The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

MrH:
So DNA is an information-rich system?John Paul:
That's what the scientists say.MrH:
And the bacterial flagellum is an example of specified complexity?John Paul:
Yes.MrH:
Instead of proving that these natural systems are the products of intelligent agency, you assume they are and expect us to agree.John Paul:
Science is NOT about proving things. If it were we wouldn't have the ToE in our science classrooms. Science is about inference. We do NOT assume DNA and the flagellum are the products of an intelligent agency, we infer they are based on our current level of knowledge.MrH:
You've never observed intelligence creating DNA or a BacFlag.John Paul:
We didn't observe anyone designing or building Stonehenge either.MrH:
It's more rational to assume that Nature can create information-rich systems, because that's exactly what we observe.John Paul:
When and where have we observed nature creating information-rich systems? If you have an answer you may want to publish it and then wait for your Nobel prize...

MrH:
But the reason we're right to infer that Stonehenge was built by humans is that humans are known to build complex stone structures and Nature isn't.John Paul:
Why couldn't it be that humans just copied what they saw nature do? And if you think Stonehenge is complex what about the living cell? If nature can create the complexity we see in the cell then all of our design inferences are thrown out of the window. Archaeology and anthropolgy are useless because nature could surely create an arrow-head and things that may look like tools.MrH:
Now do we have that same knowledge about self-replicating molecular systems or bacterial appendages?John Paul:
Well that self-replicating process is itr self irereducibly complex:http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htmWe have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?

JM:e.
ID assumes ID without evidence for ID.John Paul:
That is a lie. ID infers ID via the evidence. No amount of lying or whining from masters like Meert can change that fact.JM:
ID is perhaps one of the best examples of pseudoscience in the new century.John Paul:
You say that because you haven't a concept of what science is.JM:
If all things are designed, then there is no reference for 'non-designed' and ID becomes practically useless as a scientific enterprise.John Paul:
You keep saying that as if saying it makes it so. First not all things were designed. Second we still have a lot of work to do figuring out the design. The only thing useless is your and MrH's continued ignorance and misrepresentation of ID reality.

LM:
Firstly, the explanatory filter has yet to find a function in describing design, even design in nature.John Paul:
The EF process works fine with detecting design.LM:
Even its proponents have yet to show how it can be applied to biological or natural phenomena.John Paul:
Why would biology be exempt from a design inference? Right now all you have is credulity that certain biological systems can evolve via purely natural processes.There isn't any laws of chemistry that would allow DNA to form in the first place. The bonds just won't happen in nature.Comparing to bacteria- odd that after billions of generations of bacteria, bacteria remain bacteria.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.
Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MrH:
Aren't DNA and the BacFlag good enough?John Paul:
Good enough for what?MrH:
Lots of those in Nature.John Paul:
But can nature create them? That is the question. The question is NOT do they exist in nature but can nature create them. Please TRY to stay focused.MrH:
Like I said, we have never, NEVER seen intelligent agents creating bio-replication systems or bacterial appendages.John Paul:
And we have NEVER seen nature doing so either. We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity. But we have seen intelligent agents doing so. Therefore we can infer an intelligent agent every time we see specified complexity.MrH:
Please give me the 'current knowledge' that leads you to believe they do so, or admit that your inference is based on assuming what you intend to prove.John Paul:
Why don't you just show us nature creating DNA and a BacFlag and you will have falsified ID.

John Paul keeps saying:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
I keep saying it because it is true.MrH:
If I always see organisms and their biological structures being produced naturally, and never being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, I assume that any organism or biological structure I see is the product of nature.John Paul:
But you don't see that. No one has ever seen that. Organisms give rise to other organisms of the same type, not nature.MrH:
Your logical syllogism is as follows:
Major Premise: All things demonstrating specified complexity are the products of intelligent design.
Minor Premise: DNA shows specified complexity.
Conclusion: DNA is the product of intelligent design.You have NOT established your major premise, even though you keep claiming that every time we see IC or specified complexity it's always due to the actions of an intelligent agent.John Paul:a
Science has established that years ago and it holds true today. No one has falsified it although many have tried.MrH:
In fact, any system demonstrating 'specified complexity' that cannot be shown to originate through intelligent agency is a disconfirmation of your major premise and not support for your conclusion.John Paul:
Double DUH! That is what I have been saying for years. Care to give us a demonstration of such a system?MrH:
You either have evidence that intelligent agents create living organisms and biological structures or you have no right to make your inference.John Paul:
We have the evidence and it has been presented. YOU on the other hand do not have any evidence that shows purely natural processes can account for life, reproduction (I know you didn't read the article I linked to) or specified complexity.MrH:
My challenge to your faulty inference remains: you must show me that any organism or any structure thereof has been produced by intelligent agency before you can claim to be able to 'infer' intelligent design from the existence of DNA or the BacFlag.John Paul:
Are you really this dense? I have to prove it before I can infer it? That is NOT how science is done. IF it were then the ToE would not be in any classroom.

MrH:
Either show me evidence that ANY organism or biological structure, EVEN ONE, is the product of intelligent design, or your inference is rendered useless.John Paul:
The evidence that the BacFlag is designed is its specified complexity. Our current knowledge tells us that specified complexity is a hallmark of intelligent design.MrH:
You don't seem to understand formal logic very well, and that's okay.John Paul:
LoL!!! That is nice projection there Est. YOU are the one who is "out-of-touch". You don't have a clue as to what is logic or what is science. That much is obvious.Ya see MrH we don't have to observe an intelligent agency in order to infer one. YOU on the other hand have no evidence to infer purely natural processes can do anything more than put the old man on the mountain (was in NH but has fallen), Italy's boot or the meadering of a stream. IOW MrH you are intellectually bankrupt when it comes to presenting evidence to support your faith.

schraf:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Deigned system and a natural one which we1) don't currently understand but will in the future, or2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?John Paul:
Saying we will understand something in the future means nothing. It is what we understand now that drives our inferences now. And if we never understand something does that put it outside of science?

This is the problem. I define natural as anything that nature can do. For example my car is NOT natural.DNA replication- I already posted this for MrH, which was a waste because he can't understand anything on this level:http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htmActually it is our ignorance that determined the mutations are random. Someone not versed in computer code would think it jumps around randomly but when an educated person looks he sees that it is the loops, go to instructions and other pieces of code that are actually making those jumps.Proteins come from DNA. Life requires proteins. Which came first the protein or the DNA?No one can predict what is selected for at any point in time- Dan Dennett.Proteins change shape and they no longer function in the system, the system fails and the organism dies. Proteins rely on a "hand/ glove" fit. You can't change a protein without affecting something- in a negative way.LM:
All evolutionists have to do to evidence IC as a result of evolution is to show random, non-teleological, mutations. This has been done.John Paul:
When and where? Not in biology that's for sure.

scraf:
Doesn't claiming ID through IC constitute giving up trying to figure stuff out and saying "the IDer didit?"John Paul:
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly ID is scientific and its processes are already being used in scientific and other investigative venues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Really?John Paul:
Really.schraf:
Can you cite some papers from a professional Biology or Genetics journal in which Intelligent Design is used?John Paul:
What does that have to do with ID being scientific? Oh that's right it has nothing to do with it at all. However "The Design Inference" is peer-reviewed. Also the Discovery Institute and other ID sites have the articles you seek.schraf:
How does the IDists claim of IC ever know for sure that they just haven't thought of a naturalistic explanation for a given IC/ID system yet?John Paul:
That is why it is called an inference. Why would anyone infer life arose from non-life via purely natural processes when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that view?I'd be very interested to read them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And materialism just looks for material/ natural causes and ignores everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
No kidding.Can you please explain how scientific investigation will benefit from including the supernatural?John Paul:
You let the evidence lead you to where it will. That is how it will help us, by not limiting our search to something that didn't happen- ie a natural start to life.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You let the evidence lead you to where it will. That is how it will help us, by not limiting our search to something that didn't happen- ie a natural start to life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But ID doesn't deal in evidence, as far as I can tell.John Paul:
And that response tells me you know little if anything about ID.schraf:
It deals in a lack of knowledge (we can't think of how this system could have come about naturally) and then inserting an IDer into the gap of our knowledge.John Paul:
In reality it deal with what we do know. IOW in every instance that we observe information-rich systems and/ or specified complexity an intelligent agent is always the cause.schraf:
Also, how do they know it is IC and not a natural occurence they don't understand?John paul:
How many times do I have to answer that? ID is an inference. It could be a starting inference. It is also an inference that can be falsified. How many scientific theories have been changed because our knowledge changed?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But if you conclude "We don't see any naturalistic way that this system could have happened, end of story", isn't that basically saying that you are finished investigating?John Paul:
No, not at all. I am very surprised that anyone would think that way. Do archaeologists stop investigating their finds? No!. As I have stated several times there is more to do then to just determine something is designed.schraf:
It doesn't seem to make much sense for an IDist to keep on investigating the natural properties of a ID system if they have already decided that a natural mechanism isn't possible.John Paul:
99% of what ID detractors post or say don't make any sense but they keep posting and saying it. As I stated just knowing or determining that something is designed does NOT give you any info as to what it does or how it does it.schraf:
Also, what are the potential falsifications, if found in nature, that would falsify ID?John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? To falsify ID just show that information-rich systems or specified complexity can arise via purely natural processes. IOW show us life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes and there is no need to infer a designer was necessary.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But if you conclude "We don't see any naturalistic way that this system could have happened, end of story", isn't that basically saying that you are finished investigating?John Paul:
No, not at all. I am very surprised that anyone would think that way. Do archaeologists stop investigating their finds? No!. As I have stated several times there is more to do then to just determine something is designed.schraf:
It doesn't seem to make much sense for an IDist to keep on investigating the natural properties of a ID system if they have already decided that a natural mechanism isn't possible.John Paul:
99% of what ID detractors post or say don't make any sense but they keep posting and saying it. As I stated just knowing or determining that something is designed does NOT give you any info as to what it does or how it does it.schraf:
Also, what are the potential falsifications, if found in nature, that would falsify ID?John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? To falsify ID just show that information-rich systems or specified complexity can arise via purely natural processes. IOW show us life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes and there is no need to infer a designer was necessary.

John Paul writes:
That is why it is called an inference. Why would anyone infer life arose from non-life via purely natural processes when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that view?Percy:
You have repeated this many, many times.John Paul:
Gee, educated people would have caught on by now. Is it my fault I have to repeat myself?Percy:
I see no evidence that my concerns about moving the debate forward are being given any heed.John Paul:
Don't blame me for that.Percy:
Your posting privileges in the Intelligent Design forum are now suspended.John Paul:
Yup, if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em. That is the evolutionary way.I would love for any evolutionist to present any objective evidence to support their faith in evoltionism. So far it hasn't happened yet their posting privileges remain intact. Go figure...