Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 9:00 PM
391 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,141 Year: 9,747/21,208 Month: 2,834/2,674 Week: 258/961 Day: 122/136 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
212223Next
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 286 of 337 (665004)
06-07-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 11:56 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Allow me to elaborate. The modern synthesis might be able to explain some biological feature, while an ID hypothesis would predict that biological feature. If the prediction is confirmed, this is evidence for that ID hypothesis, regardless of whether non-telic evolution can explain it or not. Science is built upon a track record of successful predictions, not on whether some alternative model can explain the feature under consideration.

Consider the following example. Evolution predicts that if the bacterial flagellum evolved, a number of its components will share similarity with proteins that are more ancient than the bacterial flagellum. Can the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered explain this? Yes. Engineers very often re-use parts in different systems. But the ID hypothesis does not predict that the flagellar components will share similarity with more ancient proteins. This is because engineers can also design from scratch. So, while ID can explain this, it does not predict it. Which means that, when it comes to similarity, evolution is the superior explanation (note that the similarity flagellar components share with other proteins is not incompatible with the hypothesis that it was engineered).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 11:56 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:27 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 293 by Drosophilla, posted 06-07-2012 8:20 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 287 of 337 (665005)
06-07-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2012 12:15 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
If evolution can explain something happening, it also predicts that it can happen. If it can happen under an evolutionary hypothesis, then it is not unique to an ID hypothesis.

See my response to this (I wrote the response before I saw this comment of yours, so read in context).

What you just said is just as philosophically sound as saying that "since the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered can explain the similarity flagellar proteins share with other non-flagellar proteins, this means that the engineering hypothesis predicts that flagellar proteins share will share with other non-flagellar proteins."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:15 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:40 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15749
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 288 of 337 (665006)
06-07-2012 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 12:18 AM


ID Predictions
But it would be difficult to find such predictions. IDists generally refuse to identify either what the Designer's goals were or what constraints existed on Him attaining them --- besides affirming that he wanted organisms and had the power to produce them.

You could refine the hypothesis by supposing that (for example) he wanted giraffes in particular, and had the power to produce those, and then giraffes would be a necessary consequence of the hypothesis, but this would seem a little ad hoc would it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:18 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:31 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 289 of 337 (665007)
06-07-2012 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2012 12:27 AM


Re: ID Predictions
Let's focus on one thing at a time Dr Adequate, if you don't mind (not at all trying to evade your point, just trying to prevent us from going 'round and 'round in circles ).

Do you agree that if an ID hypothesis necessarily predicts biological feature X, while evolutionary theory only explains it, then confirmation of that prediction is a chunk of data in favor of the ID hypothesis?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:44 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15749
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 290 of 337 (665009)
06-07-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 12:21 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
What you just said is just as philosophically sound as saying that "since the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered can explain the similarity flagellar proteins share with other non-flagellar proteins, this means that the engineering hypothesis predicts that flagellar proteins share will share with other non-flagellar proteins."

Well, it would depend on what the theory IDists have yet to produce would actually do. If it was predictive in the same sort of way as evolution, but they differed in the areas in which they were more specific, then the specificity of one in one area would not actually give it the upper hand over the other.

Perhaps this discussion should wait until IDists have a hypothesis with any predictive power at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:21 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15749
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 291 of 337 (665010)
06-07-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 12:31 AM


Re: ID Predictions
Do you agree that if an ID hypothesis necessarily predicts biological feature X, while evolutionary theory only explains it, then confirmation of that prediction is a chunk of data in favor of the ID hypothesis?

Well, that would depend. Take my example of a Designer who is really keen on giraffes. This would predict giraffes, whereas evolution would only explain them. Nonetheless, this isn't really evidence in favor of the hypothesis of a giraffophile Designer.

If you could predict giraffes without recourse to adhoccery, then that would be a point in favor of ID, I'll grant you that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:31 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 10:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9431
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 292 of 337 (665011)
06-07-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 10:38 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Jar specifically asked me to cite papers wherein we would infer design regardless of the fact that (a) we don't know how the object was designed, and (b) we don't have the lab, and (c) we don't have the designer.

Your example does not work because the method for inferring the design is presented as an assumption. By including a naked assumption that we can tell remotely whether a transit of a star is by an artificial planet, you simply kicked the can done the street. Do you have any idea how we would tell a designed transit from a natural one?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:38 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 10:31 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1021 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 293 of 337 (665023)
06-07-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 12:18 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Hello Genomicus

Can the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered explain this? Yes. Engineers very often re-use parts in different systems.

But to the best of my knowledge, designers (human ones at least) don't re-use parts in dangerous configurations. Which fool decided that we should have a food pipe and a breathing pipe so connected to allow a choking option. Why do we have monstrosities like the recurrent laryngeal nerve which is an engineering disgrace. And why do cephlapods get a much better deal in the wiring up of their eyes than we do?

A human designer will always take the best he has from not only his product lines but other ones - antilock braking systems first appeared on aircraft but didn't stay confined to them!

A human designer who put together Earth's ecosystem would easily lose his licence for engineering stupidity. I fail to see how the Earth's ecosystem provides a support for ID in any way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:18 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 10:28 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 294 of 337 (665032)
06-07-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2012 12:44 AM


Re: ID Predictions
Well, that would depend. Take my example of a Designer who is really keen on giraffes. This would predict giraffes, whereas evolution would only explain them. Nonetheless, this isn't really evidence in favor of the hypothesis of a giraffophile Designer.

Well, such a hypothesis of a designer (why on earth do you capitalize designer?) who is keen on giraffe's would have been inspired by the existence of giraffes, so you couldn't predict the existence of giraffes precisely because they already exist. Now, if we were living on Mars, instead of on Earth, and using teleology (I don't know how this would work) we predicted that giraffe-like animals would be found on earth, and we found that this was indeed the case, it would be evidence for the telic hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2012 2:20 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 295 of 337 (665033)
06-07-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Drosophilla
06-07-2012 8:20 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
But to the best of my knowledge, designers (human ones at least) don't re-use parts in dangerous configurations. Which fool decided that we should have a food pipe and a breathing pipe so connected to allow a choking option.

I'm a proponent of the ID hypothesis of front-loading, wherein eukaryotes, Metazoa, plants, and other "higher" taxa were front-loaded from genomes that were engineered and delivered to earth via directed panspermia. So I don't think humans were specifically engineered.

The bacterial flagellum is a different case because (a) it is found in basal bacterial lineages, which means it could have been present in the LUCA, and therefore directly engineered, and (b) I don't think you're going to find the molecular equivalent of the backward wiring of the eye in the core flagellar structure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Drosophilla, posted 06-07-2012 8:20 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Theodoric, posted 06-07-2012 10:49 AM Genomicus has not yet responded
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 06-07-2012 2:11 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 296 of 337 (665034)
06-07-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by NoNukes
06-07-2012 12:53 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Your example does not work because the method for inferring the design is presented as an assumption. By including a naked assumption that we can tell remotely whether a transit of a star is by an artificial planet, you simply kicked the can done the street. Do you have any idea how we would tell a designed transit from a natural one?

The paper describes a method whereby we could identify the shape of an orbiting body by its lightcurve signature. So, if we find that an orbiting body has an exotic shape (something not likely produced by gravity), we could reliably infer design - unless the author of this paper and many other scientists are wrong about inferring design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2012 12:53 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2012 1:32 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 297 of 337 (665035)
06-07-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:55 PM


Summary
Do we, or do we not need the lab where the orbiting body was constructed before reliably inferring design?

We do not need the physical and specific lab. I already said that above.

But we do need to be able to describe (even if we cannot currently duplicate) the way that the signal could be generated.

The generic idea of "Intelligent Design" is not new. Almost every culture has some myths about how humans and the other animals were created by some other entity.

The modern "Intelligent Design" though is just another attempt by the Creationists to get around the laws in the US.

It is presenting the desired conclusion and then looking for evidence that supports the desired conclusion and excluding all evidence that refutes the desired conclusion.

Let's look at design as we see it in human societies.

As I pointed out back over a half decade ago in Message 8 of the thread INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach, when we look at life from an engineering perspective there is no Intellegent Design.

quote:
Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.

The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.

In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

The list is almost endless.


  • electric wipers instead of vacuum.
  • internal combustion engines.
  • radial tires.
  • heaters.
  • air conditioning.
  • roll down windows.
  • headlights.
  • mirrors.
  • steering wheels.
  • tops.
  • spare tires.
  • space saver spares.
  • starters.
  • the change from generator to alternator.

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.

In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.


When this subject comes up we often get responses such as "What if SETI gets a signal that includes the first 500 Prime Numbers"; but the reality is that SETI has not received any such signal.

If and when the ID proponents produce some evidence comparable to such a signal, then, and only then, should other groups bother to try and research, duplicate and confirm the findings.

There is more though.

One thing mentioned in this thread was "front loaded genomes".

That wasn't really explained and no evidence was presented that "front loaded genomes" exist, but it really doesn't much matter.

Even if there was a designer, other than as a historical footnote or for product liability would it matter. See Even if there was a Designer, does it matter? for a detailed discussion.

For life as we find it today we have a pretty good handle on how evolution works; we have the model. It's nice to know who first designed tail fins or who first designed the bikini, but only as a bit of trivia.

It would be nice to know who the designer was if we could initiate product liability suits. Looking at life today that alone could keep an infinite number of lawyers occupied and out of the way.

But so far all that has come out of the ID marketers has been incredulity and down right silly assertions such as "complexity is a sign of design" when every designer knows that simplicity is a better indicator of design.

Now if the ID marketers were willing to change the name to Inept Design, Incomprehensible Design, Incompetent Design, Inexpert Design or Inefficient Design then I think they would have a very high probability of success.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:55 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 11:09 AM jar has responded
 Message 302 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 11:23 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5751
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 298 of 337 (665036)
06-07-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 10:28 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
I'm a proponent of the ID hypothesis of front-loading, wherein eukaryotes, Metazoa, plants, and other "higher" taxa were front-loaded from genomes that were engineered and delivered to earth via directed panspermia.

And you have as much evidence for this as there is for biblical creation, correct?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 10:28 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 299 of 337 (665037)
06-07-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by jar
06-07-2012 10:39 AM


Re: Summary
We do not need the physical and specific lab. I already said that above.

Yes, and you also said:

"I assume that you have evidence of the lab?"

So, we need evidence of the lab, no?

You also said:

And "Yes, SETI will have to have the lab or at least the location of the lab that generated the signal."

So, yourself said that SETI would have to have the lab, or at least the location of the lab that generated this hypothetical signal.

Next, you said:

Of course you need to know how it was done.

And now you're saying we need a way how the signal could have been generated, and not how it was generated. There is a difference ya know. One has to do with possibility of how it was generated, the other has to do with the historical fact of how it actually was generated. So which one do we have to know to infer design? Specifically, why are you saying something that is contrary to what you said before?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by jar, posted 06-07-2012 10:39 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 06-07-2012 11:23 AM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 300 of 337 (665038)
06-07-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Coyote
06-06-2012 8:50 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID...
Hello Coyote,

You will note that I do not at all agree with teaching ID in schools, precisely because it is not a rigorously developed hypothesis - not yet.

Further, ID doesn't imply that the supernatural even exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2012 8:50 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
212223Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017