The design inference

[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.

quote:

---

Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines. We observe machines being designed. We observe biochemical systems being engineered (designed). The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multicellular organisms.

---

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. [/B][/QUOTE]Lack of evidence for a natural phenomena is not positive evidence for anything.It simply means that we don't know something today.

quote:

---

You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian.

---

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:

---

I am not sure what could possibly drive you to claim that Behe is essentially a quitter. Perhaps if you commited yourself to earning a degree in biochemistry and then writing a 300-page book, you would be in a better position to argue that Behe is essentially a quitter.

---

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, and
b) accepted his Pulitzer prize

quote:

---

I did not read Muller's article, but I did read the link you posted. From what I gather, Muller just claimed that little by little, slight advantages could be added but not taken away. That's nifty and all, but that does not explain irreducibly complex systems.

---

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:

---

"But Behe, it turns out, differs from his less-sophisticated brethren in an important way: he does not wholly deny evolution. He has no problem with stories of moths evolving dark coloration so as to hide on polluted trees or of streptococci outwitting antibiotics."

​

Well, from this statment (had I no outside knowledge) I would assume that creationists don't believe in changing colors of peppered moths or antibiotic resistance. Of course, that assumption is completely WRONG in every way. Perhaps this statement is a straw man?

---

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.

[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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Just out of curiosity, why would Behe get a pulitzer for ID? Best fictional work?

---

If he had compelling evidence, he probably would.But that's not likely to come along any time soon, I reckon.

[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:

---

"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."

​

If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
schrafinator:
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.

​

John Paul:
I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott.

​

Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott

​

It may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis.

​

---

What positive evidence, not a lack of evidence found in another theory, supports ID?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

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]

​

schrafinator:

​

LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?

​

John Paul:

​

That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.

---

​

I disagree. If you are saying that something in nature is designed, it is a natural question to wonder who did the designing.

​

quote:

---

"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."

​

If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.

​

schrafinator:

​

Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand.

​

John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.

---

​

No, inference hasn't been conducted. For inference to have been conducted, there would have to be an actual hypothesis proposed, positive evidence, and potential falsifications. Only analogy has been conducted, and one cannot do science with only analogies.

​

One cannot make positive claims about natural phenomena by pointing out the lack of an explanation by another theory of the same phenomena.

​

quote:

---

Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim?

---

​

There is no way to provide evidence for a negative. This is pretty basic logic. I can't provide evidence that invisible unicorns aren't flying over my apartment building right now. Does that mean they exist?

​

Perhaps we tend to think that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations because this is the basis for scientific inquiry. Perhaps we also have a log history of claims of "Godidit" being explained by science eventually.

​

quote:

---

Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.

---

​

Not true. Whaen we don't know the explanation for something, we simply say "We don't know".

​

quote:

---

Then we have this from Behe:

​

"Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work.

---

​

Perhaps Behe didn't now about the blood-clotting mechanism work that was ongoing when his book was published...

​

quote:

---

Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant.

---

​

How do you tell a designed system from a narual system that we don't understand?

​

quote:

---

Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?

---

​

We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.

​

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.

​

John Paul:
Been there, done that.

---

​

Well, you haven't made your case, so if you are quitting, I'll consider that you have conceded the point.

​

quote:

---

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

---

​

Behe has not made his case that the ordering of components couldn't have arisen naturally, as has been explained previously.

​

This is still just an analogy, because Behe is trying to say that because we can tell if a human-made artifact is designed, somehow this means that we can apply similar criterion to life (his use of the word "anything"). However, we have abundant evidence of designers of human artifacts, and none of the "designers" of life. Human arifacts and life are fundamentally different, so this analogy somehow becomes evidence is a huge flaw.

​

Because of this, Behe's work is not science, but philosophy.

​

---

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Are you even serious here? Come on man, you HAVE to realize this statement is AT LEAST as ludicrous as a creationist claiming the "grand evolutionist conspiracy" thing that you are fond of laughing at.

​

By the way, I don't see why exactly this topic has turned into a free-for-all bashing of John Paul. This kind of behavior is patently childish. Also, just because John Paul does not follow a naturalistic view as you may, does not make him ignorant or stupid.

---

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?