Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 91 of 152 (115761)
06-16-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:04 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
John Paul,
Funny we have NEVER seen DNA originate via purely natural processes.
We've never seen anything design it, either, therefore you can't infer it. Right?
What's good for the goose, & all that....
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:45 PM mark24 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 92 of 152 (115762)
06-16-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:04 PM


How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
No, John Paul, we don't know this. You keep asserting this, and you keep asserting this, and you keep asserting this, but it's not true. In the case of many complex systems like computers and cars, we have this knowledge. In the case of many, many, many, many other complex systems like babies and trees and bacterial flagella and so on, that knowledge has NEVER been demonstrated. However, you keep saying that all these things are the product of intelligent design merely because you've already concluded that all irreducibly-complex systems are the product of intelligent design.
I could just as easily say that all things that are the color red are the products of intelligent design, just because I've seen Radio Flyer wagons manufactured. Therefore a ladybug and a red rose have to be the products of intelligent design, because if they weren't, they wouldn't be red. Anybody questions my logic, I'll spit back, "have you ever seen natural processes create a ladybug or a red rose?" Then when some wiseguy points out that these things grow in nature all the time, I'll say that the only way natural processes are responsible for these things is if there is eyewitness evidence that life came from non-life through purely natural, random, undirected mechanistic processes.
Prove that anything in biology, anything at all, anything, has ever been shown to be the product of intelligent design and not natural processes.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-16-2004 12:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:52 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 93 of 152 (115766)
06-16-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John Paul
06-16-2004 11:19 AM


Re: what is science?
John Paul,
Even if science is limited to the observation of objects in the natural world, it does NOT stand to reason that those objects originated via purely natural processes.
I agree.
Since my points here went unanswered, I'll make them again since this is the more relevant thread.
If I could respectfully disagree with my evo counterparts for a moment. Science doesn't require a mechanism (although it is desirable) for any inferred occurrence, & so being the consistent creature that I am, I don't see why we should have to have a designer or indeed a mechanism for design, in order to infer design.
If science is the inference (making of a hypothesis) from a given observation, then again, fairs fair, you CAN infer design from complexity if you so wish. But it all boils down to the testability of the hypothesis/inference (the important science bit). I could infer that because the grass on my lawn is lying flat this morning, a herd of ethereal wildebeest trampled it overnight. I couldn't test the inference, of course, which renders the hypothesis evidentially equal to fairies existing at the bottom of my garden, whom incidentally could also be responsible for the vandalism, but there you go.
So the crux of the issue is, as I see it, that whatever observation you make & infer design from, you need to be able to test whether it was design, or not. Attempting to prop up the hypothesis with further arguments with exactly the same failing simply won't do. An analogy would be to notice a broken twig on the tree in my back garden that the wildebeest might have broken as they hurtled over my beloved back lawn.
If ID is going to be credible science then it needs to have its inferences tested. Furthermore, if the hypothesis is wrong, it should be knowably wrong. Simply saying, "whoa, look at that complexity, I infer design from it", isn't good enough in & of itself to be considered valid science.
Scientists speculate like this all the time, & they would be the first to admit speculation isn't science unless it is testable.
Natural processes would be those processes unaided by intervening intelligence- a beaver dam would not be natural as it took a beaver/ beavers to buid it- form, function and purpose.
But you can hypothesise a beaver built a dam & test that hypothesis.
Archaeology is the study of objects that are not of natural origins. Anthropology studies artifacts, but first anthropologists must determine an object is an artifact. The fact that we have the word artifact tells us we already know how to determine a natural object from an un-natural object. Forensic scientists also try to determine natural from un-natural. Arson investigators do the same as do SETI researchers. The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? If nature can create the specified complexity we see in living cells it would stand to reason that nature could create an arrow head or an axe-looking object or any number of alleged tools. IOW by questioning the validity of ID in biology you also question every venue that uses design detection processes.
The point is that in any of the above endeavours hypotheses/inferences are formed/made, & tested.
Is ID a valid scientific venue? Yes. How so? Life exists. Either life arose from non-life via purely natural processes or it arose from un-natural, ie ID type, processes. It makes no sense whatsoever to exclude one possibility for only philosophical reasons, which is what naturalists are doing.
Is ID a valid scientific venue? No. Why not? Because it is an untested hypothesis.
It takes more than the ability to make inferences from observations to be valid science. As stated above, I infer that wildebeest trampled my lawn. Until I test this, it is pure speculation. Same goes for ID.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:19 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:55 PM mark24 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 152 (115768)
06-16-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mark24
06-16-2004 1:21 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
John Paul,
Funny we have NEVER seen DNA originate via purely natural processes.
Mark:
We've never seen anything design it, either, therefore you can't infer it. Right?
John Paul:
True but we have observed intelligent agents design objects that exhibit specified complexity and we have observed intelligent agents designing information-rich systems. However you did take my quote out of context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 1:21 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-16-2004 1:52 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 152 (115769)
06-16-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by MrHambre
06-16-2004 1:23 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.
John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.
MrH:
Prove that anything in biology, anything at all, anything, has ever been shown to be the product of intelligent design and not natural processes.
John Paul:
One more time- Science is NOT about proving anything. Anyone looking for proof in science does not understand science. seeing this is at least the third time you have done so I can only conclude that you are scientifically ignorant. The evidence shows there are signs of an intelligent agent. Therefore we can infer ID via the evidence.
Also nature does NOT produce organisms. Spontaneous generation was refuted years ago. Organisms produce like organisms. When someone says that nature produced an organism it is time for that person to get an education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MrHambre, posted 06-16-2004 1:23 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Loudmouth, posted 06-16-2004 2:50 PM John Paul has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 152 (115770)
06-16-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:45 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Hi John Paul-
quote:
True but we have observed intelligent agents design objects that exhibit specified complexity and we have observed intelligent agents designing information-rich systems.
I was wondering if we could maybe expand on your statement here with another example - cancerous tumors. Could we not agree that cancer cells fit the category of specified complexity, and could therefore infer an intelligent agent somewhere in its creation and/or evolutionary processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:32 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 152 (115771)
06-16-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by mark24
06-16-2004 1:40 PM


Re: what is science?
Mark if ID is an untrested hypothesis then so is the ToE. How so? Because we can NOT objectively test the premise that random mutations culled by NS can lead to the evolution of a cetacean from a land animal.
But I digress. ID proponents have put forth a means to test ID. They have also put forth a means to falsify it. Now instead of remaining ignorant I suggest you try reading about what it is you are debating against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 1:40 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2004 2:26 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 2:27 PM John Paul has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 98 of 152 (115782)
06-16-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:55 PM


Falsification?
But I digress. ID proponents have put forth a means to test ID. They have also put forth a means to fasify it.
Good! Please tell us how this would be done. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:55 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 152 (115783)
06-16-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:55 PM


Re: what is science?
John Paul,
Mark if ID is an untrested hypothesis then so is the ToE. How so? Because we can NOT objectively test the premise that random mutations culled by NS can lead to the evolution of a cetacean from a land animal.
You most certainly can OBJECTIVELY test the ToE. A single for example, that cladistic analyses match stratigraphy as well as they do, for example. I mentioned this in this very thread, post 84.
But I digress. ID proponents have put forth a means to test ID. They have also put forth a means to falsify it. Now instead of remaining ignorant I suggest you try reading about what it is you are debating against.
What & what?
You are required to make your own argument in your own words. Cite if you wish, but I'm not arguing against books or websites. I made my argument in my own words regarding the fossil record & cladistics, & cited the relevant study in support, as per forum guidelines, you need to do the same.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:55 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 2:54 PM mark24 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 152 (115788)
06-16-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:52 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.
John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.
Let me see if I can break this down.
Premise one: Non-biological specified complexity is due to the acts of an intelligence.
Observation: There is "specified complexity" in biological structures.
Conclusion 1: The specified complexity in biological structures HAS to be the act of an intelligence.
Conclusion 2: ALL known specified complexity is due to an intelligent agent.
Conclusion 1 is not warranted, and therefore the jump to conclusion 2 is also unwarranted. For conclusion 1 to be true we have to observe an intelligent agent creating specified complexity in biological structures. Since we do not have this observation, then conclusion 2 is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am claiming that your conclusion of ALL specified complexity being caused by intelligent agency is not supported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:52 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 2:59 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 152 (115789)
06-16-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by mark24
06-16-2004 2:27 PM


Re: what is science?
Mark if ID is an untrested hypothesis then so is the ToE. How so? Because we can NOT objectively test the premise that random mutations culled by NS can lead to the evolution of a cetacean from a land animal.
Mark:
You most certainly can OBJECTIVELY test the ToE. A single for example, that cladistic analyses match stratigraphy as well as they do, for example. I mentioned this in this very thread, post 84.
John Paul:
For one the fossil record is subjective. It shows more stasis than anything else. Also it says nothing about the mechanism.
As for putting things in my own words, I would if it were my work. I also would if I had any indication that my opponent had done any research into the subject.
You can test for design by using the design explanatory filter.
You can falsify ID by showing that purely natural processes can account for specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-16-2004 02:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 2:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 3:17 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 152 (115791)
06-16-2004 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Loudmouth
06-16-2004 2:50 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.
John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Let me see if I can break this down.
Translation:
Let me see if I can twist this to suit my needs.
Premise one: Non-biological specified complexity is due to the acts of an intelligence.
OK so far.
Observation: There is "specified complexity" in biological structures.
Bingo.
Conclusion 1: The specified complexity in biological structures HAS to be the act of an intelligence.
Nope. We can safely infer intelligence from our cuurent knowledge base.
Conclusion 2: ALL known specified complexity is due to an intelligent agent.
That is a fact of life.
LM:
Conclusion 1 is not warranted, and therefore the jump to conclusion 2 is also unwarranted.
John Paul:
Conclusion1, the way you worded it, is incorrect anyway.
LM:
For conclusion 1 to be true we have to observe an intelligent agent creating specified complexity in biological structures.
John Paul:
That is not true. We do observe humans genetically altering biological systems.
LM:
I am claiming that your conclusion of ALL specified complexity being caused by intelligent agency is not supported.
John Paul:
You can make that claim but it is worthless without substantiating evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Loudmouth, posted 06-16-2004 2:50 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 3:33 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 117 by Loudmouth, posted 06-16-2004 6:16 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 103 of 152 (115794)
06-16-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John Paul
06-16-2004 2:54 PM


Re: what is science?
John Paul,
John Paul:
For one the fossil record is subjective. It shows more stasis than anything else. Also it says nothing about the mechanism.
1/ The fossil record is full of OBJECTS, it is not subjective. Stratigraphy is also objective, & so is cladistics. That the fossil record matches cladistic results is an objective statement brought about by objective methodology.
2/ It doesn't have to say anything about the mechanism, it has to support the ToE's predictions.
3/ Let's not descend into hypocrisy. If you don't have to produce a mechanism for ID, then neither does anyone for the ToE. You can't have it both ways.
As for putting things in my own words, I would if it were my work. I also would if I had any indication that my opponent had done any research into the subject.
I've rarely heard such a weak excuse. What problem do you have with paraphrasing other peoples work that no-one else has? Nevertheless I could say the same, yet I still went to the effort to offer an explanation, despite it being someone elses work. It's not like I'm plagiarising, is it?
You can test for design by using the design explanatory filter.
You can falsify ID by showing that purely natural processes can account for specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems.
A "design explanatory filter" appears to be missing from your link. And a "design explanatory filter" is not evidence either.
Could you link me to one, please, & perhaps take me through it so that I may more clearly understand the level of objectivity vs. subjectivity inherant to the method?
Thank you.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 2:54 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 3:29 PM mark24 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 152 (115795)
06-16-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by mark24
06-16-2004 3:17 PM


Re: what is science?
John Paul:
For one the fossil record is subjective. It shows more stasis than anything else. Also it says nothing about the mechanism.
Mark:
1/ The fossil record is full of OBJECTS, it is not subjective. Stratigraphy is also objective, & so is cladistics. That the fossil record matches cladistic results is an objective statement brought about by objective methodology.
John Paul:
LoL! Just because something is full of objects does not make it objective. Stratigraphy is subjective because we don't know how those layers were laid down
Mark:
2/ It doesn't have to say anything about the mechanism, it has to support the ToE's predictions.
John Paul:
If you take what brought this on in context (an objective test for the ToE) it has to say something about the mechanism. also the only thing the ToE can predict is change.
Mark:
3/ Let's not descend into hypocrisy. If you don't have to produce a mechanism for ID, then neither does anyone for the ToE. You can't have it both ways.
John Paul:
Design is the mechanism.
Me:
You can test for design by using the design explanatory filter.
You can falsify ID by showing that purely natural processes can account for specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems.
Mark:
A "design explanatory filter" appears to be missing from your link. And a "design explanatory filter" is not evidence either.
John Paul:
The DEF doesn't need to be in the link. I never said the DEF was evidence. I said it was a way to test for design. What is your problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 3:17 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 3:59 PM John Paul has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 105 of 152 (115796)
06-16-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John Paul
06-16-2004 2:59 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul,
No, it's your job to provide evidence it's your argument. And like you say, your claim is worthless without substatiating evidence. In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallacies; untestability, composition - "Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property".
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 2:59 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by AdminNosy, posted 06-16-2004 3:47 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 107 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 3:47 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024