quote:
That doesn't mean that people made Stonehenge.
While technically true, science doesn't operate as though all explanations are equally valid.
The explanations that are accepted in science are those which:
1) have the most positive evidence to support them
2) agree the most, in degree and quantity, with previous observations
3) require the fewest assumptions
The idea that people built Stonehenge is considered the most valid because
1) and 2) there is a great deal of positive evidence that people have and do create massive structures out of stone and other materials for religious or ceremonial uses. There are other "henges" in the same general area, as well as burial mounds. People have and do practice ceremony and ritual when burying their dead.
3) We need not assume any other agent other than people constructed such henges, as there have been successful attempts to transport and erect such stones using only the technology of the times.
quote:
We can use the same logic with genetic engineering as our backdrop with respect to biological organisms.
Genetic engineering is a minor change within a preexisting genome.
We know for a fact that genetic engineering is a recent historical development and therefore it cannot explain anything piror to the late 20th century.
There's only one Stonehenge, but given that we know that humans have, for millennia, built massive and elaborate structures, it is a reasonable assumption that humans built this one, too. There are also buried human remains close by and burial mounds, etc.
quote:
But how did the humans acquire the knowledge to do this? Maybe aliens designed and built Stonehenge and then humans came along and thought it was something to be worshipped.
Yes, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.
While it is technically true that aliens could have done what you suggest, it is a less valid explanation than humans acting alone, as per the three requirements:
1) There is no positive evidence that aliens were involved
2) The "aliens" explanation does not take into account all of the other evidence.
3) The "aliens" explanation requires a great many assumptions which have no evidenciary support.
Just because you can imagine it, doesn't make it either plausible, probable, nor supported by evidence.
Because, so far, that {Nature did it} has been the only answer we have ever gotten when inquiry is allowed to progress.
quote:
Tell that to forensics and archeologists.
I was talking about Biology.
Neither of those fields that you mention rely on non-natural explanations, either.
quote:
OK what is the positive evidence from life arising from non-life by nature acting alone? What is the postive evidence that by nature acting alone metazoans can arise on a planet that didn't have metazoans?
These are good questions, but they are questions that completely miss my point.
The point is that you have yet to show any positive evidence for a designer.
All you have done is use analogies to human-constructed, non-living artifacts instead of self-replicating biological structures and gaps in our knowledge as if these things constitute positive evidence.
quote:
No but according to you we can infer it from the evidence. That is what we did with Stonehenge.
Really? Explain to me, using my three criteria above, how you would do that.
We only have gaps in our understanding, into which you inexplicably insert a Designer.
quote:
I insert a designer because I see the evidence for one.
I've been through this with you already. You point to mechanism X, say there's no current naturalistic explanation for it, then claim that an Intelligent Designer didit.
That means that you do not have
positive evidence, only a
lack of a naturalistic explanation.
...which leads me to my question:
How do I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we
1) Do not currently understand but will in the future, or
2) one that we do not have the capacity to ever understand?
quote:
But how do they {archaeologists} know what is a natural event and what is an artifact? That is the point.
Accumulated positive evidence that takes into account the most past observations and makes the fewest assumptions.
See my three criterion above.
quote:
Just because human design cars now does not mean they always did.
Correct.
We have voluminous positive evidence of both pre- and post-automobile construction by humans.
quote:
Humans make paper now, but if it wasn't for the observance of wasps we may not have been doing so. Or at least it would have taken us longer to figure it out.
Yes, and we have voluminous positive evidence of wasps making paper.
quote:
OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity.
So does a stone arch.
quote:
Please explain.
A stone arch is an irreducably complex structure.
If you remove any one of the stones in an arch. the entire arch collapses.
Does this mean that stone arches are a complete mystery and require supernatural forces for them to exist? Of course not.
During the building of a stone arch, support structures are put in place as the stones or bricks are laid. When those support structures are no longer needed, they are removed.
The problem with the argument from IC is that it depends upon the premise that evolution can occur ONLY by the sequential addition of parts. If, on the other hand, parts can be lost along the way, the deduction is no longer valid. Since there is no positive evidence of the designer, this logical argument is the only argument IDers have. But nobody thinks that evolution occurs only by sequential addition of parts. So IDers have neither evidence nor logic on their side.
How do you know that these IC systems cannot evolve naturally?
quote:
Never say never. However there isn't any evidence that shows it could or did. The evidence points to a designer.
Let's assume that you are right and that there is no evidence to show that IC systems could or did evolve naturally.
Where is your evidence that they were designed by an IDer?
This goes back to my question about how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system we just haven't figured out yet, or possibly will never figure out.
Just because we can't figure something out doesn't mean it did not occur naturally.
It just means that we do not know how it happened.
You have no positive evidence for your IDer, only gaps in our knowledge, but yet you go another step and baselessly conclude a supernatural entity was reponsible.
quote:
We have knowledge of designers designing IC. To falsify ID just show how the BF arose from nature acting alone. Period, end of story.
How can I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we either do not currently understand but will in the future or that we will never understand?
Seriously, will you completely give up on ID if a naturalistic mechanism for the BF is understood? I doubt it. Behe claimed the blood clotting cascade couldn't have evolved, but various evolutionary pathways for it have been discovered in the last several years. I don't see Behe or the ID folks talking about it much anymore, but neither do I see them making any changes in their original claim, either.
This leads me to think that IDists are just "yeahbut"ers. Behe claimed the blood clotting cascade was evidence of ID, it was shown to have a natural evolutionary pathway, and the IDers all sad "Yeah, but what about the Bacteria Flagella?"
The BF evolutionary pathway will probably be figured out at some point, and the IDers will say "Yeahbut what about blah blah blah."
It's called moving the goalposts, and it inevitable when you base your argument upon a current
lack of positive evidence in science.
There will always be some unsolved mystery of nature that IDers can point to, but, exactly like the idea that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his firey chariot, it will be no more than the God of the Gaps fallacy.
quote:
Science works from our current level of understanding. Science does not work by waiting what may or may not come in the future.
Science also does not claim to know about something for which there is no positive evidence.
We say "we don't know, let's work on figuring it out."
We do not say "We don't know today, therefore an Intelligent Designer must have done it"
The following is the most important part of my whole post to you, but you left it out of your reply to me.
Please address it.
But how do you know that a naturalistic explanation will not be found 100 years from now to explain whatever you say is unexplainable by naturalistic means?
quote:
And how do you know that the designer will not be revealed in that same time frame?
EXACTLY!
WE DON'T. That is the whole point.
You cannot say "The Designer didit. No need to look for a naturalistic explanation now, we know that there is no way anyone anywhere could ever, for ever and ever, discover a naturalistic explanation for X phenomena.", and expect it to be treated as science.
Science doesn't work by edict.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2004 01:08 PM
™ Version 4.2
