should work in such a reliable and optimal way.

A materialist would say "because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to see it." That is, however, an intellectually unsatisfying answer. One intuitively looks for final causes, not just efficient causes.

Are we kidding ourselves? I don't think so, although I can't see how science could ever address that question.

I haven't read those books but the do sound interesting. I like what I've read so far from Denton. Haven't heard of Adrian Bejan's

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, showing an irreducible complex system can evolve would falsify it. Behe said none of it is 100% and an indirect pathway is always a possibility. He said it may very well be falsified in the future, but it should still be pursued until then. They've tested Behe's claims and found the type III secretion system came from the flagellum:
"Based on our results we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialise in the export of proteins from
the bacterium to the host."

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/9/2069.abstract

The T3SS shares many functional, structural and sequence similarities with the bacterial flagellum, a rotating motility structure widely distributed among the bacteria (Harshey & Toguchi, 1996; Beatson et al., 2006). The flagellum resembles a long filament embedded in the bacterial membrane by means of a set of inner and outer membrane rings. Motility is conferred by an ATPase-driven motor that rotates the flagellar hook and filament (Namba & Vonderviszt, 1997; Berg, 2003; Kojima & Blair, 2004; Saier, 2004; Beatson et al., 2006). The genes encoding the core structural components of the flagellum are typically chromosomally encoded and highly conserved with respect to both sequence and synteny. Furthermore, they show evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships that are largely congruent with patterns of bacterial speciation, indicating that they have been transmitted predominantly by vertical descent since originating from a common ancestor of all modern bacteria (Saier, 2004; Liu & Ochman, 2007).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02293.x/full

If so, then things are more complicated. Where bacteria have the T3SS, but no flagella, the argument gets turned on its head, requiring that the ancestral bacterium had both systems, and then lost flagella. It's entirely possible, but then the same logic in the paper just cited, would suggest the flagellum evolved from the T3SS. The point is the same in both cases, though. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, since it could lose motility entirely and still have a function.

It also turns out that there is no such thing a the bacterial flagellum. There are various forms in different organisms and some have different components than others. If this is so, it's questionable if one could point to a "simplest" flagellum and call it irreducibly complex, even if the T3SS didn't exist.

And it could be fairly pointed out that proving a structure to be irreducibly complex is essentially proving a negative, which load the argument in favor of rejecting irreducible comoplexity. I don't know how to get around that issue.

I do know that an irreducibly complex enzyme system has evolved under direct observation. Dr. Barry Hall observed a new enzyme to evolve in a population of bacteria, but then surprisingly, it also evolved a regulator. So the system then three parts that needed to be present for the enyzme to work.
1. regulator, a substance that only permits the enzyme to be produced, and is itself only produced if substrate is present.
2. enzyme which must be present for the system to work
3. Substrate, without which the regulator will not be produced.

If one of these is missing, the process will not work.

I haven't read those books but the do sound interesting. I like what I've read so far from Denton. Haven't heard of Adrian Bejan's

Bejan's constructal law notes that any persistant process will tend to become increasingly efficient at facilitating flow through itself. Flow could be material, people,energy, or whatever. I was familiar with some things he's analyzed, such as Froud numbers (which let us know how fast different dinosaurs could have moved, if we have footprints from them), and movement of people in airports.

It's a very interesting read, and not technical at all (although if you want to get into the deep details, it can take you into very technical things)

A good companion read would be Life's Devices by Steven Vogle, which focuses more on materials and biophysics, but which describes some of the processes that Bejan covers in his book.

,

 

[Jim Parker]

Frequently raised but weak objections:
"Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all. "
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#chptux

There is no disguise because intelligent design theory simply doesn't attempt to identify the designer. Fire inspectors declare arson without identifying the arsonist, detectives declare murder without identifying the murderer, SETI (if they ever find it) will declare an intelligent cause for a signal. Once a cause is established, then the identity can be explored. Design theory is only concerned with whether something is designed, they don't go any further. Intelligent design theory is empirical based science, Creationism is faith based philosophy. Same holds true for Darwin's theory is science and Darwinism is philosophy.

Let's take a look at this statement:
"Intelligent Design is just another word for the belief in a creator (God"
Mischaracterizing something isn't an effective way to attack it. Do you realize specified complexity or irreducible complexity can be experimentally verified? It's science not a belief.

I am attacking nothing.
I am stating a fact.
Using the word "cause" as a substitute for the word "creator" or "God" is an infantile manner of pretending that someone is not doing exactly what they are doing.

ID is an obvious attempt to insert the theology of creation into science where it doesn't belong.
Science is incapable of dealing with theology.
Science deals exclusively with the created order; the universe.
God (Theos) is not part of the created order and is not capable of being examined by any scientific method.

If the cause of some event or situation is not discoverable by current scientific methods, attributing it to the intelligent design of "the cause" is either superstition or theology.

If it amuses you to play infantile word games and pretend your really not doing exactly what you are doing, then go ahead. Amuse yourself to your heart's content. Enjoy.

But my baloney meter is perfectly calibrated and your ID notions peg the needle way into the red.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm tired of all the word games, and I'm pleased to be able to have a constructive and respectful conversation with an IDer. We will probably disagree at the close, but I think we've both presented reasonable ideas in a respectful way.

It's more than a pleasure; it's a relief.