The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

quote:

---

edge:And to SUPPORT ID, it would be good for you to give us some kind of mechanism.

​

John Paul:
Design IS the mechanism.

---

Hold on here. If I asked "How was the Empire State building made," could I just say "The Empire State Building IS how it was made." What we are all waiting for is the physical forces that caused the design.

quote:

---

edge:
Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened.

​

John Paul:
It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design.

---

This is the very crux of the debate. What was the designer? A blind algorithm (evolution) or an as of yet named intelligent designer. Evolution has the HOW, but ID isn't even interested in this.

quote:

---

edge:
YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID.

​

John Paul:
First you can't even come close to a blow by blow account, not even close. Second, if things are equal then we should have to produce the same level as you do. However we go one better.

---

We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct.And evolution actually goes one better because it shows the HOW while ID doesn't seem to think that it matters (even though it does). If you want to claim that IC systems came about in one fell swoop, then you must show IC systems coming about in one fell swoop.

quote:

---

John Paul:
I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling. It IS very subjective. Geology is NOT biology. IOW I don't have to know what a rock is in order to understand the workings of a cell. The ToE is a biological theory (I have emailed several paleontologists who disagree with you on you know what).

---

What parts of evolution are subjective? (serious question BTW) This cuts to the root of how to falsify a theory. If the theory is totally subjective, then it can not be potentially falsified. If ID is not subjective, then give us an objective way to falsify the creation of IC systems through intelligent design.

quote:

---

LM:
We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct.

​

John Paul:
Another misrepresentation. ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from our current state of knowledge. That current state of knowledge shows that every time we see specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems they are ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. IOW there is not one case of specified complexity or information-rich systems arising without the aid of intelliegence.

---

Actually, it is you that is misrepresenting the ID inference. Both the explanatory filter and the ID inference are only applied ONCE ALL NATURAL CAUSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE. You have not eliminated those natural causes, but simply ignored them. If natural mechanisms are ignored, then design by ID will be wrongly detected in designs that are obviously naturally caused or caused by a selective filter. Take the Face on Mars. In the right light it is as complex as some statues made by men. Do we chalk this up to intelligent design, or do we attribute it to the angle of the light being cast on a naturally occuring geology? If natural causes are eliminated a priori then you would have to conclude that the Face on Mars is designed by intelligence. This is exactly what you are doing, handwaving away natural mechanisms before hand.

quote:

---

John Paul:
What natural causes have I ignored that can bring life from non-life?

---

Catalytic RNA to name one. Also, the scenarios for the natural construction of self-replicators breaks no known law of chemistry or physics. There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known. Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.Also, even if the first replicator was designed, this in no way elimates subsequent evolution of species via purely naturalistic mechanisms. Abiogenesis is not well understood and there is room for several theories. Interplanetary seeding, comet seeding, and possibly terraforming by an alien race are viable. However, the theory of evolution is well understood, and is capable of explaining the current diversity in species and diversity of morphology that we see today. There is no need for a designer to make IC systems, evolution is enough.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-16-2004 11:58 AM

quote:

---

b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.

---

And this has been proven wrong. We have observed the non-fixity of species.Also, science has shown that life is a bush/tree, not a ladder. Although we still use his classification scheme, we no longer abide by his hypotheses.

quote:

---

LM:
There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known.

​

John Paul:
More assertion and falsified.

---

Please show me what chemical or physical laws the chemistry of life violates.

quote:

---

LM:
Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.

​

John Paul:
Again the chemical bonds would not form.

---

The devil is in the details, please be specific.

quote:

---

The first block asks if the event has a high probability of occuring. If it does we attribute the event to regularity/ law.
  —John Paul

---

And in measuring the probability, you must include mechanisms that could cause the event other than chance. Within biological systems, this includes evolutionary mechanisms. On top of that, all possible mechanisms other than evolution have to be considered (ie unknown mechanisms). Therefore, evolution must be shown to be incapable of creating the "event" AND all other possible effects have to be considered before design can ever be considered.

quote:

---

I propose: it takes greater faith to believe that Chance and Spontaneous Creation could design this awesome universe,

---

Within biological systems, I agree. That is why natural selection is so important to the theory of evolution. Natural selection filters Chance, or rather random mutations. Without natural selection evolution would not occur since good mutations would have an equal chance of being passed on to the next generation as bad mutations would. Chance alone does not explain complex structures, but the filtering effect of natural selection in combination with chance does explain complexity.However, if you want to give us a modern day observation of an unseen entity creating a new, irreducibly complex system go right ahead.