Creationism/ID as Science

Hi Hughes,You say much that I'd love to address, but I'm going to resist temptation and stay on topic. But I will comment on this: I'm not trying to force you to spread yourself even more thinly than you are already. I was only pointing out that here at EvC Forum we do try to keep discussion focused on the topic. I'm convinced that if it weren't for my persistent efforts at steering you back to the topic of ID that this thread would now be deep into discussions of the many defects of evolutionary theory. I think that that's what you really want to discuss, and if I'm correct in this then you should stop posting here in this thread and seek a more appropriate thread for the topic that seems to interest you the most. Or you can propose a new thread tailored to what you'd like to discuss.Here is where I think you're going adrift: The topic isn't whether ID is as scientific as the ToE, and even if that were the topic then you're going about pursuing your point in the wrong way. If you're right and evolution is actually philosophy and not science, then if your goal is to show that ID qualifies as science why would you want to argue that ID is as scientific as the ToE?The topic is whether ID meets the requirements of legitimate science. That doesn't mean references to evolution are off-limits. It just means that the focus of discussion should be on ID's scientific qualifications and not on the problems of evolutionary theory.--Percy

Hi Hughes,Let's cover this first: Right, your background is just as I suspected. You never studied information theory. You claimed you'd studied communications as if it were somehow relevant to this discussion. Your studies in cross-cultural communications are irrelevant to information theory, and it makes no difference whether we're talking about the legitimate information theory of Shannon or the faux theories of Gitt and Dembski. And I think not. Usually when one states a new premise one follows it with supporting explanations and arguments. Since you didn't do that, I have nothing to rebut. Agreeing on meaning is they way people would approach the problem. It isn't the way naturally evolving systems approach the problem. When you look inside a cell, all you see is chemicals obeying natural physical laws. There are no abstractions, except the ones that we ourselves invent.You're obviously reluctant to accept that what you're offering as evidence isn't really evidence, so maybe it will help if we approach this another way. Can you think of any field of science that offers analogies as evidence, where they say things like, "This is like that, therefore it is that"? You'll be unable to find any, and it should persuade you that evidence is made of sterner stuff than mere analogies.--Percy

Logician, heal thyself.--Percy

.Edited by Percy, : Delete duplicate post.

Hi Hughes,Well, I see you've allowed some members to bring you over to the dark side! Will you be discussing the topic anytime soon?As long as we're not discussing the topic, allow me to comment extraneously for a bit. Reality isn't a matter of opinion, and making erroneous pronouncements about things you're not very familiar with is a poor strategy. The value of your views isn't measured by the determination with which you defend them, but by their ability to persuade others. Most of this thread involves correcting your misimpressions. If you want to convince other people of your views then it really helps a lot to say things that are actually correct rather than wrong. Your latest entry: You may as well have said, "Too bad man can't fly." If you're interested in learning about genetic algorithms then please inquire at an appropriate thread, or propose a new one.The topic is whether ID fulfills the requirements of legitimate science. The primary question is whether ID is falsifiable in any meaningful way. Note that arguing that evolution isn't falsifiable is a) off-topic; b) has nothing to do with whether ID is falsifiable; and c) if used as a claim of equivalency with evolution is contrary to your argument that ID is legitimate science.--Percy

I actually thought your point was pretty clear, that the complexity of human designs is often dwarfed by that of nature. And I agree that computers are a good example of the level of complexity that humans handle pretty well but that is simple in comparison with nature's constructions.Maybe it was just the way it was phrased, but my only issue was that you seemed to be implying that computer design has been reduced to specifying high level requirements to a computer program. What has actually happened in the evolution of computer design over the past 50 years or so is that the specification of computers has risen to higher and higher levels of abstraction. Today it is very common for new computer designs to be specified in HDL's (Hardware Description Languages) that describe behavior at the level of bus interfaces (probably not obvious, but that's a very high abstraction level).But we have not yet gotten to the point where the need is obviated for also modelling the computer at lower levels of abstraction and then verifying the equivalency of the models with various comparison techniques that range from simple signal comparisons to formal analysis.--Percy

Hi Hughes,Your last post has already drawn a number of replies pointing out that you're just restating your initial positions again, ones that have already been discussed and rebutted.If you'd like to discuss the science of design detection, which would mean Dembski and/or Gitt, then please proceed.If you'd like to address the rebuttals about ID being no different than archeology and SETI, then please proceed.If you'd like to address the rebuttals about biological structures being like manufacturing plants, then please proceed.But if you're going to just repeat your initial positions then there's no need to post, for two reasons. First, you've already stated them several times. Second, it's contrary to the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you resume the discussion we were having instead of attempting to reset things to square one? Thanks!--Percy