Does ID predict genetic similarity?

Hi herebedragons,

Evo: "There is no reason to believe that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy." ID: "Well, maybe the designer appreciates order and systematic organization." Evo: "What makes you think that?" ID: "All the examples, outside of biology, of order and systematic classification." Evo: "True, I guess if there was a designer he could also design biological systems in an orderly, systematic fashion." (OK, so I made this last part up , but it should be a logical conclusion)

What I would say would be:

Evo: "There is no reason to believe that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy."
ID: "Well, maybe the designer made things so that order and systematic organization would occur."
Evo: "What makes you think that?"
ID: "All the examples, outside of biology, of order and systematic classification."
Evo: "True, I guess if there was a designer he could also design biological systems so that order and systematic organization would occur."

Of course anything that is not ruled out by empirical objective evidence could occur, and this runs into the problem of not being falsifiable, and hence not capable of being scientifically tested.

So, I believe there is a philosophical reason that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy.

Indeed, for me the question Is ID properly pursued? concludes that it is a philosophical pursuit that uses science to investigate these issues, but isn't itself science.

BTW, as of this point, I have not found enough reason to support Intelligent design from a scientific perspective. ... However, I must also admit that from a philosophical perspective, I do support ID but I am unable to turn that philosophical ideology into a scientific approach, and in fact, I am skeptical that it can be done ...

An excellent position, imho.

Enjoy

Hi Genomicus,

... Furthermore, if a designer is designing through evolution, then of course we'll see a nested hierarchy.

Exactly.

We also see that the use of evolutionary programs for designing devices have produced successful designs that were better than human designs, so we can see that evolution can be a good tool to achieve or approach desired outcomes.

What we can't determine (at this time anyway) is what such desired outcomes may be for an Intelligent Designer ... rational intelligence? emergent gods? amusement⁽¹⁾?

Enjoy.

⁽¹⁾ also see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

Edited by RAZD, : is

Hi bluegenes,

Let me see if I can help:

herebedragons writes: I didn't miss your point. You asked why would a designer be bound to using principals. That is what I responded to. A designer would be bound to using principals within a physical universe. How else could it function? You did miss my point. I asked GDR: bluegenes writes: Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so? I was referring to a hypothetical designer of worlds and principles, not one which is constrained by this physical universe.

It is logical that whatever universe the designer/s made, that it would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis. What anyone within that universe observed would then be the principles established for that universe to operate, as established in the process of creating it.

That there are principles and that we are in a physical universe are observations, ...

Agreed ... of what was (possibly) created ... and it is perfectly logical to assume that such observe principles would therefore be part of that particular universe creation process.

... not predictions of the hypothesis "an intelligent designer made the world".

Again, I agree with you there. ... it is more of a philosophical hypothesis than a prediction of a theory.

But then I don't think ID as currently used, or as it should properly be used (in philosophy rather than science), can make scientific predictions (my personal opinion).

This is also waay off topic regarding genetic similarity ...............

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Hi herebedragons, thanks

I did open it up to allow other prediction ...

Cool.

... Do you feel philosophy and science are two completely independent ideals or that scientific observation is sufficient to support philosophy but philosophy is just unable to make scientific predictions?

I feel that there is a somewhat gray but small dividing area:

1. science covers testable scientific predictions made from scientific hypothesis and theory based on observations of empirical evidence.
   
2. philosophy covers concepts from outright conjecture to informed hypothesis that are based on observations that may be tentative unconfirmed empirical evidence or are based on valid logic and math, perhaps extensions of untested theories.
   
3. the gray area is where we don't know if these informed hypothesis may be testable by methodology that is not yet available or whether theie falsification tests are valid because the situations of the test have not occurred - the "we don't know because we don't know" problem.

This latter is your only possible area of overlap as far as I can see.

The skeptical open mind approach, imho, says that there may be something here, but we just don't have enough information yet to be able to discuss it without conjectures and guesses, concepts based more on opinions than facts and observations. It is better to wait for more information (which may never come), and spend our time working on what can be validated first, guiding our lives by our personal beliefs where they don't conflict with known facts, and by our personal knowledge of how things work where possible.

Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes,

I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

Curiously, I did not say that I know this (and you should know better ... )

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed." <1> If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. <2>If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And <3> if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

format altered: line breaks and reference numbers added.

Note that the "never to our knowledge broken" in <3> would include anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

And by observation we are certainly not in <1> so it is not logical to consider it, as it is falsified ... by our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Similarly <2> is also eliminated at this time, even though it operates "very consistently on predictable laws."

The logical conclusion is that IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates, <3>, albeit again based on our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Just as the commands of a computer program guides how the program runs to achieve the desired results, if there were "bugs" in the program that had to be periodically fixed, then we have a <2> situation, and without evidence of "bugs" being fixed we are in a <3> situation, a well designed program from the start.

But this is just a logical conclusion not knowledge per se (etc etc).

It is also untestable without a second universe ... or a way of adequately testing the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

Curiously, IF it were possible at some future date to adequately test the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved, that this still leaves us with a possible <2> universe that operates "very consistently on predictable laws" and is thus still consistent with my logic.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

And again, I agree with you here, that there just is not enough information on which one can form a valid testable prediction ...

... but find it fascinating how you seem to see this problem so clearly here, but not at all on another thread ...

Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes

Your position there is the same as you claim for GDR here: compatible but not a necessary prediction. I have shown you other compatible explanations that put you in the same position you list for the ID hypothesis here.

Anyway further discussion does not belong here ...

Enjoy.

more useless blather.

You do not have a theory, you have only a conjectural hypothesis of the same quality as the ID hypothesis here, but are too blind to see it.

See Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs.

Enjoy.

the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only) -- false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica (Message 163)

Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung,

What qualifies as magic to you RAZD?

The problem of the "anything sufficiently in advance of our technology and ability to understand of the universe can be taken as Magic" (paraphrased) makes the actual observation of supernatural magic difficult, but it would need to be something that cannot be explained by natural means and that breaks one or more natural explanations -- a fairly steep requirement -- to reach some skeptics.

And again, conjectures over whether it is one or the other are useless without additional information.

Enjoy.

Hi herebedragons,

This is similar to a point I have argued before, that the scientific process would only recognize two categories for behavior: (1) behavior tentatively understood and explained by current theory, and (2) behavior not yet fully understood or adequately explained by current theory ... and that any magical behavior would be automatically cast into (2), without having to accept or rule out a possibility of it actually being magic, just unexplained ... because this is just how science works, not because of any preconception or bias on the part of the people involved.

So your option #1 (magic with no principals) cannot exist. Which leaves us with option 2 and 3, both of which require principals. Therefore, according to your own assertion, an ID hypothesis would predict a universe with principals since it is necessary to that hypothesis.

So in effect, it is not a matter of whether principles are used to create a universe, but which ones are used ... and which ones not ... on a regular basis, and then whether there are different principles applied occasionally at other times, which then would appear to be magical compared to the regular ones.

Enjoy

Hi Straggler,

I don't want to get to deep into this at this time (personal reasons), but

But what we have in this thread is a phenomenon (genetic similarity) that is both explained by, and indeed predicted by, current theory and which would falsify that theory were it not the case Vs some vague proclamations that some hypothetical and un-evidenced designer would have done it that way too.

Typical argument from you. The basic issue (to me) is that the current theory is based on the principles we see in action, whether those principles were put in place during the creation or not. Thus the result would be the same (a nested hierarchy), and thus this cannot be used to back-predict or reverse engineer a designer or a lack of designer/s.

Enjoy

Hi herebedragons

Ockham's is not a scientific law that can be tested against, but rather a principal or a guideline that helps scientists develop theories. A simple explanation is not always the best or the correct one (I may be even willing to say that a simple explanation is rarely the best or correct choice, but I don't want to have to support so bold a claim). Ockham's is not a test we apply to judge failure or success, we need to chose the hypothesis that is most correct or has the best explanatory power.

Occam's razor is just a way to simplify initial search parameters when looking for an explanation, thus when the explanation is still incomplete, then more parameters will need to be included.

Enjoy.