|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The design inference | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LudvanB:
[B]I really dont get the fuss. I happen to agree with the concept of ID. Its actually as good an explanation as any for life.[/QUOTE] No, it isn't, really. No philosophy is a good explanation for naturalistic phenomena. ID is a philosophy, not science. It is also dependent upon a lack of evidence, rather than evidence, which contributes to it's inability to be taken as science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Your problem is that you have only analogy. You don't have evidence. An analogy is often the way scientific theories begin, but after the analogy is made, testable hypothese must be developed, potential falsifications need to be identified, and tests of those hypothese must be undertaken to determine the likely validity of the initial idea. IDers are simply willing to make the analogy, but are unwilling to do all the rest of the work to make it real science. Until this work is done, ID will remain a philosopical idea and nothing more.
[QUOTE]So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference, based on what we observe plus the fact we have no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes, I would have to conclude that you are 6 cents short of a nickel.
Lack of evidence for a natural phenomena is not positive evidence for anything. It simply means that we don't know something today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, he didn't do anything of the sort. First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications. At best, it's a philosophical position. Second, Behe didn't provide any evidence, he pointed out gaps in our knowledge. A lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute positive evidence for anything.
quote: If Behe had a real scientific theory of ID and positive evidence to support it, he would have: a) published it in a professional journal, andb) accepted his Pulitzer prize quote: The point is, how do you tell the difference between an IC system and one which we haven't figured out yet? Also, look at a complex system this way... Let's say an organism evolved a system in which A had to happen before B could happen for adequate functioning for the current environmental conditions. Then a C stage was added because different environmental pressures caused another change. Then, a while down the road, still later developments may make the "B" stage obsolete, and so it drops out, leaving what some perceive as a "gap" that can't be explained. ID is an argument that relies upon the idea that evolution can only happen in a simple, linear fashion. There is no reason at all that evolution has to happen this way, and in fact there is much evidence that it often doesn't work that way. Features are added and dropped from existing systems all the time, and can be explained by natural means very well. The article you linked was also filled with unfair and misleading statements:
quote: It isn't completely wrong, as I have had several discussions about the peppered moth with Creationists over the years. If you deny that evolution happens, you are, by definition, denying that antibiotic resistance is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Uhh... it's not God of the gaps. Intelligent design doesn't require God. If you wish, you can continue to assume that God HAS to be the designer, but I would appreciate it if you could show the basis for this claim.[/B][/QUOTE]
OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument? You are getting hung up on the word "God" in that phrase and missing the point. The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another. That just ain't true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If he had compelling evidence, he probably would. But that's not likely to come along any time soon, I reckon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?" That would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE] LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?
quote: Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand. Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What positive evidence, not a lack of evidence found in another theory, supports ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Look, JP seriously wanted me to believe that Noah and his family fed pelleted and compressed food to the herbivores on the Ark. What am I supposed to think about a person who is willing to swallow whole the notion that this kind of thing would even be available in Noah's time, and who resorts to calling me a liar when he can't answer the questions I pose about the details of his scenario? Seriously, what kind of opinion of his intelligence am I supposed to hold?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024