Come and see and example of the vacuousness of ID. http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=4506276aa727a5b3b88121a0e7e30297&topic=114.90 Watch as scordova worms his way out of doing a demonstration of the The Explanatory Filter, the masterwork of ID that does not work!
BTW how do you think that scientists determine design without being biased toward that end?
Hint: the EF is the best process known to humans that allows that to happen.
And if the EF doesn't work that would be because of the person/ people using it. That is its only flaw- the EF counts on the user(s) to do a proper investigation.
Perhaps one of you could tell me just how was it determined that living organisms are not the result of intentional design.
And if the EF doesn't work that would be because of the person/ people using it. That is its only flaw- the EF counts on the user(s) to do a proper investigation.
Exactly what Blondot said about N-rays: when other investigators weren't able to see them, it was their fault.
Then let's take another example: early Freudian psychoanalysis. (A process.) When others weren't able to replicate the claims of psychoanalysis, Freudians explained that the critics weren't trained by Freudians.
What part about the following didn't you understand?:
It is a fact that any and every process relies on the person/ people using it.
IOW one can get a complete dufus to use the EF on Stonehenge.
Said dufus takes a look at Stonehenge and says "It is made of stones. Stones are made via chance and necessity. Therefore Stonehenge was not designed."
Yet whan an educated person does the same that person will come to the correct inference (Stonehenge was designed by an agency) using the same process.
Then we could take the dufus and have the educated person explain how it was done.
Could the same be done with your example? If not then you should see the difference.
Everyday designations of design are one thing. Attributions of design to living systems (which are created naturally all the time) are another. The difference between common-sense design inferences (which I think the EF works well enough for, in a limited way) and more complex ones is profound.
That most trained biologists disagree with Dembski on the design of specific biological systems is of course obviously their fault. It has nothing to do with Dembski. He's the voice crying in the wilderness, the falling tree that makes no sound.
Speaking of falling, let's return to Stonehenge. Which parts were designed? All of it? Every contour of every rock? How much of every rock shape is attributable to erosion? What about the pieces that seem to have fallen? Were they designed that way, or did they fall over time? Can you know which attributes of Stonehenge are designed in every case?
Everyday designations of design are one thing. Attributions of design to living systems (which are created naturally all the time) are another.
Both intelligence and design also occur naturally.
And are living systems created naturally? That is the debate. Nature, operating freely, doesn't create living systems. Living systemns create living systems.
I take it you don't even know what is being debated.
The debate is about what intelligent agencies can do vs. what nature, operating freely, can do.
The difference between common-sense design inferences (which I think the EF works well enough for, in a limited way) and more complex ones is profound.
Which is why the EF depends on the user.
That most trained biologists disagree with Dembski on the design of specific biological systems is of course obviously their fault.
Not vreally, But all they have to do to refute Dembski and ID is to demonstrate the structure in question (bacterial flagellum for instance) could arise via culled genetic accidents,ie natural selection working on random mutations.
He's the voice crying in the wilderness, the falling tree that makes no sound.
Obviously he and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them.
Speaking of falling, let's return to Stonehenge. Which parts were designed?
In order to answer that I would have to go there and examine it.
My point was that Stonehenge was designed and scientists used tried and true detection techniques to make that determination.
Now what prevents other scientists from using tried and true detection techniques on biological organisms?
Biological organisms exist and there is only one reality behind that existence.
Yes. Naturally, and with no evidence of non-material intervention.
I think I understand the debate pretty well. Obviously you and I are going to disagree, for example, on whether what ID people see as irreducible complexity can evolve.
"Obviously [Dembski] and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them."
In the popular press, yes, where Dembski and Behe have made their stand. Not in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As I pointed out, Dembski's technical work has been ignored in his ostensible field, and Behe hasn't published a peer-reviewed paper in how many years? The one bogus ID peer-reviewed "journal" (PSCID) is defunct, and what Dembski and their ilk have left is -- what? -- some blogs. The refutations of ID have to take place because IDers have pitched their battle in the public arena, having failed to produce any experimental science.
Yes. Naturally, and with no evidence of non-material intervention.
ID does not require non-material intervention.
Nature, operating freely, has never been observed to create living systems.
And THAT is the debate.
Obviously you and I are going to disagree, for example, on whether what ID people see as irreducible complexity can evolve.
You don't understand the debate. The debate is whether or not said irreducible complexity "evolved" because it was designed to evolve or did it evolve via culled genetic accidents.
And if someone wants to posit that some IC system could evolve via culled genetic accidents it is up to them to show it. We already know that designing agencies can produce IC systems.
That is the premise of ID- we know what designing agencies can do and we also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
"Obviously [Dembski] and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them."
In the popular press, yes, where Dembski and Behe have made their stand. Not in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Wrong again. People have tried to refute them in peer-review.
This fact was even presented at "Kitzmiller v Dover".
The refutations of ID have to take place because IDers have pitched their battle in the public arena, having failed to produce any experimental science.
Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it.
But I digress. "The Privileged Planet" is based on peer-reviewed science by one of its authors Gonzalez:
G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120 “Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196 “Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29 “Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458 “Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46 “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32 “Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226
And that is just from a cursory look at the references.
You wrote: "You don't understand the debate. The debate is whether or not said irreducible complexity "evolved" because it was designed to evolve or did it evolve via culled genetic accidents."
William Dembski: "ID is no friend to theistic evolution."
You wrote: "Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it."
The papers you hijack for your "design" plagiarism all support common descent. Meanwhile ID has its one obsolete journal and Douglas Axe, who sometimes says his work does support ID and sometimes says not. Also GG. How many of his papers you cite are actual ID papers? By your own admission ("a cursory look at the references"), you don't know.
You write, "ID does not require non-material intervention."
Are you kidding me? ID people bitch about materialism at every opportunity.
From UD's purpose statement: "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted." If you guys are ok with material explanations, you should STFU about the big, bad materialist.
You wrote: "Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it."
The papers you hijack for your "design" plagiarism all support common descent.
Umm common descent is very different than universal common descent.
Those papers refuse to even common design. They only feature ucd because that is what the scientists believe.
Meanwhile ID has its one obsolete journal and Douglas Axe, who sometimes says his work does support ID and sometimes says not.
Perhaps not all his work is about ID. Duh.
As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No.
Also GG. How many of his papers you cite are actual ID papers?
All of his papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point. A scientist conducting scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals, used that data to come to a design inference.
You write, "ID does not require non-material intervention."
Are you kidding me?
No. ID does not require any intervention.
ID people bitch about materialism at every opportunity.
That is entirely different. Perhaps you should figure out what "materialism" entails.
The designers of cars are material. The designers of Stonehenge are material.
You obviously don't have a clue.
to blipey,
I will show you what you want when you show up at my door.
That's a great example problem, Joe. Feel free to use that as your chalkboard example of how to apply the EF.
Does it strike you as completely stupid that you defend a mathematical theorem solely with the rhetorical device of "nanananabooboo, I don't have to show you"?
If you were any kind of real defender of science, it should.
Joe spewed: "As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No."
One wouldn't expect a journal to do so. One would expect a body of data to do so, and such data exist. Have you ever even read a journal, Joe?
"All of his [GG] papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point."
No, the point is that GG lacks sufficient faith to perform a test of an ID hypothesis and produce new data from it. Science is about predictions, not just retrodictions.
"A scientist conducting scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals, used that data to come to a design inference."
But not a single scientist who has claimed a design inference has produced a single datum from a test of a prediction of an ID hypothesis.
Nada. Zip. That speaks volumes about their confidence, Joe.
"As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No."
One wouldn't expect a journal to do so. One would expect a body of data to do so, and such data exist. Have you ever even read a journal, Joe?
Yes I have read a journal and the data I asked for does not exist.
You are a liar. I take it that most, if not all, anti-IDists are liars. They even believe their own lies.
Thankfully I'm not as stupid or gullible as they are.
"All of his [GG] papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point."
No, the point is that GG lacks sufficient faith to perform a test of an ID hypothesis and produce new data from it. Science is about predictions, not just retrodictions.
Really? Just what predictions can "culled genetic accidents" provide?
Also "The Privileged Planet" makes a few predictions. And those predictions will either be confirmed or refuted with further scientific research.
I take it that no one here knows the methodolgy used to determine that living organisms are the result of nature, operating freely.
Then you should understand why your position isn't scientific...
23 comments:
Thanks! Just as I was about to make sure this one wasn't grabbed by BillDumb!
Come and see and example of the vacuousness of ID.
http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=4506276aa727a5b3b88121a0e7e30297&topic=114.90
Watch as scordova worms his way out of doing a demonstration of the The Explanatory Filter, the masterwork of ID that does not work!
C. Loach,
The EF is not the masterwork of ID.
BTW how do you think that scientists determine design without being biased toward that end?
Hint: the EF is the best process known to humans that allows that to happen.
And if the EF doesn't work that would be because of the person/ people using it. That is its only flaw- the EF counts on the user(s) to do a proper investigation.
Perhaps one of you could tell me just how was it determined that living organisms are not the result of intentional design.
And if the EF doesn't work that would be because of the person/ people using it. That is its only flaw- the EF counts on the user(s) to do a proper investigation.
Exactly what Blondot said about N-rays: when other investigators weren't able to see them, it was their fault.
Umm the EF is just a process.
It is a fact that any and every process relies on the person/ people using it.
It also happens that the EF is the best process we have for determining design without being biased towards that end.
"Umm the EF is just a process."
Then let's take another example: early Freudian psychoanalysis. (A process.) When others weren't able to replicate the claims of psychoanalysis, Freudians explained that the critics weren't trained by Freudians.
What part about the following didn't you understand?:
It is a fact that any and every process relies on the person/ people using it.
IOW one can get a complete dufus to use the EF on Stonehenge.
Said dufus takes a look at Stonehenge and says "It is made of stones. Stones are made via chance and necessity. Therefore Stonehenge was not designed."
Yet whan an educated person does the same that person will come to the correct inference (Stonehenge was designed by an agency) using the same process.
Then we could take the dufus and have the educated person explain how it was done.
Could the same be done with your example? If not then you should see the difference.
Everyday designations of design are one thing. Attributions of design to living systems (which are created naturally all the time) are another. The difference between common-sense design inferences (which I think the EF works well enough for, in a limited way) and more complex ones is profound.
That most trained biologists disagree with Dembski on the design of specific biological systems is of course obviously their fault. It has nothing to do with Dembski. He's the voice crying in the wilderness, the falling tree that makes no sound.
Speaking of falling, let's return to Stonehenge. Which parts were designed? All of it? Every contour of every rock? How much of every rock shape is attributable to erosion? What about the pieces that seem to have fallen? Were they designed that way, or did they fall over time? Can you know which attributes of Stonehenge are designed in every case?
Everyday designations of design are one thing. Attributions of design to living systems (which are created naturally all the time) are another.
Both intelligence and design also occur naturally.
And are living systems created naturally? That is the debate. Nature, operating freely, doesn't create living systems. Living systemns create living systems.
I take it you don't even know what is being debated.
The debate is about what intelligent agencies can do vs. what nature, operating freely, can do.
The difference between common-sense design inferences (which I think the EF works well enough for, in a limited way) and more complex ones is profound.
Which is why the EF depends on the user.
That most trained biologists disagree with Dembski on the design of specific biological systems is of course obviously their fault.
Not vreally, But all they have to do to refute Dembski and ID is to demonstrate the structure in question (bacterial flagellum for instance) could arise via culled genetic accidents,ie natural selection working on random mutations.
He's the voice crying in the wilderness, the falling tree that makes no sound.
Obviously he and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them.
Speaking of falling, let's return to Stonehenge. Which parts were designed?
In order to answer that I would have to go there and examine it.
My point was that Stonehenge was designed and scientists used tried and true detection techniques to make that determination.
Now what prevents other scientists from using tried and true detection techniques on biological organisms?
Biological organisms exist and there is only one reality behind that existence.
"Living systemns create living systems."
Yes. Naturally, and with no evidence of non-material intervention.
I think I understand the debate pretty well. Obviously you and I are going to disagree, for example, on whether what ID people see as irreducible complexity can evolve.
"Obviously [Dembski] and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them."
In the popular press, yes, where Dembski and Behe have made their stand. Not in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As I pointed out, Dembski's technical work has been ignored in his ostensible field, and Behe hasn't published a peer-reviewed paper in how many years? The one bogus ID peer-reviewed "journal" (PSCID) is defunct, and what Dembski and their ilk have left is -- what? -- some blogs. The refutations of ID have to take place because IDers have pitched their battle in the public arena, having failed to produce any experimental science.
"Living systemns create living systems."
Yes. Naturally, and with no evidence of non-material intervention.
ID does not require non-material intervention.
Nature, operating freely, has never been observed to create living systems.
And THAT is the debate.
Obviously you and I are going to disagree, for example, on whether what ID people see as irreducible complexity can evolve.
You don't understand the debate. The debate is whether or not said irreducible complexity "evolved" because it was designed to evolve or did it evolve via culled genetic accidents.
And if someone wants to posit that some IC system could evolve via culled genetic accidents it is up to them to show it. We already know that designing agencies can produce IC systems.
That is the premise of ID- we know what designing agencies can do and we also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
"Obviously [Dembski] and Behe are making a sound because scientists have set out to refute them."
In the popular press, yes, where Dembski and Behe have made their stand. Not in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Wrong again. People have tried to refute them in peer-review.
This fact was even presented at "Kitzmiller v Dover".
The refutations of ID have to take place because IDers have pitched their battle in the public arena, having failed to produce any experimental science.
Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it.
But I digress. "The Privileged Planet" is based on peer-reviewed science by one of its authors Gonzalez:
Gonzalez “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20
G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226
And that is just from a cursory look at the references.
The authors make testable predictions.
And then we the design inference in peer review
and also
The Biologic Institute
Perhaps one of you could tell me just how was it determined that living organisms are not the result of intentional design.
What was the methodology used?
Joe,
You wrote: "You don't understand the debate. The debate is whether or not said irreducible complexity "evolved" because it was designed to evolve or did it evolve via culled genetic accidents."
William Dembski: "ID is no friend to theistic evolution."
You wrote: "Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it."
The papers you hijack for your "design" plagiarism all support common descent. Meanwhile ID has its one obsolete journal and Douglas Axe, who sometimes says his work does support ID and sometimes says not. Also GG. How many of his papers you cite are actual ID papers? By your own admission ("a cursory look at the references"), you don't know.
You write, "ID does not require non-material intervention."
Are you kidding me? ID people bitch about materialism at every opportunity.
From UD's purpose statement: "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted." If you guys are ok with material explanations, you should STFU about the big, bad materialist.
Hey Joe.
End this once and for all. Use the EF--right now, for all of us to see--to show me that my laptop is designed.
Then use the EF to show me that the tree in my yard is designed.
Then use the EF to show me that the lump of birdshit beside the tree is not designed.
These are very simple, specific cases. Surely you can use the wonderful EF to tell us al about them.
Or will you claim operator error?
You wrote: "Universal common descent doesn't have any experimental science to support it."
The papers you hijack for your "design" plagiarism all support common descent.
Umm common descent is very different than universal common descent.
Those papers refuse to even common design. They only feature ucd because that is what the scientists believe.
Meanwhile ID has its one obsolete journal and Douglas Axe, who sometimes says his work does support ID and sometimes says not.
Perhaps not all his work is about ID. Duh.
As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No.
Also GG. How many of his papers you cite are actual ID papers?
All of his papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point. A scientist conducting scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals, used that data to come to a design inference.
You write, "ID does not require non-material intervention."
Are you kidding me?
No. ID does not require any intervention.
ID people bitch about materialism at every opportunity.
That is entirely different. Perhaps you should figure out what "materialism" entails.
The designers of cars are material. The designers of Stonehenge are material.
You obviously don't have a clue.
to blipey,
I will show you what you want when you show up at my door.
I take it that no one will answer the following:
Perhaps one of you could tell me just how was it determined that living organisms are not the result of intentional design.
What was the methodology used?
Very typical.
Perhaps you should STFU.
To clowny,
In order to use the EF I have to examine the objects first-hand.
But I do have a question-
How could I tell the difference between you and that lump of birdshit?
Joe G said, "I take it that no one will answer the following:
Perhaps one of you could tell me just how was it determined that living organisms are not the result of intentional design.
What was the methodology used?
Very typical.
Perhaps you should STFU."
Perhaps. But I'll just say the burden is on you to show that they are, and that the EF does not get you there.
That's a great example problem, Joe. Feel free to use that as your chalkboard example of how to apply the EF.
Does it strike you as completely stupid that you defend a mathematical theorem solely with the rhetorical device of "nanananabooboo, I don't have to show you"?
If you were any kind of real defender of science, it should.
Apparently ID proponents also equivocate about "materialism."
Joe spewed:
"As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No."
One wouldn't expect a journal to do so. One would expect a body of data to do so, and such data exist. Have you ever even read a journal, Joe?
"All of his [GG] papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point."
No, the point is that GG lacks sufficient faith to perform a test of an ID hypothesis and produce new data from it. Science is about predictions, not just retrodictions.
"A scientist conducting scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals, used that data to come to a design inference."
But not a single scientist who has claimed a design inference has produced a single datum from a test of a prediction of an ID hypothesis.
Nada. Zip. That speaks volumes about their confidence, Joe.
"As for journals is there even one journal that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans? No."
One wouldn't expect a journal to do so. One would expect a body of data to do so, and such data exist. Have you ever even read a journal, Joe?
Yes I have read a journal and the data I asked for does not exist.
You are a liar. I take it that most, if not all, anti-IDists are liars. They even believe their own lies.
Thankfully I'm not as stupid or gullible as they are.
"All of his [GG] papers, when taken together, support the design inference. That's the point."
No, the point is that GG lacks sufficient faith to perform a test of an ID hypothesis and produce new data from it. Science is about predictions, not just retrodictions.
Really? Just what predictions can "culled genetic accidents" provide?
Also "The Privileged Planet" makes a few predictions. And those predictions will either be confirmed or refuted with further scientific research.
I take it that no one here knows the methodolgy used to determine that living organisms are the result of nature, operating freely.
Then you should understand why your position isn't scientific...
Apparently ID proponents also equivocate about "materialism."
Apparently you don't know what you are talking about.
And no, the burden is not upon IDists to show that living organisms are the result of an intentional design.
If you are supporting the anti-ID position then the burden is on you to present the methodolgy used.
Post a Comment