Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 213 (203135)
04-27-2005 7:09 PM


I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism but a science concept based on the philosophy of teleology [4] that goes back at least 300 years before Christ to a group of philosophers that had no concept of a personal god at all:
Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.
Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:
"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"
Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much later, others would later tie intelligent design directly into science.
One example of this is the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]
According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."
Harvey commented to Robert Boyle how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.
1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.
2) Other branches of science also use tenets of design to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, it is termed to be not science anymore by our detractors.
3) The reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solid in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all.
4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.
6) ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science. Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
Sounds like a start.
[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.
[1] http://www.theism.net/article/2
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.
[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.
[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.
[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,
[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.
Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 10:06 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2005 11:34 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 11 by mikehager, posted 04-28-2005 1:08 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:42 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2005 3:16 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 81 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:32 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 198 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 11:21 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 201 by derwood, posted 05-16-2005 3:30 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 213 (203148)
04-27-2005 8:15 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 3 of 213 (203182)
04-27-2005 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 7:09 PM


Intelligent Design {...is...} a science concept based on the philosophy of teleology.
Then we're in agreement. We shouldn't teach it in science class and it should not be considered science.
And when I started reading this thread I was thinking it was going to be another thread claiming ID was science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 7:09 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 10:35 PM dsv has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 213 (203192)
04-27-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dsv
04-27-2005 10:06 PM


quote:
Then we're in agreement. We shouldn't teach it in science class and it should not be considered science.
And when I started reading this thread I was thinking it was going to be another thread claiming ID was science.
This doesn't make a lick of sense unless I'm missing something. Are you insinuating that something based on philosophy cannot be science? If so, you just shot yourself in the foot as the rules of the scientific method are based on the philosophy of Karl Popper and the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology are based in the philosophy of methodological naturalism.
You might want to do a bit of reading before you make many more posts in the vein of this one:
Philosophy of Science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 10:06 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 11:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 7 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 11:56 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 2:06 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 202 by derwood, posted 05-16-2005 3:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 213 (203204)
04-27-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 7:09 PM


Sounds like a start.
yup...I don't get this part:
quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solid in the universe.
can you explain (possibly in your own words)(without reference to a website) what the wave-collapse function is and how its involved in what this statement says...
I did a lttle web surfing of the wave colapse function but I thought it might be easier for you to just tell me what this statement means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 7:09 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 12:03 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 213 (203206)
04-27-2005 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 10:35 PM


Dude, you just stepped into a forum where people discuss what's science and what's not. At least give him the benefit of a doubt before assuming the worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 10:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Brad McFall, posted 05-20-2005 4:44 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 7 of 213 (203212)
04-27-2005 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 10:35 PM


Are you insinuating that something based on philosophy cannot be science?
What we now know about our world evolved from philosophy and particularly from philosophical study in the past. However, that does not somehow make philosophy the same as science.
Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were part of times that were rich in philosophy. They were considering things about our world that were new and exciting. The key, however, is they observed the world around them and constructed ideas. In some cases they were right on target or helped develop the understand for future sciences; Sometimes we found later in more modern science that the facts didn't fit. In either case it was clearly brilliant forward thinking.
I don't know if you can compare that time to our scientific study today (someone might disagree, if so I'd love to hear your opinion).
Unlike philosophy, the scientific method is a cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding. A lot of scientific theory begins in philosophy -- I wouldn't dream of arguing that it doesn't, I am very much a believer that philosophy is a huge part of science and greater free thinking -- but nothing is actually a scientific theory without observations, hypotheses, and deductions.
If so, you just shot yourself in the foot as the rules of the scientific method are based on the philosophy of Karl Popper and the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology are based in the philosophy of methodological naturalism.
Actually, the rules of the scientific method predate Karl Popper.
The Edwin Smith Papyrus (surgical textbook from ca 1600BC) clearly explains the examination (observations), diagnosis (hypotheses), treatment (experiments), and prognosis (deductions).
Later, around the 13th century, Roger Bacon defined an actual "method" for scientific study which was "observation, hypothesis, experimentation and back" (repeating, and could repeat endlessly if you so desired or if others refuted your evidence). He also suggested that there needs to be "independent verification."
Finally, Rene' Descartes wrote the (unfinished) Rules for the Direction of the Mind which outlines the proper method for scientific thinking and philosophy that leads to science. This was in 1619.
Karl Popper suggested a criterion that he called "falsifiability" and as such, that empirical falsifiablitiy would be the standard by which scientific theory by separated from junk science. Popper's concern with "falsifiability" helps differentiate between theories that are empirically testable and those that aren't.
The scientific method is still universally applicable and is used to distinguish science from "other stuff" (philosophy, pseudo-science, etc.).
EDIT: I suppose I should add to be clear. My point is Intelligent Design doesn't hold up to the methods and although ID dates back, the Scientific Method wouldn't have supported it ever.
This message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 10:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 213 (203214)
04-28-2005 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-27-2005 11:34 PM


quote:
can you explain (possibly in your own words)(without reference to a website) what the wave-collapse function is and how its involved in what this statement says...
I did a lttle web surfing of the wave colapse function but I thought it might be easier for you to just tell me what this statement means.
Yep. I'm glad to get that one out of the way. I apologize up front that I cannot do this in 3 easy paragraphs as there is a lot of science in the quantum philosophy of ID. It will take one long post and another a bit shorter to put this puppy to bed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2005 11:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 213 (203215)
04-28-2005 12:06 AM


QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY IN ID
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.' This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable. With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.
The uncertainty principle mathematically described this relationship between the measurable properties of a particle and as Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not!
Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born. The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce. Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]
English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.
Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.
Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? No, the old man has not finally gone off the deep-end as my 16-year-old sometimes asserts, there are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.
Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.
The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .
Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out..
Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.
Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light. If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.
Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle! Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?
Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?
If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.
Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.
These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.
With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state. Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.
John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?
Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent (and one of my favorite) ID theorists. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics are well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.
FURTHER READING:
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, Bantam New Age Books, 1984.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2)
Don't Touch That Dial!

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2005 10:00 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 213 (203216)
04-28-2005 12:11 AM


POST 2:
My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above.
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.
But since this Observer is a god of quantum mechanics, so to speak, we can propose a design methodology beginning with quantum mechanics which is exactly the way that molecular design engineers do it.
Let's begin by throwing out a post-grad paper on the subject:
Page not found – Maginn Group
In this engineering course in molecular design taught by Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, we discover how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout the paper that the understanding of molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.
Methodologies used to get from the statistical mechanics of molecules to the properties of macroscopic systems are quite complex and have been difficult to understand and calculate in the past, Maginn asserts. However, great progress has been made in the last ten or twenty years and today, even complex systems can be understood.
Statistical mechanics play a central role within the hierarchy of approaches for first principle design of engineering materials. An alternative design process, utilizing a shotgun approach, is called combinatorial chemistry of combinatorial synthesis. The tools discussed in this class are also applicable to this process, as some guidance on the molecular level can greatly reduce the number of trials one makes and thus can help focus the search for new materials in the combinatorial approach. The following figure depicts a rational design hierarchy strategy. We see that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental step in the process
A schematic by D.L. Theodorou is introduced in the paper to synopsize the process:
In chapter 4 entitled Equilibrium Ensembles Maginn announces the HOW of approximating macroscopics from microscopic states of molecular interactions and concludes this is best done by statistical mechanics:
"What we wish to do in this chapter is set up a statistical mechanical framework. From this framework, we hope to derive the laws of macroscopic thermodynamics from a fundamental set of postulates governing the microscopic state of the system. Most important to us for this class is the form of the expressions for thermodynamic quantities, such as equations of state, heat capacities, etc. We want to show how these observable quantities are obtained from nothing more than molecular interactions. Besides these macroscopic quantities, we can also obtain important microscopic details such as molecular organization, motion, and structure."
He then does so. Enter the math at your own peril unless you are Tipler or Dembski.
I WILL state this for clarification for most people at the level of this forum. If we know the macroscopics of a design, then we can also deduce the microscopics of it. (remember my statements on this up to this point??) In thermodynamics, microstates are defined as the total states in which matter/energy can come to rest. If I have 4 coins and I wish to know how they can be arranged as to heads or tails, I understand there are two possible microstates for each coin, and 4 coins and therefore there are 2^4 possible resting states, or 16. The below table shows the 16 arrangements:
But the macrostates, or the configurational entropy of the way the coins ACTUALLY EXIST AFTER THEY FLIP is another critter and is figured quite differently. In fact, configurational entropy is calculated using factorials; or some call them combinatorials:
We can see how that knowing the macrostate is 1 and that macrostate is 4 heads automatically tells us that we are dealing with 4 coins and 16 microstates and we can just look at the above chart to see what they are.
From the above schematic outlaying the mechanism for material design from microscopics to macroscopics we can glean understanding of molecular design and it is not that difficult to extrapolate a mechanism regarding the concept of a Supreme Observer.

Design Dynamics

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 04-28-2005 2:02 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 11 of 213 (203223)
04-28-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 7:09 PM


A few questions.
1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.
Please define "purpose" as you are using it here. Also, please describe one falsifiable test for design that can be applied to a biological system.
Also, are you aware that you directly contradict yourself? You state...
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.
and later assert...
One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics.
Merely labeling your designer "quantum mechanics" does not change the fact that in order to satisfy your telelogical requirements the alleged designer must have purpose. Is it your assertion that the natural forces at work on the quantum level have a purpose (and therefore intelligence)?
ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science.
First, there is no "secular humanist religion" in science. Science is a reliable system for learning about the natural world. It is amusing that ID supporters are such great fans of science until it treats their pet idea the same way it does everything else.
There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
Then why is ID not accepted by the science establishment. Is there perhaps a conspiracy of some sort or are biologists, chemists, et al. just stupid and deluded?
Sounds like a start.
Not to me, if you mean a starting place for ID to be treated like a science. Refferring to some philosophy and throwing in a few quotes and so forth certainly doesn't sound like a start.
Do you know what would? A falsifiable test for design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 7:09 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 3:33 AM mikehager has not replied
 Message 17 by Limbo, posted 04-28-2005 9:52 AM mikehager has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 12 of 213 (203229)
04-28-2005 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-28-2005 12:11 AM


Wow, hefty post/article you have there. It was a good read though, and well written. (Although I had to read it twice, but I think that's my fault.) I found it very interesting and it really provoked a lot of thought for me. I have a few questions for you, if you would allow.
If the "supreme observer" is in effect changing -- at least in our perception -- the fabric of reality as we know in reference to particles at the quantum level, that would mean everything we know to be reality would be effected. What is to say my laptop that I'm typing on right now is not actually a laptop? It is just "something" -- an article of the fabric of space and time -- but according to the supreme observer and my observation in my personal consciousness, it "becomes" a laptop in the reality which I am in.
If our observations are based on an intelligent designer, how would we ever arrive at a falsifiable conclusion? It seems as though the theory has almost set itself up to be neither falsifiable nor infalsifiable. How do you see us getting around that?
Just as M Theory is amazing, provocative and thought provoking, if it can't be proven right and can't be proven wrong, where does that leave us? Is it your opinion that such theories that are rooted in both science and philosophy should be taught as alternatives to purely scientific theory or.. I don't know, honestly. What do you suggest happen to such theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 12:11 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 4:11 AM dsv has not replied
 Message 19 by Limbo, posted 04-28-2005 9:55 AM dsv has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 213 (203230)
04-28-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 10:35 PM


If so, you just shot yourself in the foot as the rules of the scientific method are based on the philosophy of Karl Popper and the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology are based in the philosophy of methodological naturalism.
As has been pointed out, science predates the philosophies of Popper; moreover, that philosophy, and the philosophy of science in general, has never been the foundation of science. The foundation of science is scientists making observations and developing theory. The philosophy of science you refer to is simply a means to describe, not perscribe, that process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 10:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 213 (203236)
04-28-2005 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mikehager
04-28-2005 1:08 AM


Re: A few questions.
Hello Mike:
quote:
Please define "purpose" as you are using it here.
That distinguishes intelligent design from natural design. Looking at sand dunes one may get the impression they are designed and in a way they are by natural processes that could have gone a number of different directions. The purpose hones in the definition because it implies intelligence.
quote:
Also, please describe one falsifiable test for design that can be applied to a biological system.
I can't because your question is too vague. Design is a very broad subject. Can you name one test to falsify biology? How about chemistry or psychology? Now every tenet within ID can be falsified unlike a single one in Darwinism. We will get there.
quote:
Also, are you aware that you directly contradict yourself? You state...
That is no contradiction as the science is based on methodological naturalism. If one chooses to view quantum mechanics as Allah, they are free to do so. But that is a personal belief of the individual not a tenet of ID.
quote:
Merely labeling your designer "quantum mechanics" does not change the fact that in order to satisfy your telelogical requirements the alleged designer must have purpose. Is it your assertion that the natural forces at work on the quantum level have a purpose (and therefore intelligence)?
So what?
quote:
First, there is no "secular humanist religion" in science. Science is a reliable system for learning about the natural world. It is amusing that ID supporters are such great fans of science until it treats their pet idea the same way it does everything else.
No, there is no secular humanist religion in science, but certainly Darwinism because it's not science, it's religion. Why is it you think all these forums are buzzing 24 hours a day? Because Darwinists know they are being exposed and it's driving them nuts. Do you see any buzzing about gravity, relativity or chemical equilibrium? The truth is there is not even such a thing as a theory of evolution in science. They just made this up and called it science.
Theories of science must be taken through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science. Scientific inquiry starts at the observation level. From there, hypotheses are developed to explain that observation and these hypotheses are then subjected to scientific experimentation in order to empirically determine whether the observation can withstand the scientific inquiry. If a concept withstands the hypothesis stage through experimentation, it then is published in some manner to the scientist's peers. If the peers can reproduce the experiments (and they sometimes add to them) then the hypothesis may become a theory. Darwinism has no theories.
You bring up Popper's falsification and rightly so. Yet, nothing in Darwinism is falsifiable. I would love to hear someone falsify common descent, or that man and apes shared a common ancestor, or that huge, ferocious land mammals called pakicetus poofed its legs into flippers, crawled off into the oceans and magically morphed into whales, or that weird looking reptiles shoved their jawbones up into their ears and poofed into mammals. You talk about a fairy tale for grown-ups. That reads like a poorly written script of Jurassic Park. It would be funny if people weren't teaching it as "facts of science."
quote:
Then why is ID not accepted by the science establishment. Is there perhaps a conspiracy of some sort or are biologists, chemists, et al. just stupid and deluded?
We are the minority position because we are so new in this form. Surely you don't think there are no scientists that are ID theorists. Have a look at the people who are fellows in just one ID institution, ISCID.
quote:
Do you know what would? A falsifiable test for design.
Yeah. I think I remember you saying that already. As we get into each tenet of design I will be glad to explain falsification of each tenet. In the meantime, I've given you several precise tenets of Darwinism that you can begin showing a test to falsify until we get there.
Thank you for your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mikehager, posted 04-28-2005 1:08 AM mikehager has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Trae, posted 04-28-2005 5:30 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 203 by derwood, posted 05-16-2005 3:41 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 213 (203245)
04-28-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dsv
04-28-2005 2:02 AM


quote:
Wow, hefty post/article you have there. It was a good read though, and well written. (Although I had to read it twice, but I think that's my fault.) I found it very interesting and it really provoked a lot of thought for me. I have a few questions for you, if you would allow.
You bet. I hope you enjoyed it and we have a lot of material to cover in here if the thread goes far enough.
quote:
If the "supreme observer" is in effect changing -- at least in our perception -- the fabric of reality as we know in reference to particles at the quantum level, that would mean everything we know to be reality would be effected.
Yep and everything IS affected. You see things the way they are because the observer is making that reality real to you.
quote:
What is to say my laptop that I'm typing on right now is not actually a laptop? It is just "something" -- an article of the fabric of space and time -- but according to the supreme observer and my observation in my personal consciousness, it "becomes" a laptop in the reality which I am in.
Your laptop is known as a laptop because humans assign attributes to matter in their universe. Without humans to categorize matter into neat compartments, things just are. Without Heisenberg's "guy" out there somewhere, your laptop might be waves rather than a solid and you just might have some problems interacting with that energy when checking your email.
quote:
If our observations are based on an intelligent designer, how would we ever arrive at a falsifiable conclusion? It seems as though the theory has almost set itself up to be neither falsifiable nor infalsifiable. How do you see us getting around that?
The observer has been experimentally validated. This is not the non-falsifiable Darwinism that you are used to being fed. Heisenberg made the observation almost a hundred years ago, The original slit box experiment took it into the hypothesis level and many have reproduced that experiment and some, like wheeler, have added to it experimentally. This a real theory of science that was taken properly through the scientific method and could be falsified by simply doing the experiment again and NOTHING happens. But something does every time.
Finally, many things in science are taken through the method mathematically. Einstein never actually got a spaceship up to the speed of light, his math did. Hawking has never visited a black hole but his math has. Tipler's math on this is incredible! Even though I am a math dude, Frank is a PhD level mathematician that specializes in physics and I am totally lost reading it, but his peers state it walks. If they can falsify that math then the Omega Point may be falsified, but Heisenberg's observer will still stand until it is experimentally falsified and if it has not been by now, rather doubtful it will be.
quote:
Just as M Theory is amazing, provocative and thought provoking, if it can't be proven right and can't be proven wrong, where does that leave us? Is it your opinion that such theories that are rooted in both science and philosophy should be taught as alternatives to purely scientific theory or.. I don't know, honestly. What do you suggest happen to such theories?
Well, people have a long way to go showing there to be a theory of everything or a "god" particle. The observer has been shown experimentally. That's science and I'll run with science every time.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 04-28-2005 2:02 AM dsv has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 11:23 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024