|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4872 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the problem with teaching ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
No, but they have machines that generate radio signals. Yea but that's not jar's point. Jar is arguing that you have to have the alien machinery before validly inferring design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Except that they don't actually back you up, do they? They back up my methodology of detecting design. Put differently, my methodology of inferring design is the same as SETI scientist et al.
And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID. You've talked with me before, Dr Adequate, and I think you should know that I don't infer design simply because "it's so complex it must be designed!" Which seems to be your point with crude clay pots. Try not to confuse me with other ID proponent, mmk?
Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims. Yes, there are several methods to make clay pots AFAIK. According to jar's logic (remember, I'm critiquing his logic here), you'd have to know which method was employed for which pot before being able to infer design. Still, you might want to take on the SETI example: I freely confess that the archaeology example isn't as close to home with regards to my point.
So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
First it deals with something humans do, build artificial orbiting bodies. Nope. Read the paper again. He only mentions humans building artificial orbiting bodies in the future at the end of the paper. The bulk of the paper concentrates on using lightcurve signatures to detect artificial objects in space, thereby allowing a new kind of SETI. So, would we need to have the aliens that designed those artificial objects in order to infer design of those objects? Not according to this paper. Humans don't build earth-sized orbiting bodies, which is about the size you'd need to send a detectable lightcurve signature to the aliens.
What is the method that the Designer uses to preload the genome? Assume we detect an artificial object in space, using the techniques the author describes. What was the method the aliens used to design this object?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
You need to be able to duplicate the alien method. ...And since we don't know what the alien method is, by your logic, we could not reliably infer design from a radio signal consisting of the first 500 prime numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
We build orbiting bodies even now and were doing so even before 2005. Yes, but not earth-sized objects, which, as I said would be required to make a detectable transit. That's why the author discusses an earth-sized body, not something like the ISS.
The method they used is the methods we use. Okay. So, again, assuming for sake of argument, we detect this object: how do we know what method the aliens used? To quote your own words: I assume that you have evidence of the lab? You're going to be consistent, are you not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Of course we can determine methods they could use. Really? How? And we'd need evidence of the lab remember, by your own words.
The issue is... You're trying to steer the conversation away from a very crucial point, so that we can keep going 'round and 'round in circles. Let's remember why we're bringing up the example of SETI etc. It's because you implied that (a) we'd need the lab of the designer to validly infer design, (b) you said that we have to be able to duplicate the tools and everything involved in generating the signal - which of course implies that we'd need to find the tools first, because just assuming they used the same tools as we do isn't valid ya know. Etc. This is a very critical point, because I brought up the example of how humans can engineer genomes. To which you replied that we need the lab. And so on. Don't try to get out of what you said, jar. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Sure, if we can detect the object we can determine lots about it, what it's made of, it's mass, the surface. Please address the points I make above. Are you conceding that we don't need to know the method used to construct the orbiting body (remember, assuming that the method is the same as ours isn't a conclusion that flows from any tests; further, the mass and surface isn't enough to know how it was made)?
Why don't ID folk talk about how the designer influenced evolution, the method the designer used? I was talking about that, until you brought up all sorts of ideas like we need the lab, etc. Do we or do we not need the lab where the orbiting object was built, jar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I believe that is irrelevant and just another attractive rabbit hole so you don't have to do any work related to ID. I brought up SETI because I think it very neatly shows your inconsistency here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Do we, or do we not need the lab where the orbiting body was constructed before reliably inferring design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
You use a big radio receiver? That's not what I mean by "methodology." I mean the principle is the same.
Feel free to tell me how you do go about it. The same principle that SETI scientists use.
Feel free to tell me how you do go about it. It's not by looking at something and ooh-ing and ah-ing and saying "oh, look how complex it is! It must be designed!" It's through the testing of various predictions of a teleological hypothesis. That, and the same principle SETI scientists use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Could you elaborate on that a little? What do you think this principle is? I could outline it briefly, although I haven't been able to nail it down completely in my own mind. I am completely open to your ideas as to the principle used by SETI scientists. The principle, as I see it, can be outlined thusly: 1. There is no known non-intelligent process that can bring about X, 2. And intelligence is a known method to generate X. Again, I'm entirely open to revision of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
In which case you would first have to prove that evolution (a known non-intelligent process) could not bring about the phenomena requiring explanation. Correct, and proving a negative is always difficult. That's why, in general, I try to steer clear of trying to prove that evolution cannot account for feature X, and instead focus on predictions made exclusively by ID hypotheses. Confirmation of these predictions would yield positive evidence in favor of the hypothesis under consideration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Nothing you've quoted tell us how to detect intelligence. Sigh. That's not the point of bringing up that paper. Jar specifically asked me to cite papers wherein we would infer design regardless of the fact that (a) we don't know how the object was designed, and (b) we don't have the lab, and (c) we don't have the designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Can you list some examples of predictions which must be satisfied if ID is correct, or alternatively results which flow from the hypothesis of ID that would not be true if evolution was correct? ID is a broad term which includes a number of teleological hypotheses. The ID hypothesis of front-loading makes a number of predictions. See my article here:Deep Homology and Front-loading | The Genome's Tale For the record: I discussed this prediction of the FLH on a thread on this site some months ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But ... if you can't rule out evolution as an explanation for X, then X cannot be a prediction made exclusively by ID hypotheses, since it would also be compatible with evolution. Evolution would also predict that X can happen. You're confusing a model's explanation with a model's prediction. There's a difference, ya know. Can you tell me what the difference is? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024