NationStates Jolt Archive

1.) Everything in the world is designed, except when it's not.

2.) Things in the natural world all have a purpose of some kind unless they don't. Ineffability and all that.

3.) If it looks designed then it is designed (with the exception of stuff which looks designed but isn't).

I think Bottle meant USEFULL predictions. can ID say "every time we encounter this situation, things will go like so and so"?

THAT is a scientific prediction.

So...



THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

No - and that is not claimed in the Bible, if that's the Supreme Being you're referring to, please note this is a country tolerant of all religions. If you are talking about the bible, there is no mention of 'intelligent design', it simply says that God created Man on the 6th day. Are we to interpret and understand God's words for Him? Can we define 'created' and 'day' according to God? The only way we can feasibly interpret his words is to study what actually happened and those studies lead inconclusively to evolution?

• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

Please see first answer

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Please see first answer

Well, rightfully some would complain that it is receiving funding. For example, you're wanting to study about wiccan and I'm wanting to study Christianity. Unless you have equal access to studying your own religion, you are promoting one over the other.

What about chaos magick? The ONE belief system that changes whenever it feels the need to.

1.) Everything in the world is designed, except when it's not.

2.) Things in the natural world all have a purpose of some kind unless they don't. Ineffability and all that.

3.) If it looks designed then it is designed (with the exception of stuff which looks designed but isn't).

He said "prediction", not "tautologism".

Everyone's female, except for those that aren't.

Everyone's gay, except for those that aren't.

Everyone's atheist, except for those that aren't.

Everyone's named Ahmadinejad, except for those that aren't.

For crying out loud, except for those that aren't!

A quick search says you are mistaken...
If ID is was proved correct, some predictions that might be made…

In causation of life: Harvard is trying to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals. If ID is true then it should assume that the Harvard attempt will not succeedl.

Why? Specifically. And what WOULD your theory lead us to predict as the results?


The ID proposition would be that the ireducible complexity patterns of the basic building blocks of life should be too complex to come about without intelligent design.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-origin-of-life-project-an-id-prediction/

That is circular, not a prediction. It is also not remotely scientific. How do you proposed to test it? What specific results could we obtain that would disprove this hypothesis?


In Astronomy and Cosmology: astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design. They write:

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

So their hypothesis is that human science, being performed by human beings, is best able to function in environments that are compatible with human life and human science?

None of this remotely supports ID.


Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Their entire point seems to be that it's hard for humans to investigate environments which are hard for humans to investigate. None of this remotely supports ID.


Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

It is to laugh.


Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

What argument? That some things are easier for humans to investigate than others?


Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html

Empty. Useless.


In Biology: ID would force us to see organisms as life designs for evolving. If we assume that eukaryotes (for example) were designed with a purpose, and that purpose being of giving rise to multicellular organisms, we can make certain predictions. For one, we would expect the first eukaryotes to have contained a predecessor to the modern tool kit to enable the eukaryotes to build newer versions, and with that in mind, it's possible that remaining unicellular eukaryotes will have it.

There is absolutely no reason why finding said "predecessor" would necessarily support intelligent design.


If they find some, the predictions is substantiated if not proven. If none are found, then the prediction fails.

http://telicthoughts.com/how-intelligent-design-can-be-used-to-make-predictions/

Others
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design

Zip. Nada. Nothing.

Not one single scientific prediction. Not one single falsifiable hypothesis for ID.

*snip*

Sadly, I'd guess he and the people who wrote those likely think we're just closing our eyes to the truth.

Can designer have done all of those things? Yes. If that designer is intelligent can it have designed using other principles? Yep. Can it start and stop designing as it likes? Yep. No prediction cannot come from an intelligent source that has limitless power. Any outcome, every outcome is explainable if the designer is intelligent.

What they keep forgetting is if it's consistent, it's force and the outcome is predictable. If it's intelligent then it makes intelligent choices and the outcome is not predictable.

They keep describing intelligent design like its a force, but the fact that they claim that they have predictive power as result of that discovery proves they don't really believe that the origin of life must be an intelligence or they don't really believe its study is related to science, or they would be treating it like an intelligence and not a predictable automatic energy.

They keep describing intelligent design like its a force, but the fact that they claim that they have predictive power as result of that discovery proves they don't really believe that the origin of life must be an intelligence or they don't really believe its study is related to science, or they would be treating it like an intelligence and not a predictable automatic energy.
This is why real scientists are uninterested in ID: it's useless. It provides us with exactly zilch in the way of helpful information, testable predictions, or scientific value. Not only is it a bunch of recycled hokum that we've all heard a million times, but it's also of no practical value whatsoever.

The fact that some lazy people want their pet myths to be held in the same esteem as actual science would be laughable, if it weren't so insulting. Real science requires real work. Sometimes a lifetime of work, just for testing and supporting one tiny corner of theory.

IDists skip all that. They think they should be able to make assertions that not only have not been tested, but which CANNOT be tested, by definition. They think they should not have to play by the same rules as everybody else. Not for them the exhausting and exacting work of science...they just like to write papers about their opinions and call it "science."

Here's another challenge for IDists. Find me ONE ACTUAL RESEARCH STUDY done to test ID. Not a review paper. Not an editorial. Not an ethics paper. Not discussion paper. I want bench science. Field work. I want to see ID being physically tested through experiments. I want to read specific, concrete lab experiments (or field experiments) being performed to test specific hypotheses of ID.

Even if the experiments did not support the hypotheses, that's okay. I just want to see an example of IDists DOING SCIENCE to test their "theory."

This is why real scientists are uninterested in ID: it's useless. It provides us with exactly zilch in the way of helpful information, testable predictions, or scientific value. Not only is it a bunch of recycled hokum that we've all heard a million times, but it's also of no practical value whatsoever.

The fact that some lazy people want their pet myths to be held in the same esteem as actual science would be laughable, if it weren't so insulting. Real science requires real work. Sometimes a lifetime of work, just for testing and supporting one tiny corner of theory.

IDists skip all that. They think they should be able to make assertions that not only have not been tested, but which CANNOT be tested, by definition. They think they should not have to play by the same rules as everybody else. Not for them the exhausting and exacting work of science...they just like to write papers about their opinions and call it "science."

Here's another challenge for IDists. Find me ONE ACTUAL RESEARCH STUDY done to test ID. Not a review paper. Not an editorial. Not an ethics paper. Not discussion paper. I want bench science. Field work. I want to see ID being physically tested through experiments. I want to read specific, concrete lab experiments (or field experiments) being performed to test specific hypotheses of ID.

Even if the experiments did not support the hypotheses, that's okay. I just want to see an example of IDists DOING SCIENCE to test their "theory."

I'll even accept an exhaustive mathematical proof like you'd see with string theory. Just some true and hard work. I agree. ID is the lazy way out. "We don't know how this happened, God did it." And the wonderful thing about if they accomplish their goal (in their mind) is that if once they get God in, you can't get Him until we stop saying "we don't know how this happened".

Once God's in, God's in for good. You can't falsify God as a force, because simply by being intelligent.... blah, blah, blah, already said this, but the point holds.

EDIT: I suppose you noticed that every one of PW's examples were "scientists" saying "YOU can test our theories if YOU like. Otherwise it stands." Not "we've tested our theories and here's how", or "we're designing tests for our theories and we're going to do this". It's no surprise the chief argument for ID is "you haven't done enough work to make evolution absolute truth and because you're exhaustive work isn't up to our satisfaction, we'll stand on your shoulders and make claims that you can never touch (because we're on your shoulders)."

The idea that someone on this forum is actually backing ID is just... mindboggling. Just to save myself from a Scanners-esque fate, I must try to convince myself they're just saying stupid shit for the hell of it, rather than actually believing any of it.

The idea that someone on this forum is actually backing ID is just... mindboggling. Just to save myself from a Scanners-esque fate, I must try to convince myself they're just saying stupid shit for the hell of it, rather than actually believing any of it.

I suspect it's a little of both, actually. I think PW is making some arguments as if "Dr." Finney were making them and some arguments because he actually agrees with teach Creation in schools.

I find it amusing that the same people who argue that we support "alternative" theories never mention sipapu or any other creation stories. It's more than a little telling that the only "alternative" being argued for is the Christian one. Could it be that it's not about being open-minded, as they claim, and it's really the opposite?

I suspect it's a little of both, actually. I think PW is making some arguments as if "Dr." Finney were making them and some arguments because he actually agrees with teach Creation in schools.

I find it amusing that the same people who argue that we support "alternative" theories never mention sipapu or any other creation stories. It's more than a little telling that the only "alternative" being argued for is the Christian one. Could it be that it's not about being open-minded, as they claim, and it's really the opposite?

Indeed.

Who's to say whether something is meant to become something or if it's all evolution and nature just trying to get by with whatever means possible?

Personally I don't even think things were designed too intelligently to begin with. If god was guiding our development by the hand this entire time, I'd be sorely disappointed in the abilities of god to do so without everyone killing eachother every once in a while. What kind of design plan is that?

Even in a nonhuman context, the problem still exists: the world is made so that it's inhabitants have to kill eachother to live. This is necessary. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on - this is necessary*.



*Cookies and hugs for whoever gets the reference.

Could it be that it's not about being open-minded, as they claim, and it's really the opposite?

And herein lies the problem. They want to teach opposing "theories" about creation, but they don't consider mayan teachings, norse, greek, hindu, or any other religion's. This is the pastafarian problem.

But modern IDers have started wising up to this. No no, it's not the same thing, they claim. You see, those are just stories, this is a hypothesis. Of course we shouldn't teach just any old stories. ID of this version is more valuable than simple stories. Why, we can make predictions on it, we can do things with it, it's useful.

They're starting to modify that argument, knowing that if they try to pull the "hey, it's a competing theory, some people believe this!" line then they open themselves up to a lot of the same crap. So they're trying to dress it up as evidenced here, make it more "scientific", make it seem like THIS story is somehow more than just that, a story.

And herein lies the problem. They want to teach opposing "theories" about creation, but they don't consider mayan teachings, norse, greek, hindu, or any other religion's. This is the pastafarian problem.

But modern IDers have started wising up to this. No no, it's not the same thing, they claim. You see, those are just stories, this is a hypothesis. Of course we shouldn't teach just any old stories. ID of this version is more valuable than simple stories. Why, we can make predictions on it, we can do things with it, it's useful.

They're starting to modify that argument, knowing that if they try to pull the "hey, it's a competing theory, some people believe this!" line then they open themselves up to a lot of the same crap. So they're trying to dress it up as evidenced here, make it more "scientific", make it seem like THIS story is somehow more than just that, a story.

Even though it's clearly not any more than a story. It's christians looking to step their foot into a science classroom by any means necessary. Once they get that foot in, they'll do anything they can to get another, and then a hand, and an arm, and soon they will attempt to say what sciences we can and cannot teach.

Indeed.

Who's to say whether something is meant to become something or if it's all evolution and nature just trying to get by with whatever means possible?

Personally I don't even think things were designed too intelligently to begin with. If god was guiding our development by the hand this entire time, I'd be sorely disappointed in the abilities of god to do so without everyone killing eachother every once in a while. What kind of design plan is that?

Even in a nonhuman context, the problem still exists: the world is made so that it's inhabitants have to kill eachother to live. This is necessary. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on - this is necessary*.



*Cookies and hugs for whoever gets the reference.

Actually, GnI 'n' I came up with a solution for this. An answer to why that actually makes sense to both a Christian and an Atheist. You'll have to read our book to find out.

Even though it's clearly not any more than a story. It's christians looking to step their foot into a science classroom by any means necessary. Once they get that foot in, they'll do anything they can to get another, and then a hand, and an arm, and soon they will attempt to say what sciences we can and cannot teach.

So much for that whole thing against dishonesty, no?

Actually, GnI 'n' I came up with a solution for this. An answer to why that actually makes sense to both a Christian and an Atheist. You'll have to read our book to find out.

I'm sorry, book?

Actually, GnI 'n' I came up with a solution for this. An answer to why that actually makes sense to both a Christian and an Atheist. You'll have to read our book to find out.

*shrugs* Amazon.com link? :P

So much for that whole thing against dishonesty, no?

I'm not following - what do you mean?

*shrugs* Amazon.com link? :P

We're actually writing it. Perhaps when we're better at, you know, putting pen to paper, we'll link to an excerpt. GnI is an amazing writer but lazy as hel.... I mean, very, very busy.

I'm not following - what do you mean?

Well, the commandments and various other parts of the Bible make it pretty clear that we are not to lie to or mislead our fellow human beings (ignore some of the stories where some of the favorites were forgiven for doing so). I've noticed that any means to an end tends to be the manifesto of extremists of all stripes. I find it a bit amusing in an ideology where such things were important enough to be mentioned in the Law (the commandments).

We're actually writing it. Perhaps when we're better at, you know, putting pen to paper, we'll link to an excerpt. GnI is an amazing writer but lazy as hel.... I mean, very, very busy.

I know the type. In fact, I am that type, :D ...wait a minute, that means I'll never ultimately publish anything :(

Can designer have done all of those things? Yes. If that designer is intelligent can it have designed using other principles? Yep. Can it start and stop designing as it likes? Yep. No prediction cannot come from an intelligent source that has limitless power. Any outcome, every outcome is explainable if the designer is intelligent.

why couldn't one of the features of the intelligence in question be regular nigh-on lawlike behavior? the IDiots seem to hold something like that (when they aren't trying to weasel their way out of the fact that it makes their story falsified already, at least). we just have to hold them to it when they do.

so, for example, behe claimed years ago that a prediction of ID is that it is conceptually impossible for certain specific features to have developed through evolutionary pathways. we have demonstrated a number of plausible evolutionary pathways for every feature he claimed. therefore ID has been falsified and is now dead. anyone saying otherwise is just bullshitting.

We're actually writing it. Perhaps when we're better at, you know, putting pen to paper, we'll link to an excerpt. GnI is an amazing writer but lazy as hel.... I mean, very, very busy.

I'm the same way. <3

I know the type. In fact, I am that type, :D ...wait a minute, that means I'll never ultimately publish anything :(

Again, <3

why couldn't one of the features of the intelligence in question be regular nigh-on lawlike behavior? the IDiots seem to hold something like that (when they aren't trying to weasel their way out of the fact that it makes their story falsified already, at least). we just have to hold them to it when they do.

so, for example, behe claimed years ago that a prediction of ID is that it is conceptually impossible for certain specific features to have developed through evolutionary pathways. we have demonstrated a number of plausible evolutionary pathways for every feature he claimed. therefore ID has been falsified and is now dead. anyone saying otherwise is just bullshitting.

I thought that was a given.

Well, the commandments and various other parts of the Bible make it pretty clear that we are not to lie to or mislead our fellow human beings (ignore some of the stories where some of the favorites were forgiven for doing so). I've noticed that any means to an end tends to be the manifesto of extremists of all stripes. I find it a bit amusing in an ideology where such things were important enough to be mentioned in the Law (the commandments).

Yeah. I'm not really surprised by much of what the collective fundies do or say anymore.

That's not what the first prediction said. It said; They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design" Then they went on to say that they predict that life is meant for optimal places where it can make scientific discoveries, (optimal then means places that they could both live AND make scientific discoveries not just easy to live places)... The second prediction you were talking about was suggesting that with ID life should live even in hard to survive and reach places and even unfavorable places because life could be 'designed' to live in such places even if it is not easy or if it shouldn't have happened by accident there. Those are two entirely different things and can't be compared against each other like you just tried to do.

Why are you so desperate to redefine other people's position? First you say that when the politician in question said "Creationism" he really meant "ID" and now this. Let's look at the quotation in full:

"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse."

I think it's abundantly clear that there are two separate 'predictions' being made here: the first is based on the conditions for scientific progress, the second is concerned with habitability. These people are arguing that the conditions needed for an planet to be habitable at all (regardless of whether science can be done there) are very very rare, and that the fact that they exist anywhere is evidence of design. Therefore, finding that life can exist in less optimal conditions would discredit them. The second argument predicted that life will be found in suboptimal conditions.

The contradiction is clear, these people may be scientific failures but they aren't illiterate, they don't need you to interpret their words for them.

Besides, this problem for ID isn't just limited to this one predictions, there are hundreds of contradictory predictions that can be drawn from ID. Off the top of my head:

"ID predicts that attempts to make life arise from non-life naturally will fail as they were created intentionally by the Designer".

vs.

"ID predicts that, if the Earth was designed, then it must have been designed to create life. We should thus expect life to arise easily and frequently from non-life on this planet as it was designed to give birth to these proto-creatures."

Both of these predictions can be validly deduced from the premise of Inteliigent Design, as they are contradictory this makes ID unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

We're actually writing it. Perhaps when we're better at, you know, putting pen to paper, we'll link to an excerpt. GnI is an amazing writer but lazy as hel.... I mean, very, very busy.

I take offense to that. I'm definitely more lazy than busy. Erm... the other way round, I mean. :)

Thanks for the compliment, though - we definitely do need to get that particular project a little closer to publication.

(There were excerpts posted on the forum at one point - I wonder if skilled searching could find them?)

We're actually writing it. Perhaps when we're better at, you know, putting pen to paper, we'll link to an excerpt. GnI is an amazing writer but lazy as hel.... I mean, very, very busy.
You can put me down for a copy or two, particularly if you include a chapter entitled, "The Unified Bottle Theory, And Why Everything Else Is Clearly Bunk."

You can put me down for a copy or two, particularly if you include a chapter entitled, "The Unified Bottle Theory, And Why Everything Else Is Clearly Bunk."

It's fiction, but I certainly would be interested in the reaction of someone who doesn't buy what we're selling even more than GnI.

Although, if I can find an excuse for it, I'll try to pull off that title. Mostly because it'll be funny to me, and probably Mike.

It's fiction, but I certainly would be interested in the reaction of someone who doesn't buy what we're selling even more than GnI.

Although, if I can find an excuse for it, I'll try to pull off that title. Mostly because it'll be funny to me, and probably Mike.
You (both) are made of win. :D

You (both) are made of win. :D

I came up with something along these lines on the plane -

As I rounded the dune, I saw God motioning to a large sand castle. Eric was nodding his head. I raised an eyebrow and hurried forward. It looked like it was supposed to be a representation of a bottle. In a swift motion, God lifted his large hand and smashed the bottle-shaped castle and Eric smiled.

"Yeah, that totally makes sense," I heard Eric say. When he noticed me, Eric ran over.

"Dude, that was so cool."

"What? And stop calling me dude!"

"God just described how all of the scientific disciplines of the universe can be explained in a unified theory."

"Using sand?"

Eric proceeded to explain to me what he had just learned. As he brought his hand down on the the sand bottle, it all clicked. It was amazing, powerful and so simple.

I know what you're thinking. Why don't I explain it here? I don't know who's reading this. This is the most powerful theory man's ever learned. Given the kind of riff raff that would likely read this book it would be irresponsible to explain that to the likes of you.

EDIT: It needs work, but it's a start and gets you what you're looking for.