ID testable hypothesis attempt from dillan

In the Evolution forum I posted the following:mark24 mentioned this but was ignored by both Fred and dillan so I will paraphrase and re-iterate
Since both Fred and dillan are claiming that DNA is a code with an intelligent purposeplease do the following1. provide a testable hypothesis that DNA is a code that was created by intelligence.
2. Explain how your hyothesis is falsifiable
3. provide supporting evidence for your hypothesis
4. demonstrate how it better explains both natural and laboratory observations/experiments than competing hypotheses or theories.If you are unable to do this simple task then you are not engaging in anything remotely scientific.dillan responded:Mammuthusquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24 mentioned this but was ignored by both Fred and dillan so I will paraphrase and re-iterate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------We both had several replies to respond to each. It is easy for you, because you only have to make one response to me, or at most two (responding to both Fred and me). However I am responding to four or five evolutionists at a time. It is very time consuming.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please do the following
1. provide a testable hypothesis that DNA is a code that was created by intelligence.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------By testable, do you mean repeatable? This would be impossible, and if you held this standard for evolutionary theory it would crumble as well. The only testing that we can do is on information systems that we know are the result of intelligence. If they share the same relevant properties, then we can determine that they are the product of intelligence.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain how your hyothesis is falsifiable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you found a naturally occurring information system with all of the relevant properties, then the notion would be falsified. However, we have not found a naturally occurring information system with pragmatics, semantics, syntax, representational function, etc..quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. provide supporting evidence for your hypothesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------All other information systems that we know are the result of intelligence share identifiable properties that allow us to determine design. The DNA exhibits these properties. Therefore we can determine that the DNA was designed.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. demonstrate how it better explains both natural and laboratory observations/experiments than competing hypotheses or theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What are these laboratory experiments that totally disprove Gitt's notion?Please note, this is the first time to my knowledge that someone has actually attempted to address this question so thanks to dillan for making the attempt...now on to the debate

I'll start,1. testable hypothesis

quote:

---

By testable, do you mean repeatable? This would be impossible, and if you held this standard for evolutionary theory it would crumble as well.

---

No I don't mean repeatable, I mean testable hypothesis. Are there experiments you can perform or observations you can make that can distinguish your hypothesis from others i.e. how do you test for intelligent design? What is the testable hypothesis as opposed to merely believing that anything complex is designed. Evolution is both testable and the results are repeatable and that is why it passes the first test...but repetition falls under the catagory of evidence gathering not under providing a testable hypothesis.

quote:

---

The only testing that we can do is on information systems that we know are the result of intelligence. If they share the same relevant properties, then we can determine that they are the product of intelligence.

---

Why is this? This is completely circular...if I make a pattern that looks like a snowflake on a piece of paper does that mean all snowflakes are intelligently designed? That is the fallacy of calling DNA a computer program as is being done in the evolution thread merely because it can be copied and has an ordered structure.

quote:

---

If you found a naturally occurring information system with all of the relevant properties, then the notion would be falsified. However, we have not found a naturally occurring information system with pragmatics, semantics, syntax, representational function, etc..

---

But you claim that anything that is complex and resembles an artificially designed object or program is intelligently designed so if you find a naturally occurring one you conclude it is intelligently designed i.e. DNA. You would never be able to falsify ID because you would never conclude it is naturally occurring. With evolution if you found out that sunflowers were more genetically similar to humans than chimps and found bonobo fossils in the same strata as the first multicellular organisms evolution would be kaputt...you cannot do the same for ID.

quote:

---

All other information systems that we know are the result of intelligence share identifiable properties that allow us to determine design. The DNA exhibits these properties. Therefore we can determine that the DNA was designed.

---

You would have to defined these identifiable properties. DNA can mutate and be replicated. It is subject to a lot of the former and is really pretty lousy at the latter. There is aboutt 3% information that involves phenotype i.e. genes and the rest is repetitive elements, pseudogenes, stretches of repeated sequences...which known information system is this mimicing so accuratley? If you did morse code with DNA you would never get your message accross. If a natural system shares features in common with a system we designed it could just as easily be because we are mimicing a naturally occuring system i.e. propagating information. If I design a car based on the features of a shark that enable sharks to swim well, that does not then provide evidence that those features must have been designed in the shark to.

quote:

---

What are these laboratory experiments that totally disprove Gitt's notion?

---

This is the one disappointing none-answer from dillan. Since there is not testable or falsifiable hypothesis put forth then supporting or disproving ID is not possible any more than supporting or refuting the existence of the tooth fairy. But 4 was a different question, given that evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild, that molecular evolution is also subject to experimentation, that random mutation followed by natural selection is a common experiment that anybody with access to an some basic molecular bio reagents, an incubator, some media, and bacteria could perform...how does some undesignated designer better explain the data than evolution?

Hmmm and yet again, there appear to be no takers from the ID community to try and address this issue which is fatal to their entire endeavor....I wonder why

I would have posted something, but all I really have to say is that I agree with you.But let me step in for a semi defense of dillan. At some points I do believe you are misrepresenting his exact position. That is you are asking questions about evolutionary issues, and he seemed pretty focused on abiogenesis.For example, scientific evidence in the field and lab are wholly missing with regards to abiogenesis. I believe this is why dillan asked what evidence. To be fair, as long as he is only using ID in reference to abiogenesis this question is fair.I think maybe we need two sets of questions for ID theorists. One pertaining to evolution and one for abiogenesis. Well, I guess the questions are the same, but evidence from our side would have to be different based on which topic is being discussed.------------------
holmes

in response While this challenge to dillan (and Gitt and Dembski etc etc) is correct, they may miss the point you are trying to make, especially as you move on to appeal to evidence and what models better fit this evidence.Why not simply go for the throat, using their own system of logic?After all their case is not that man made life, it is that a supernatural force called God made life. It logically and amusingly must come under the same scrutiny they have applied to nature.Have any of these IDers ever shown one example of a supernaturally occurring information system with pragmatics, semantics, syntax, representational function, etc..?No. Well then what else needs to be said?Once they can show this, then we can start to believe what they are saying, and more ironically only once this has been shown can THEY start to believe what they are saying.The best their logic can get them, if it does not fail according to the points you have made, is that man or some other physical creature like man created life.The most plausible case would involve humans timetravelling small amounts of DNA-type material inside a life promotive environment back 4 billion years.Or perhaps even more likely, blasting "signals" back through time at carbon based targets, pushing them to sustain desired reactions which would ultimately result in life. Humans are already looking at "teleportation" of quantum states through time and space. It would only be a slightly more challenging issue to use a form of this technology (if it is ever becomes viable) to influence molecular "decisions", even in the past.Please oh please oh please someone from the ID camp respond to this!------------------
holmes

Hi holmes,
abiogenesis and evolution are designated as equivalents so often I just side stepped and went straight to the issue of a testable hypothesis of ID.Ignoring for the moment the absurdity of postulating that if there is ID it must be the christian god, you bring up interesting points in both your posts.I agree that regarding abiogenesis research (of which there is not a tremendous amount) is in its infancy so the IDists are in a position to make their case. However, in order to do so they must first put forth a testable hypothesis that is falsifiable if it is to be worthy of consideration.At the very least one can come up with hypotheses of how replicators came into being and then attempt via experimentation to produce such replicators by mimicing the conditions as a first step towards supporting the concept of life from non-life....how do you falsify ID?Ironic that it is you and me discussing this again and the ID camp remains silent.

Apparently you open a thread and give them plenty of room to work out their theory in a clear, concise manner.------------------
holmes

The problem as I see it is that ID has already been falsified.All it requires is to show that a (moderately) complex object
that performs a function can be designed without intelligent
intervention.Evolutionary programming has done this already.

Intelligent Design Creationism can actually be narrowed (as in our friend Warren's formulation) down to the notion that all evolutionary change is the result of intent at some level. Thus, no amount of supporting evidence for evolution can falsify the IDC hypothesis, because anything (even apparently random mutations) can be said to have happened at the behest of an undetectable Intelligence. As IDC becomes less dependent on even its vague notions of 'irreducible complexity' or 'specification,' it loses whatever empirical significance it claimed to have in the first place.

I don't know if you've read any of Warren's most recent posts in my "poison plant" thread but he appears to have watered ID down even more.Now he says ID isn't even a competing theory with evo. It is simply an alternative viewpoint that coexists side by side (as in they are both true). He says this adds value to research, but refuses to explain how. I guess two theories are better than one.------------------
holmes

His responses have been getting worse. Now he is claiming evolution of the flagellum is unfalsifiable. I explained one way to falsify it and he evaded the subject and then claimed I never falsified it...he then went on a diatribe about scientific narrowmindedness..when pressed about a falsifiable hypothesis of ID he started to make an honest attempt but his last few responses were along the line of "mitochondrion are the powercells of the cell generating ATP" now...how do you falsify this teleological argument? What is the teleological argument in using analogies to describe enzymatic pathways? He has also been falling back on the position that if evolution is not falsfiable (an incorrect assertion) then ID does not have to be either.

That's why I mentioned evolutionar programming ... not
for any supposed suport of ToE, but because the process
creates designs without intelligence ... no intent.The intent goes into the environmental criterion only
not the design process.If creationists were to say that their God set up
the rules and let things run ... I'd say 'OK, that's
a nice possibility' mainly because it does not fly in the
face of observation ... if they were then to say that I
HAD to believe it because it's true ... I'd object all over
again.

And it looks like once again Warren is disappearing on us.I still can't figure out if he was such an ID proponent, why he didn't go to our thread which gave ID the benefit of the doubt and explored possible scientific methodology.We didn't get far, but at least it wasn't from knocking ID, but an honest attempt which (not surprisingly I guess) ended in failure.And why did he refuse to go even when we pointed it out to him?His position at this point seems to be a hit and run, ad hoc reasoning, with the main point being to whine about evo.------------------
holmes

It's a pity really. I thought he would make a real effort and it looked like he was starting to do so and then he reverted to ID type.
The Mike Green site was also confusing though he admitted on his own site that it was speculation. But he was equating a teleological hypothesis with using analogies to describe biochemistry.It looks like we will have to keep waiting for the testable and falsifiable ID hypothesis.

Warren's fascination with the ridiculous pronouncements of Mike Gene is certainly the most inexplicable element in his already-addled worldview.Does anyone else recall the article Warren quoted at length concerning 'evolvoid' phenomena? Evidently Dawkins's notion of 'designoid' features (which appear designed but are the products of mindless processes) rubbed Doc Gene the wrong way. In response, he coined the term 'evolvoid' to, ahem, explain the way things appear to have evolved even though the evidence could just as easily support a design inference.This is the suicidal tendency of the Intelligent Design Creationists laid bare. It's tantamount to admitting that there's no conceivable evidence that can refute IDC. 'Design' just means whatever the Discovery Institute says it means, and we can see teleology and purpose wherever we happen to be looking for them.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall