Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8779 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 6:02 PM
359 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,367 Year: 20,973/21,208 Month: 1,406/2,326 Week: 742/345 Day: 104/161 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4966
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 136 of 167 (671096)
08-22-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by herebedragons
08-22-2012 9:00 AM


Re: universal principles
herebedragons writes:

Good point RAZD. It does seem that some think that because ID doesn't make a particular prediction that it means the reverse is true, ie. there is no designer, which is not actually a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

I think the issue is more that because we already have a perfectly adequate theory, we just don't need a designer. The designer is superfluous - it fails Ockham.

Of course that doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer, just that science so far says that we don't need one. So in order to make any progress at all, our OP has to provide some actual hard evidence of front loading.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2012 9:00 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2012 11:10 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 137 of 167 (671115)
08-22-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tangle
08-22-2012 10:04 AM


Re: universal principles
I think the issue is more that because we already have a perfectly adequate theory, we just don't need a designer. The designer is superfluous - it fails Ockham.

Of course that doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer, just that science so far says that we don't need one.

The discussion of origins is not just an issue of science, but about the history of our existence. In the pursuit to understand the origin of life and indeed the universe, our search should be for truth. IF there was a designer science should seek to know that. Science doesn't NEED there to be a designer to continue to be science, but in order for science to be the "truth" then it needs to find the answers that are true. So, IF there is a designer, then science NEEDS it.

Ockham's is not a scientific law that can be tested against, but rather a principal or a guideline that helps scientists develop theories. A simple explanation is not always the best or the correct one (I may be even willing to say that a simple explanation is rarely the best or correct choice, but I don't want to have to support so bold a claim). Ockham's is not a test we apply to judge failure or success, we need to chose the hypothesis that is most correct or has the best explanatory power.

That said, I don't think science has the ability or the tools (and maybe never will) to address the issue of a designer and the issue of origins in general. In the sense that science is intended to understand the natural world, a supernatural explanation is superfluous. But that doesn't mean we should stop our pursuit for the truth.

our OP has to provide some actual hard evidence of front loading.

Not at all. This thread is merely exploring what predictions ID does or should or could make. Actual, hard evidence of a specific prediction and deeper discussion of that evidence should be handled in a separate thread. For discussion regarding front-loading see Deep Homology and Front-loading

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 10:04 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 11:51 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 3:13 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2012 10:33 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 138 of 167 (671120)
08-22-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by herebedragons
08-22-2012 11:10 AM


Re: universal principles
So far no-one has put forward any predictions that can be made from ID or given any reason at all to think that there might be a designer.

There was some loose talk about “principles” being indicative of a designer but when it was pointed out that an absence of such principles wouldn’t necessarily equate to an absence of a designer even these vague proclamations were revoked on the basis that neither the presence nor absence of “principles” really tells us anything about the existence of this hypothetical designer at all.

So I am left asking on what basis, other than human belief in such things, a designer is being postulated here at all?

Why should we consider this designer or give it any more credence than any other baselessly conceived of entity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2012 11:10 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 08-22-2012 1:46 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 146 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 10:06 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 139 of 167 (671130)
08-22-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
08-22-2012 11:51 AM


Re: universal principles
Straggler writes:

There was some loose talk about “principles” being indicative of a designer but when it was pointed out that an absence of such principles wouldn’t necessarily equate to an absence of a designer even these vague proclamations were revoked on the basis that neither the presence nor absence of “principles” really tells us anything about the existence of this hypothetical designer at all.

So I am left asking on what basis, other than human belief in such things, a designer is being postulated here at all?

I don't think that was the point. The OP asked this question.

quote:
What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?

I think this question is based on the assumption that there is an intelligent designer, not to use the fact that there are principles to prove a designer, but that if we accept that an intelligent designer exists that it could be, as a theory, suggestive that we should expect that there would be principles involved.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 11:51 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 5:38 PM GDR has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 140 of 167 (671142)
08-22-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by herebedragons
08-22-2012 11:10 AM


Re: universal principles
The discussion of origins is not just an issue of science, but about the history of our existence. In the pursuit to understand the origin of life and indeed the universe, our search should be for truth. IF there was a designer science should seek to know that. Science doesn't NEED there to be a designer to continue to be science, but in order for science to be the "truth" then it needs to find the answers that are true. So, IF there is a designer, then science NEEDS it.

What science should do is follow the evidence. By saying "IF there is a designer . . ." you are jumping the gun. If the evidence leads to a designer then it will lead there. There is no need to project our hopes in the existence of a designer onto the science.

Ockham's is not a scientific law that can be tested against, but rather a principal or a guideline that helps scientists develop theories. A simple explanation is not always the best or the correct one (I may be even willing to say that a simple explanation is rarely the best or correct choice, but I don't want to have to support so bold a claim). Ockham's is not a test we apply to judge failure or success, we need to chose the hypothesis that is most correct or has the best explanatory power.

Occam's Razor is a way of detecting exactly what I describe above, projecting our hopes onto the science when there is no evidence for those hopes. As to the topic in this thread, we find that the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms. Some would argue that perhaps ID is still true and that ID just produces evidence that is indistinguishable from the process of evolution. This is a case of projecting hopes onto the science. There is no reason why that explanation is needed. It multiplies unnecessary assumptions.

Evolution is the best explanation because evolution is evidenced and capable of producing what we observe. The best explanation is the one that passes Occam's Razor.

That said, I don't think science has the ability or the tools (and maybe never will) to address the issue of a designer and the issue of origins in general. In the sense that science is intended to understand the natural world, a supernatural explanation is superfluous. But that doesn't mean we should stop our pursuit for the truth.

Science does have the ability to test mechanisms that produce empirically verifiable observations. Therefore, ID is testable whether you want to claim that it is due to the supernatural or not. People claiming that Thor produces lightning did not stop science from studying and then explaining lightning. The label "supernatural" is nothing more than a warning that people don't want you to question their explanation.

Science does have the tools to explain our origin and the origin of the universe. The only problem is that some people are afraid that the answer will differ from the one they want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2012 11:10 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 9:46 AM Taq has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 167 (671158)
08-22-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
08-22-2012 1:46 PM


Re: universal principles
GDR writes:

The OP asked this question.

quote:
What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?

OK. So what is your answer to that question specifically?

GDR writes:

I think this question is based on the assumption that there is an intelligent designer, not to use the fact that there are principles to prove a designer, but that if we accept that an intelligent designer exists that it could be, as a theory, suggestive that we should expect that there would be principles involved.

If we look around us and see these "principles" and then we assume that there is a designer and also assume that this designer will incorporate these "principles" in his design - It is hardly surprising that this exercise in circularity will result in the conclusion that there is a designer who incorporates the observed "principles" in his design.

But how anyone can think this is a valid exercise in logic or even evidence based reasoning I don't know......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 08-22-2012 1:46 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by GDR, posted 08-22-2012 7:46 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 147 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 10:15 AM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 142 of 167 (671179)
08-22-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
08-22-2012 5:38 PM


Re: universal principles
Straggler writes:

OK. So what is your answer to that question specifically?

That there are principles and order.

Straggler writes:

If we look around us and see these "principles" and then we assume that there is a designer and also assume that this designer will incorporate these "principles" in his design - It is hardly surprising that this exercise in circularity will result in the conclusion that there is a designer who incorporates the observed "principles" in his design.

Certainly with modern scientific knowledge the thinking is circular. However, I have read, but can't find a quote, that Newton anticipated order and/or principles in his science because of his theistic beliefs.

Straggler writes:

But how anyone can think this is a valid exercise in logic or even evidence based reasoning I don't know......

That's funny, I couldn't convince Bluegenes either.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 5:38 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 8:13 AM GDR has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 143 of 167 (671223)
08-23-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by herebedragons
08-22-2012 11:10 AM


Occam
Hi herebedragons

Ockham's is not a scientific law that can be tested against, but rather a principal or a guideline that helps scientists develop theories. A simple explanation is not always the best or the correct one (I may be even willing to say that a simple explanation is rarely the best or correct choice, but I don't want to have to support so bold a claim). Ockham's is not a test we apply to judge failure or success, we need to chose the hypothesis that is most correct or has the best explanatory power.

Occam's razor is just a way to simplify initial search parameters when looking for an explanation, thus when the explanation is still incomplete, then more parameters will need to be included.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2012 11:10 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 167 (671290)
08-24-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by GDR
08-22-2012 7:46 PM


Re: universal principles
From the OP

quote:
What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?

To which you give the answer:

GDR writes:

That there are principles and order.

You can’t meaningfully take the facts, take your preferred explanation, marry the two together on the basis it seems subjectively reasonable to you to do so and then claim that one is a prediction of the other.

When we talk about genetic similarity being a logical consequence, and thus prediction, of modern evolutionary theory we don’t just mean “Well it seems subjectively reasonable to me personally to connect the two”. We mean that genetic similarity is logically a necessary requirement of the theory and that it’s absence would cast serious doubt on the correctness of that theory (i.e. falsify it to some extent)

Similarly - In order to claim that the existence of “principles” are a necessary logical consequence, and thus prediction, of a designer you need to be able to demonstrate that “principles” are a necessary consequence of a designer and that an absence of such principles would equate to an absence of a designer.

Can you do this?

GDR writes:

That's funny, I couldn't convince Bluegenes either.

Well that bluegenes fellow is an eminently sensible chap who, like me, is able to distinguish between genuine predictions and subjectively derived cause and effect connections with no real evidential basis.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by GDR, posted 08-22-2012 7:46 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 08-24-2012 10:56 AM Straggler has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 145 of 167 (671301)
08-24-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taq
08-22-2012 3:13 PM


Re: universal principles
What science should do is follow the evidence.

I agree with this to a point. The project I am working on for my senior thesis involves an invasive species glossy buckthorn, Frangula ulnus, that has invaded a local calcareous fen. I have done several research projects in that area involving glossy buckthorn and the fen environment and during this time I observed a large area of buckthorn that had died for no apparent reason. Not once have I considered the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation for this die-off. I have been investigating it and have made several hypotheses that turned out to be wrong, so I developed a new hypothesis and moved on. I have now found a pathogenic fungus that has the potential of being host specific and could possibly be used as a biological weapon against this invasive species. (But that remains to be seen)

This is an example of "following the evidence". If I had hypothesized that a supernatural force caused this buckthorn stand to die, that would be "jumping the gun" and could easily be disproven by someone demonstrating that it was actually a fungus that caused the demise. Then I could hypothesize that God caused the fungus to grow in order to kill the buckthorn. This is where Occam's razor comes in. Since we know that the spores of this particular fungus can be transported by the wind or carried by insects, there is no need to speculate about a supernatural cause. We can never know for absolute certainty that the fungus actually DID come to infect this particular stand by either wind, insects or some other natural means; it COULD have been caused supernaturally, but there is really no reason to suggest that it was.

Unfortunately, this is how most ID proponents and creationists approach the issue, they come to a place in science that can't be known with absolute certainty (or at least they don't think so at the time) and then stick in "God did it." (or another approach is that they just deny evidence and facts) I can understand your rallying against such an approach and indeed, I too am critical of such an approach.

My issue is with something different. My problem is with the philosophical worldview of naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and was and ever will be. Everyone brings a worldview (a system of beliefs) to this debate about origins. It is a starting point for your understanding of the universe. You may be able to modify and adjust your worldview, but no one comes to this debate neutral.

So, let me propose a hypothesis based upon my worldview.

"Everything in this universe ultimately owes its existence to a divine creator."

Notice I say nothing about HOW everything came to be, only what the ultimate first cause was.

Now, in order for you to disprove this hypothesis outright, you would need to show that everything has a natural cause. Not possible.

Now, let's apply Occam's razor. My hypothesis makes an additional assumption, that a divine creator exists, that the current theory does not , so it would seem that it fails Occam's razor. (actually I would say the current theory makes an assumption that nature is all there is, so there really is not an additional assumption)

But does my theory have more explanatory power than the current theory? Well, it includes or allows all of the current theory, so it is equal in that regard. In addition, it has the power to explain the origin of the singularity and what existed before the singularity. It can explain why the universe is so extremely ordered and why there are principals that govern its day-to-day operation. It explains the fine tuning that we observe in natural phenomenon.

So, it would seem to me that my hypothesis passes the first test and is, in fact, a valid hypothesis.

Now, in order for me to gain support for my hypothesis and have it accepted as a scientific theory, I need to make valid predictions and support those predictions with evidence.

Uhmmm ???? ahhh??? let's see .... a little help here ....

This is the point of this thread! Not whether it is a valid question to ask in the first place. If you approach this with the view that "nature is all there is, and was and ever will be," then of course you will see it as an invalid hypothesis. I believe GDR said that the premise of this tread assumed the existence of a designer. Well, that is not exactly correct. It assumes a worldview that nature is NOT all there is!

Science does have the tools to explain our origin and the origin of the universe.

No it does not. Science can only go so far. It has limits. And those limits are imposed, in part, by the worldview we bring to the discussion. Excluding the divine from the discussion excludes a whole realm of possible explanations while providing no additional information. On the other hand, imposing the divine at every sticky spot also limits our possible explanations and could prevent us from discovering important solutions to problems. A true case of allowing the evidence to lead us must include the possibility of a divine creator, otherwise we are limiting where the evidence can actually lead us. If your view is that "nature is all there is" then that is the only place that the evidence can lead you.

The only problem is that some people are afraid that the answer will differ from the one they want.

I agree. But it goes both ways.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 3:13 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 08-24-2012 11:39 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:00 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 146 of 167 (671304)
08-24-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
08-22-2012 11:51 AM


Re: universal principles
So far no-one has put forward any predictions that can be made from ID

Not true. Genomicus has done some good work on this. See Message 23 where he refers to Nature's Engines and Engineering, also Message 96 where he refers to Deep Homology and Front-loading and, while not actually a prediction as such, see Message 81.

So I am left asking on what basis, other than human belief in such things, a designer is being postulated here at all?

Why should we consider this designer or give it any more credence than any other baselessly conceived of entity?

See my response to taq in Message 145

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 11:51 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 147 of 167 (671308)
08-24-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
08-22-2012 5:38 PM


Re: universal principles
If we look around us and see these "principles" and then we assume that there is a designer and also assume that this designer will incorporate these "principles" in his design - It is hardly surprising that this exercise in circularity will result in the conclusion that there is a designer who incorporates the observed "principles" in his design.

Can you explain the existence of these principals using the current theory?

But how anyone can think this is a valid exercise in logic or even evidence based reasoning I don't know......

For my discussion on this idea see Message 126

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 5:38 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:31 PM herebedragons has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 148 of 167 (671321)
08-24-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
08-24-2012 8:13 AM


Re: universal principles
Straggler writes:

You can’t meaningfully take the facts, take your preferred explanation, marry the two together on the basis it seems subjectively reasonable to you to do so and then claim that one is a prediction of the other.

I'm not starting with the facts. I'm simply saying that if we start with the acceptance that there is an intelligent first cause, that we should then, as a theory, expect order and principles in our science.

Straggler writes:

Similarly - In order to claim that the existence of “principles” are a necessary logical consequence, and thus prediction, of a designer you need to be able to demonstrate that “principles” are a necessary consequence of a designer and that an absence of such principles would equate to an absence of a designer.

I don't have to demonstrate anything as I am only suggesting that we should expect principles and order when we start with the theory that there is an intelligent first cause, based on our own human experience of design. I am not saying that they are the "necessary consequence of a designer" nor am I saying that the "absence of such principles would equate to the absence of a designer". I'm just saying that it is a reasonable expectation.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 8:13 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2012 11:29 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 1:14 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 149 of 167 (671326)
08-24-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
08-24-2012 10:56 AM


Re: universal principles
I'm simply saying that if we start with the acceptance that there is an intelligent first cause, that we should then, as a theory, expect order and principles in our science.

Could not an intelligent first cause create a disordered universe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 08-24-2012 10:56 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 150 of 167 (671328)
08-24-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by herebedragons
08-24-2012 9:46 AM


Re: universal principles
My issue is with something different. My problem is with the philosophical worldview of naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and was and ever will be. Everyone brings a worldview (a system of beliefs) to this debate about origins. It is a starting point for your understanding of the universe. You may be able to modify and adjust your worldview, but no one comes to this debate neutral.

I really don't see this as a hurdle for ID or for assessing the supernatural and its effects on the natural world. For all intents and purposes, we can drop naturalism from science. What science uses is empiricism. If the supernatural has effects on the natural world then we can detect it through empiricism. There is nothing in the scientific method that precludes the supernatural.

It would appear that ID supporters have a vested interest in keeping science away from the supernatural. Once you bring in science then beliefs are suddenly put to the test. They can't have that. In so many ways, the supernatural is nothing more than a set of dogmatic beliefs. It is a collection of claims that no one wants challenged.

So, let me propose a hypothesis based upon my worldview.

"Everything in this universe ultimately owes its existence to a divine creator."

What evidence led you to form this hypothesis?

But does my theory have more explanatory power than the current theory? Well, it includes or allows all of the current theory, so it is equal in that regard. In addition, it has the power to explain the origin of the singularity and what existed before the singularity. It can explain why the universe is so extremely ordered and why there are principals that govern its day-to-day operation. It explains the fine tuning that we observe in natural phenomenon.

So what experiments do we construct to test this hypothesis? How do we determine if it is true?

Now, in order for me to gain support for my hypothesis and have it accepted as a scientific theory, I need to make valid predictions and support those predictions with evidence.

Uhmmm ???? ahhh??? let's see .... a little help here ....

This is the point of this thread! Not whether it is a valid question to ask in the first place. If you approach this with the view that "nature is all there is, and was and ever will be," then of course you will see it as an invalid hypothesis. I believe GDR said that the premise of this tread assumed the existence of a designer. Well, that is not exactly correct. It assumes a worldview that nature is NOT all there is!

The point is that good explanations produce testable predictions. Beliefs in the supernatural as described by ID supporters do not produce testable predictions. They are not good explanations. They are very poor explanations. Frankly, we are better off with "I don't know" as an explanation than "some supernatural deity did it somehow in some way that no one will ever describe".

History bears this out as well. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg, at one time nature could not be explained without nymphs, dryads, and fairies. With the advent of science we quickly learned that the supernatural was not controlling the world around us. Instead, there were mindless mechanisms ticking away that were not magical. We found out that lightning is not produced by Thor, fermentation is not produced by Bacchus, and no god is producing clouds. Now we are told that there is still supernatural magic going on, and once again it exists where we are most ignorant of reality. Namely, gods can now be found at the singularity that birthed our universe. Gods are always just beyond the horizon of our knowledge, at least that is what we are told, and yet every time we crest that next ridge obscuring our vision we don't find any gods. We keep finding mindless mehcanisms ticking away that really don't care about us or anything for that matter. So why should we expect to find gods in that singularity when that explanation has failed so spectacularly in the past?

No it does not. Science can only go so far. It has limits.

Yes, science is limited by what is real. Science can not support theories that are not true or made up. I don't see that as a problem, but I can see why some ID supporters would have a problem with it. We use science because it does have limits. It is the limits that make it useful. If not for those limits then every explanation would be true, no matter what that statement was. We would be awash in solipsisms and post-modernism, none of which are useful.

If we throw those limits out then how can we ever determine if something is true or false?

Excluding the divine from the discussion excludes a whole realm of possible explanations while providing no additional information.

That is not what is happening. We are not including fantasies and unevidenced claims. Why should we? It is not the fault of science that theists are unable to evidence their claims. That is a failure of theism, not science.

I agree. But it goes both ways.

Given the lack of research amongst ID supporters I would say that it doesn't go both ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 9:46 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017