Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
108 online now:
dwise1, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (3 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,206 Year: 6,318/6,534 Month: 511/650 Week: 49/232 Day: 26/23 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 264 (544613)
01-27-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Blue Jay
01-27-2010 1:44 PM


Re: Teleology
Straggler writes:

How can evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative not be considered evidence against intelligent design?

How are evolution and ID mutually exclusive?

In general, I don't think they are. But specific aspects of some designers are mutually exclusive. The problem arrises when you mistake a part for the whole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2010 1:44 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6038
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 77 of 264 (544630)
01-27-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by deerbreh
01-22-2010 11:45 AM


Consciousness was not designed
I propose a discussion on the question,
"What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design?"

All of biology is evidence against ID. No self respecting designer would design things that way.

To be specific, I find it extremely implausible that consciousness could have been designed. The wannabe designer of today - the roboticists and AI researchers, haven't a clue as to how to design consciousness, and most of them will admit that they cannot see any purpose for designing consciousness into a robot. It seems likely that consciousness could only have arisen through evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by deerbreh, posted 01-22-2010 11:45 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 264 (544638)
01-27-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
01-27-2010 1:37 PM


Re: Teleology
If the design argument was that things were designed exactly as they are and cannot change over time, you would have a point.

No.

If the design argument is that certain complicated things have only one possible explanation and someone comes up with another one, that undermines the design argument.

If someone has evidence that shows that the alternative explanation is consistent and coherent with all the facts and predicts new facts succesfully, this undermines the design argument.

If someone dreams up an unfalsifiable design argument - then clearly there is no evidence that can falsify it. And I'm not attempting to demonstrate that all possible constructions of teleology have been falsified. Only that there is evidence that seriously undermines the argument to the point that only unfalsifiable variants have any legs at all.

But, that is not the model that most IDists support

Of course not, IDists support a falsified variant and they have no legs at all.

Perhaps IDists used to think that that was the case, but virtually none do anymore.

IDists never existed until the last twenty years. Teleologists may have thought that life was static, but even the ancient Greek teleologists had a concept of a 'great chain of being' suggesting some possible change.

the only evidence here is evidence that supports evolution, not evidence that refutes ID.

ID's whole position boils down to 'evolution can't explain x'. So pointing out that it can serves to falsify it quite nicely.

Teleology, in general, is strongly worded as 'feature x can only be explained by a designing agent'. Showing that feature x can be explained in another fashion serves to weaken the argument to 'feature x can be explained by a designing agent or explanation y'.

Further, collecting evidence for explanation y leaves the teleologist to give up or to word it as 'feature x can be explained by a designing agent for which there is no supporting evidence, explanation y for which there is supporting evidence or explanation z for which there is no evidence'. Which boils down the argument:

quote:
The complexity of the eye can be explained by evolution or something else.

If that isn't the epitome of a destroyed argument: one where the original argument has essentially vanished, I don't know what is.

We can only really refute ID by heuristic.

By heuristic? Why not just systematically show all of its claims false?

Remember, I'm differentiating ID and teleology here. I agree that we can't refute an unfalsifiable teleological idea, and I go further to say that there is no need to bother.

ID - being a religio-political movement using false arguments, occasional lies, misrepresentations and so on, is generally easily refuted. I say generally because it also engages in obfuscation and misinformation which can make a refutation less clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2010 1:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 10:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2962 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 79 of 264 (544642)
01-27-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
01-27-2010 10:52 AM


Re: Teleology
No amount of observations of complicated things coming from natural processes will ever prove that complicated things never came from non-natural processes.

Of course not. But this isn't the point being advanced by Mod. ID does not say that an agent may have been involved in the evolution of life - this is really the basis of theistic evolution. ID states that life is too complex to have developed solely by evolution and that the interaction of an agent is *necessary*. Every evololutionary pathway discovered and understood is yet another nail in the coffin of ID. Every time an IDer presents the smoking-gun evidence of a structure inexplicable by evolution, the possible evolutionary pathways are examined and demonstrated plausible - and ID dies another death.

It is true that all it takes is one example of a structure that cannot possibly have evolved, and ID has won. But we are esentially at the point where the only possible such structures would be of the form "(c) Yhwh 4150 BC" etched into our DNA...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2010 10:52 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Iblis, posted 01-27-2010 10:57 PM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 264 (544700)
01-27-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by greyseal
01-27-2010 12:37 AM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
Hi greyseal (and Bluejay)

No, the point is that because you can't prove it, you should not assume it is true.

And I'm not saying you have to, as there is a large grey area called I-don't-know. Places where people with interest in the question can pursue it, and others can let it slide until more evidence comes along.

true, but (and here's the rub) I can spend my time conjuring phantasms and contemplating the colour of the invisible unicorns (pink is the current trend), the noodlyness of invisible appendages, the precise orbit for optimum invisibility of orbiting teapots - OR I can consider these ideas and give them the brief airing they require (no proof FOR or AGAINST? okay - possible but has zero impact) and then go back to studying the facts.

And you are missing the point. You have already done this.

The point remains that you just cannot claim that there is biological evidence against a hypothetical ID, based on what you see from evolution, and then say that certain ID concepts cannot be considered as a counter argument.

If you want to argue against neutered straw men, then have fun playing with dolls.

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 65 by greyseal, posted 01-27-2010 12:37 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by greyseal, posted 01-28-2010 9:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 264 (544704)
01-27-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by deerbreh
01-26-2010 3:55 PM


redirected OP
Hi deerbreh, sorry if I find little point in this thread.

I am going to try to redirect a bit if I might.

First of all, I did not intend to try to DISPROVE anything. What I asked for in the OP was biological evidence against ID. You CAN have biological evidence against special creation and ID (really one and the same) without having the burden of disproof.

You can have evidence against specific claims, such as WWFlood, Young Earth, Irreducible Complexity, etc. and these can show such claims to be illogical and invalidated concepts. The principle of falsification can be applied to scientific concepts to disprove false ones.

Just as we can have lots of biological evidence that supports evolution, yet evolutionary biologists, like all scientists avoid using the term proof.

Because we know that we can never cover all the bases, see all the evidence, so all we can say is that evidence to date shows that evolution is the best explanation we know for the diversity of life as we know it.

The only other alternative is to conjure up a trickster God - one who "plants evidence". The only Intelligent Designer that makes any sense is the one who is either incredibly inept or a cynic who likes to play tricks on people just for amusement.

Or one that is (a) not concerned with the results on earth, or (b) letting things run their course to see what occurs, or .... etc etc etc

Again, you are assuming a lot of self importance about humans that isn't necessarily justified.

The ID proponents have created the argument.

But are you understanding the argument and treating it fairly?

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 54 by deerbreh, posted 01-26-2010 3:55 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 01-28-2010 1:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3214 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 82 of 264 (544709)
01-27-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by cavediver
01-27-2010 5:27 PM


Re: Teleology
But we are esentially at the point where the only possible such structures would be of the form "(c) Yhwh 4150 BC" etched into our DNA...

I've seen attempts at this, basically revolving around the 4-Letter Word there and the fact that DNA has its own four letters, adenine guanine cytosine and thymine. The idea is presented that all of biology is a variation on those 4 letters, along the same lines as all of reality is brought into formation through the various permutations of the tetragrammaton in Sepher Yetzirah.

The real problem here is that DNA has 4 separate letters, whereas the Shem only has 3, one of which is used two different ways. At this point they try to drag uracil in as the variant, but the jig is already up. The signature in the cell is obviously some ancient entity with a 5 letter name, two of which are different pronunciations of the same actual character.

Hmm, wonder who that could be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2010 5:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 83 of 264 (544768)
01-28-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
01-27-2010 10:31 PM


No, I think I get it
No, the point is that because you can't prove it, you should not assume it is true.

And I'm not saying you have to, as there is a large grey area called I-don't-know. Places where people with interest in the question can pursue it, and others can let it slide until more evidence comes along.

It's not that I don't think people should wonder about our origins, and it's not that I don't think you have a valid hypothesis - you do - it's just that IMHO your hypothesis as it appears to be is a tautology and can never be falsified and never proven.

I agree (really, I get it, and I agree) that in a sample set of 1, it's entirely possible that everything we see is a product of a god or gods (I'm going to discount panspermia because that's natural, and "directed panspermia" because it's not "design", and nothing less than a being or beings powerful enough to be called gods could interfere in the magnitude you suggest and yet still remain invisible) BUT I think spending five minutes on it as an idea is more than enough to conclude that, whilst valid, it can never tell us anything.

I think you don't understand MY replies, at this point - yes you're a ZEN deist, I get that to, but your ID is as scientific as the question "what's the sound of one hand clapping".

My objection is that it's not what "ID" proponents think of as ID - their version of ID is as crazy and baseless as their idea of Noah's Ark and just as easy to falsify. I'm sorry that the ID as envisaged by ID proponents is a straw man, don't blame me, seriously!

The point remains that you just cannot claim that there is biological evidence against a hypothetical ID, based on what you see from evolution, and then say that certain ID concepts cannot be considered as a counter argument.

Even when the counter argument is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "lalalalaaa I can't hear you"?

There's no argument against the position that every fact that ever was, is or will be discovered could be manipulated by a supremely powerful deity to hide the fact of it's existence in a perfect manner, or are you denying that your argument is non-falsifiable?

Is it customary to debate something which is non-debatable? I may as well demand a yes/no answer to "are you still beating your wife?".

The thing is, I get it. I get your point. Sample set of 1. No proof there is no designer (no matter how disinterested). Fine. Great. Can I get back to something that makes a difference now?

Personally, I would be very, very glad if those IDiots over at CSI would believe in a designer like you posit, so that they could spend an eternity contemplating such a powerful entity and stop bugging scientists with their hair-brained ideas about special creation and a 6000 year old flat earth.

If you want to argue against neutered straw men, then have fun playing with dolls.

I'd rather play with dolls than have an imaginary friend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 10:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2017 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 84 of 264 (544773)
01-28-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
01-27-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Teleology
Hi, Modulous.

Modulous writes:

Further, collecting evidence for explanation y leaves the teleologist to give up or to word it as 'feature x can be explained by a designing agent for which there is no supporting evidence, explanation y for which there is supporting evidence or explanation z for which there is no evidence'.

My complaint here is that, even if design were correct, I can’t think of anything that could objectively be considered evidence fordesign without making some sort of presupposition about the methodology, goals, nature and/or psyche of the designer, and thus, ruling out some possible designers by default. IDists think “complexity” has something to do with it, but quantifying “complexity” is tricky, and drawing lines between design and non-design is impossible, even for things that we know are designed.

So, even if design were correct in some way, what evidence would there be? Inevitably, people, such as you, will point out all the positive evidence for evolution, but this only rules out some designer templates, and leaves others untouched. The lack of specificity about the designer prevents us from arguing against the concept, and only allows us to argue against certain templates.

And, also, you’re restricting your arguments to “feature x,” which can work on a local scale for things like mollusc eyes, whose plausible evolutionary sequence we can see in living organisms. However, this argument can only be applied to other features---such as insect wings (which are still unexplained)---by inferential heuristic.

I don’t have a problem with using this methodology. But, I do have a problem with calling it “evidence.”


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2010 4:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2010 12:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 264 (544789)
01-28-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Blue Jay
01-28-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Teleology
My complaint here is that, even if design were correct, I can’t think of anything that could objectively be considered evidence fordesign without making some sort of presupposition about the methodology, goals, nature and/or psyche of the designer, and thus, ruling out some possible designers by default.

What's the complaint? If you want to reasonably discuss whether a hypothesis is true it surely needs to be verifiable and falsifiable even if only in principle. That means details and specifics are required. The more vague your idea, the less it can be talked about.

This seems to be perfectly in line with what I was saying, so please - what's the complaint?

IDists think “complexity” has something to do with it, but quantifying “complexity” is tricky, and drawing lines between design and non-design is impossible, even for things that we know are designed.

Hence why ID is dead. It claims to be able to do something we know it can't!

So, even if design were correct in some way, what evidence would there be? Inevitably, people, such as you, will point out all the positive evidence for evolution, but this only rules out some designer templates, and leaves others untouched

Indeed. It also rules out some pink unicorn templates, and leaves others untouched. It leaves billions of hypothesis untouched indeed. I am not going to try to refute

a) a non-specified hypothesis.
b) an unfalsifiable one.

Now - there is one family of design hypothesis which we can talk about. They are the ones we normally mean when we talk about 'design arguments' which all go along the lines of "it's too complicated to happen without direction, therefore it is directed". My argument is that we can destroy the necessity part of this argument (undermining it in general) by showing that the premise 'it's too complicated to happen without direction' is false.

If you want to discuss another design hypothesis, let me know what it is.

So, even if design were correct in some way, what evidence would there be?

If the designer was an alien - the remains of that alien, and a ruined bio-lab that dates back to 3.8 billion years ago, with blueprints of proto life on earth including stored DNA etc etc.

It kind of depends on what your theory actually is.

And, also, you’re restricting your arguments to “feature x,” which can work on a local scale for things like mollusc eyes, whose plausible evolutionary sequence we can see in living organisms. However, this argument can only be applied to other features---such as insect wings (which are still unexplained)---by inferential heuristic.

I cannot make a universal claim about 'mollusc eyes' without using induction or examining all possible molluscs. I infer, from the evidence, using induction that all mollusc eyes can be generally explained in terms of the comparatively small number of such eyes that have been examined and documented.

I have no idea what your 'inferential heuristic' is meant to be. I can show that the argument 'complex things in general can only be explained by design' is false. And that if you want to propose some feature (insect wings or flaggela, or blood clotting or whatever) is designed you cannot rely on 'complex things mean design' as a reasoning process since it is not true. This means the burden of proof is very much on the person claiming that x feature (general or specific) must have come about by design. And since nobody has yet met that burden of proof it can be ignored as much as any other claim that has no proof.

I don’t have a problem with using this methodology. But, I do have a problem with calling it “evidence.”

That complex things can be explained using natural unthinking rules, is evidence against the proposition that complex things require a thinking possibly supernatural entity to explain them.

Agreed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 10:11 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 1:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 264 (544797)
01-28-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Blue Jay
01-27-2010 1:44 PM


Disproof and Refutation
How are evolution and ID mutually exclusive?

Obviously biological evidence (the topic of this thread) cannot refute a designer that has no role in biology. As you well know I would argue that the body of empirical knowledge humanity has amassed as a whole would strongly support the unlikelihood of a supernatural designer having any role to play in explaining any aspect of nature. But that is a wider argument that we are not having here. Let's just stick to biological evidence and what this says about the role of an undetectable designer in the biological process.

Taking evolutionary biology as our example we can consider the claim being made here that unless something has been disproven it remains unrefuted.

You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.

Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.

So I ask you – Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?

The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.

Frankly it is a stupid argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2010 1:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 3:51 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 264 (544799)
01-28-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2010 2:00 PM


Re: Mutually Exclusive? Irrefutable ID Vs The Evidenced Naturalistic Alternative?
Who knows... It could have set up the process, itself. It could control the environment to drive selection. It could cause a particular mutation (thereby making it non-random but we wouldn't know and our random theory would still hold). It could be actively controlling everything whilst maintaining the evolution appearance. Or Omphalism. How ridiculous do you want to take this?

I want you to consider why you think some wholly unevidenced designers as reasonable whilst condemning others as "ridiculous". Despite them being evidentially identical.

You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.

Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.

So I ask you – Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?

The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.

Frankly it is a fucking stupid argument.

Take the nylon eating bacteria for example; can't we make the mutation rise and fall with the selective pressure and doesn't that mean that the designer would have to be there causing the mutation every time the experiment is performed, and wouldn't that be ridiculous enough to disbelieve?

Why is it any more ridiculous than any other supernatural intervention? Who decides what is ridiculous and what is not? What objective criteria do we apply to determine "ridiculousness"?

Maybe its a terminology issue, but I think that you are ruling them out. Not comparing actual likelihoods.

Well you are wrong. I can only say that I don't believe in evidential certainty so many times. Here is my favourite quote (yet again):

Berrtrand Russel - "To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

We know the nylon eating bacteria's mutation arises randomly so we can rule out a designer actively controlling it, its not a matter of it being less likely to be true.

How can you know this with absolute certainty? How can you completely rule it out? You haven't disproved it! You have found a highly evidenced mutually exclusive and superior alternative. But that isn't disproof. It seems that is you and not me who is the actual pseudoskeptic here.

I would say this possibility was desperately unlikely to the point of uterly irrelevant. But in a philsophical sense I would still say it was a possibility. Defacto atheist. 6 on the Dawkins scale. But not a pseudoskeptic.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 2:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2017 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 88 of 264 (544800)
01-28-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
01-28-2010 12:42 PM


Re: Teleology
Hi, Modulous.

Modulous writes:

Now - there is one family of design hypothesis which we can talk about.

I agree.

-----

Modulous writes:

If you want to discuss another design hypothesis, let me know what it is.

This is kind of the point of my argument: ID is not a single hypothesis. You can't list evidences against a specific hypothesis and claim that it refutes the principle behind a whole suite of related hypotheses.

That's the only point I have.

-----

Modulous writes:

I have no idea what your 'inferential heuristic' is meant to be.

A heuristic that governs how one makes inferences.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2010 12:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 01-28-2010 1:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2010 4:41 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 264 (544801)
01-28-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
01-27-2010 10:44 PM


Falsification and Gaps
The principle of falsification can be applied to scientific concepts to disprove false ones.

Your relentless insistence that we falsify unfalisifiable claims before considering them to be refuted to all practical intents and purposes is flawed.

You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.

Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.

So I ask you – Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?

The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.

Frankly it is a fucking stupid argument.

Or one that is (a) not concerned with the results on earth, or (b) letting things run their course to see what occurs, or .... etc etc etc

Nothing but a retreat into the gaps.

But are you understanding the argument and treating it fairly?

Do you consider the deity of the gaps argument to be evidentially and logically sound?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 264 (544808)
01-28-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Blue Jay
01-28-2010 1:37 PM


Re: Teleology
This is kind of the point of my argument: ID is not a single hypothesis. You can't list evidences against a specific hypothesis and claim that it refutes the principle behind a whole suite of related hypotheses.

In a thread about biological evidence we are not going to be able to refute anything other than the role of a designer in biological processes.

But that doesn't mean that the "principle behind a whole suite" of related hypotheses cannot be refuted (not disproven) by a more generic form of the same arguments.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 1:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022